CAR_Public/190425.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 25, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 83

                            Headlines

AIRSTREAM INC: Faces Godsey et al. Labor Suit in Ohio
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Prelim Injunction Bid in Upshaw Partly Granted
ALL IN MARKETING: Moore Sues over Telemarketing Telephone Calls
ALLMARK DOOR: Koss Sues over Alleged Unlawful Reprisal
ALLURA USA: Guinn Suit Transferred to South Carolina Dist. Ct.

AMERICA MOVIL: Unit Still Defends Class Suits in Mexico
AMGEN INC: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Anticompetitive Agreement
APC ROOFING: Moreno Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
ARCOAIRE AIR: Bid to Certify Georgia Injunctive Relief Class Nixed
ARROW CONTAINER: Kruger Sues Over Incorrect Overtime Premiums

ART VAN FURNITURE: White Sues over Illegally Stored Biometric Data
ASBURY GARDENS: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data Collection
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: OK Police Pension System Files Antitrust Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Olson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

BELLICUM PHARMA: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
BK GENERAL: Quinde Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
BLOOD CENTERS: Danielsson Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
BP EXPLORATION: Ct. Recommends Dismissal of Clean-up Worker's Suit
CANADA: Seeks Approval of Veteran Benefits Settlement

CANADA: Veterans to Sue Over Anti-Malarial Drug Effects
CARRIER CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Injunctive Relief Class
CENTURYLINK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
CENTURYLINK INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action

CENTURYLINK INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Actions Lawsuit
CERTIFIED ROOFING: Noel Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
CHEMOURS CO: Court Grants Bid to Strike in Cape Fear Suit
CHEMOURS CO: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Morton Torts Suit
CHEMOURS CO: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Nix Torts Suit

CHINA XD: Time to Appeal Order of Dismissal Expired
CLIENT SERVICES: Shahin Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
COATES ELECTRIC: I.B.E.W. Seeks FLSA Class Certification
CONNECTICUT: New DCF Commissioner Seek to Do More Than Compliance
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Long Sues over Debt Collection Practices

CONWAY, AR: Police Officers, Firefighters' Class Action Pending
CR ENGLAND: Court Denies Renewed Harper Class Certification Bid
CREATIVE WERKS: Cutrell Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
CVS HEALTH: Perez Suit Removed to E.D. California
DELTA AIR: Donoff Seeks to Certify Class

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action Suit
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
DOORDASH INC: Moore Sues Over Illegal Tax Collection
DR REDDY'S: Court Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Action
DUBLIN CONTRACTORS: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Marmolyo Asserts

DYNAMEX: SCOTUS Ruling to Set New Test for Worker Classification
ECLINICAL WORKS: Court Dismisses Amrhein Suit Without Prejudice
EI DU PONT: Court Denies Bid to Stay Brunswick County Torts Suit
FCA US: Directed to Produce Risk, Threat Assessments in Flynn Suit
FIRST CHOICE: Maz Partners Sues over Pump and Dump Scheme

FORT SMITH, AR: Sued for Dumping Recyclables in Landfill
FRESH MARKET: Bid for Narrow Discovery in Arvilla FLSA Suit Denied
G.A.M. TORRES: Manuel-Macedo Seeks Overtime Wage for Cooks
GARFIELD BEACH: Naffaa Suit Removed to C.D. California
GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows Claims in Hilsley Fraud Suit

GENERAL MILLS: Lopez Balks at Real Cocoa Labeling in Products
GEORGE WESTON: Gets Favorable Ruling in Negligence Class Action
GERMANY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Namibia Genocide Case
GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS: Faces Child Abuse Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: Alston & Bird Discusses SCOTUS Ruling

GOOGLE INC: Recent Settlement Ruling No Cause for Celebration
GRUBHUB: Seeks Arbitration In Restaurants' Proposed Class Action
GYMBOREE: Class Action Over WARN Act Violation Ongoing
HENKEL CONSUMER: "All Natural" Detergent Suit Settled for $1.5MM
HILL'S PET: Hess Blames Dog Food for Pet's Untimely Death

ILLINOIS: Watts Brings Civil Rights Class Action
IMPINJ INC: Securities Suit Complaint to Remain Under Seal
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL: ADD Files Class Action Over Electoral Fraud
INOGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
INOGEN INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit

INOGEN INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action Lawsuit
INTERRAIL SIGNAL: Ford Suit Seeks to Recover Pay Under WARN Act
J. CREW: Fenwick & West Discusses FACTA Case Ruling
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Martin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
JVP INC: Fox Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers

K12 INC: July 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
KATE SPADE: Calderon Sues over False Reference Pricing
KOHL'S CORP: Class Certification Granted in Collins Suit
LOCAL SEARCH: Naiman Files TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls
LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE: Underpays Hostler Drivers, Herrington Says

LOTTE CARD: South Korean VAN Providers File Class Action
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Danford, Houtman Seek Overtime Pay
MARIN COUNTY, CA: Cal. App. Affirms New Trial Order in Walker Suit
MARKEL CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MATTEL INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

MDL 2741: Mosley vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Altman Balks at Merger Deal with Sierra Income
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MID VALLEY ENTERPRISES: Underpays Courtesans, Sears et al. Say
MIDLAND CREDIT: Maclay Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida

MOLSON COORS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bauman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bernt Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Carollo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Drexler Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Everett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Furnas Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hawkins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Howard Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: McDade Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Nightingale Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
N.A.R. INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Page FDCPA Suit
NCAA: Former ASU Player Joins Class Action Concussion Lawsuit
NELLIE'S EGGS: Proposed Lawsuit Filed Over 'Free Range' Label

NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Waters Files Suit in New Jersey
NEXMO INC: Accused by Giannini of Not Paying Minimum and OT Wages
NFL: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuit
NUTANIX INC: Scheller Sues over Misleading Financial Reports
O'REILLY AUTO: Removes Vvanti Case to Central Dist. of California

OLIN CORP: Main Pool Alleges Prices Fixing of Caustic Soda
OLSON LEGAL: Walls et al. Sue over Debt Collection Practices
OMEGA RMS: Markistic Sues over Debt Collection Practices
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Salley Balks at Smith & Nephew Merger
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in EIP Suit

PINNACLE RECOVERY: Mason Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PLAYHOUSE LOUNGE: Former Dancer Files Wage Class Action
PORCELANA CORONA: Faces Fessler Suit Over Defective Toilet Tanks
RE FLORIDA HOMES: Gonzalez Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
RH INC: June 18 Hearing on Securities Suit Deal Prelim Approval

RIPPLE: Prominent Crypto Lawyer Comments on XRP Class Action
ROTHMANS BENSON: Files for CCAA Amid $13.6BB Quebec Class Action
SALDUTTI LLC: Rankin Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. Pa.
SANTA CRUZ, CA: Quintero Files Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Calif.
SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: O'Connor Suit Moved to E.D. California

SHAMROCK FOODS: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Arreola Says
SOUTH BEACH DIET: Fischer Sues over Website Design
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HOSPITAL: Peck Suit Removed to Illinois Dist. Ct.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Hughes Suit Over Breach of Contract Dismissed
SPAR GROUP: Memorandum of Settlement Agreement Reached in Hogan

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Khona Sues Over Defective Windshields
SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Files Class Action Lawsuit
TCF FINANCIAL: Parshall Balks at Merger Transaction
TOLL GLOBAL: Marquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Moskowitz Files Class Action Under FACTA

TRINITY SERVICES: Parra Suit Removed to E.D. California
TUI: Holidaymakers File Class Action Over Mexico Sickness Bug
TURNKEY VACATION: Figueroa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UBER TECH: Can Compel Arbitration as to Fridman, Reznik
ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Faces McClintock Class Action

UMPQUA: Faces Whiting's Labor Suit in California
UNIQUE WHOLESALE: Wise Seeks Overtime Wages
UNITED RENTALS: Candemeres Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
UNITED STATES: Williams Files Class Suit in W.D. Va.
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Violates FDCPA, Dykes Suit Claims

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Lawsuit
VANGUARD NATURAL: Hurwitz Class Action Suit Concluded
VIKING CRUISES: Class Action Among Options for Passengers
VISALUS INC: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in Wakefield TCPA Suit
VITACOST.COM: Faces Figueroa Suit over Denied Website Access

WAYFAIR INC: Sells Bug-infested Mattresses, Nicholas Suit Says
WAYNE, MI: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Woodall Suit
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Gainey McKenna Files Action Lawsuit
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
WEST VIRGINIA: Class Action Mulled Over Crumbling Roads

WESTPAC: Sets Aside $260MM to Pay Back Customers Amid Class Suit
WEXFORD HEALTH: Bid to Certify Pinckneyville Prisoners Class Denied
ZOOT SPORTS: Figueroa Files ADA Class Action New York

                            *********

AIRSTREAM INC: Faces Godsey et al. Labor Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Airstream, Inc. for its failure to pay employees overtime wages
under the Ohio Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.  The
case is captioned MATTHEW GODSEY, JOSH WAGLER, and JASSON DUNAWAY,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. AIRSTREAM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00107-TMR (S.D.
Ohio, April 11, 2019). During the Plaintiffs' employment, the
Defendant did not properly calculate their regular rates of pay for
the purposes of meeting the minimum requirements set forth in the
FLSA, resulting in unpaid overtime wages. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated
damages, interest and attorneys' fees, and all other remedies
available, on behalf of themselves and the collective class
members.

Airstream, Inc. builds travel trailers, avenue and interstate
touring coaches, and motor homes. It also provides repair and
maintenance services for travel trailers and motor homes. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     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 -

     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


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Prelim Injunction Bid in Upshaw Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIKISHA UPSHAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07814-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.

The Plaintiffs are women pretrial detainees housed in jails
maintained and operated by Defendants Alameda County and the
Alameda County Sheriff's Office.  They brought a class action
complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that the Defendants
violated their constitutional rights through jail procedures that
deprived them of a minimal level of nightly sleep.  The challenged
procedures include a "pill call" to give medications to detainees
that starts at 2:30 a.m. followed by breakfast service at 4:00
a.m., and cell checks every 30 minutes at night using flashlights
and overhead lights.

Pending resolution of the Section 1983 claims on the merits, the
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to prohibit these and
other practices that prevent sleep.  

Judge Donato explains that there is no question that running a jail
is an extremely difficult task, and the discretion of the sheriff's
department to solve problems and protect the health and safety of
detainees should be treated with a substantial measure of
deference.  It is equally true that detention in jail is not
expected to be a pleasant or comfortable experience.   But the
Constitution does not permit inhumane treatment of duly convicted
prisoners, all the more so for pretrial detainees who have not had
their day in court.  And when the state takes a person into custody
for any reason, the Constitution imposes a duty to provide for the
detainee's basic human needs.  Conditions of confinement that
deprive detainees of those needs or "the minimal civilized measure
of life's necessities" violate the Constitution.

The Defendants do not dispute that sleep undoubtedly counts as one
of life's basic needs.  They do not contest that the nighttime
schedule and cell checks are an official policy and practice
undertaken deliberately and purposefully.  They argue mainly that
they need to run the jails under these conditions for legitimate
purposes.  Specifically, the Defendants assert that the nighttime
schedule of 2:30 a.m. pill calls and 4:00 a.m. breakfast service is
intended to manage the medical needs of detainees and make sure
they are up and ready to go for morning court calls.

The Judge finds that these are certainly legitimate goals, but the
Defendants have not shown that the near-constant disruptions during
the five hours of lights-out time are reasonably related to those
purposes.  They do not say, and they have not proffered any
declarations or other evidence from healthcare professionals
indicating that a 2:30 a.m. delivery time is a medical necessity or
even a good practice.  The Defendants offer only an opinion by a
retired captain from another sheriff's office to the effect that
jail administrators are not doctors and just do what they're told
by the medical professionals.  That cursory comment hardly
establishes the reasonableness of a 2:30 a.m. pill call.

While Defendants are entitled to a good measure of deference in
operating the jails, the nighttime schedule as it currently stands
is not reasonable on the record before the Court.  The Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the
merits for this particular part of their Fourteenth Amendment
claim. A t the very least, they have raised a serious question
about the constitutionality of the Defendants' nighttime policies
and resulting sleep deprivation for detainees.  He also finds that
the Plaintiffs have established irreparable harm.  That is because
they've made out the likelihood of a constitutional deprivation,
which unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.

The final question concerns the scope of the injunction for the
sleep deprivations caused by the nighttime schedule.  The Judge
finds that the best approach to fashioning a remedy is for the
parties to meet and confer on a form of injunction that is
consistent with the PLRA and meets the Defendants' operational
needs, while ensuring a reasonable amount of sleeping time for
detainees in a manner consistent with the Order.  The parties
should file a joint proposed order by April 11, 2019.  To be clear,
it is not an opportunity to re-argue the injunction or submit new
evidence or declarations.  It is intended to be a practical effort
to draft a properly tailored injunction.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Donato granted preliminary injunction
on terms consistent with the Order and subject to the Court's
review of the parties' submission.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/45HTO0 from Leagle.com.

Tikisha Upshaw, Tyreka Stewart, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated & Andrea Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Yolanda Huang
-- yhuang.law@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Yolanda Huang & Dennis
Cunningham -- denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com -- Law Office of Dennis
Cunningham.

Alameda County, Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern, D. Houghtelling,
Assistant Sheriff, Commander Tom Madigan, Captain D. Hesselein,
Captain Tara Russell, Captain D. Skoldkvist, Deputy Watson, Deputy
Stinson, Deputy Sensiba, Deputy Henderson, Deputy Guerra, Deputy
Crandall, Deputy Chandra, Deputy Burbank & Alameda County Sheriff's
Office, Defendants, represented by Gregory B. Thomas --
gthomas@bwslaw.com -- Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP.


ALL IN MARKETING: Moore Sues over Telemarketing Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALL IN MARKETING INC. d/b/a PRIORITY
ONE HEALTH, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02187
(N.D. Ill., March 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, resulting from
illegal actions of Defendants, in negligently, knowingly and/or
willfully placing through its agent(s), sales, solicitation and/or
other telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's telephone numbers.

On or about July 6, 2003, the Plaintiff successfully registered his
telephone number ending in -1188 with the National Do-Not-Call
Registry. On or about March 29, 2018, Defendants began placing
unsolicited telemarketing telephone calls to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has not previously sought out Defendants' services,
nor has the Plaintiff attempted to retrieve information from
Defendants about their services. Therefore, Plaintiff did not have
an established business relationship with Defendants. From on or
about March 29, 2018 through on or about April 3, 2018, the
Plaintiff received approximately 15 unsolicited telemarketing
telephone calls from Defendants. These unsolicited telemarketing
calls were a nuisance to the Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218-0875
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com

ALLMARK DOOR: Koss Sues over Alleged Unlawful Reprisal
------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY KOSS, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLMARK DOOR COMPANY LLC; ANDREW
MARKHAM and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case:
CAM-L-001098-19 (N.J. Super., March 20, 2019), targets the
Defendants' unlawful reprisal under the Conscientious Employee
Protection Act.  The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the
Defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the
claims made going forward, both as to the Plaintiff and as to all
other individuals similarly situated.

Koss is a resident of the State of New Jersey and was employed by
the Defendants. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on or
around March 26, 2018. The Plaintiff performed up to or beyond the
legitimate expectations of his employer. The Defendants employed
the plaintiff as a safety manager.

On or around September 21, 2018, another employee of the
Defendants, Eric Nemeth, suffered an injury at work.  Per protocol,
the Plaintiff was to be notified immediately if any employee
suffers an injury at work. The Plaintiff was not notified of the
injury until several days later. When asked why the injury was not
reported immediately, the project manager, Cody Diaz, whose job it
was to notify the Plaintiff, claimed he was having issues with his
cell phone.  The Plaintiff later learned that Nemeth had reported
to the hospital where he was treated that the injury happened at
home instead of the workplace. The Plaintiff visited Nemeth who
informed the plaintiff that he had in fact lied and reported that
the injury happened at home instead of at work.

The Plaintiff reasonably believed that fraudulently reporting
workplace injuries is unlawful and/or against the public policy of
the State of New Jersey. In fact, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act set stringent standards for recording workplace
injuries.  The Plaintiff spoke with Esche-rae Williams in the
defendants' Human Resources department and reported that Nemeth had
lied about the injury. The Plaintiff thereby engaged in CEPA
protected conduct. Thereafter, the Plaintiff wrote an email to
Williams explaining that Nemeth had lied to the hospital about
where his injury occurred.  Williams forwarded that email to
defendant Andrew Markham, an owner of the company. The Plaintiff
subsequently met with Markham in person to discuss the incident.
The Plaintiff thereby further engaged in CEPA protected conduct.
Markham told plaintiff, "We're not going to tattle on ourselves."

The Plaintiff insisted that Nemeth's injury be reported in
accordance with the law. Two days later, The plaintiff was called
in for a meeting with Williams where he was informed that he was
laid off. The Defendants terminated the Plaintiff's employment on
or around September 26, 2018. The stated reason for the plaintiff's
termination was pretext, according to the lawsuit. A determinative
and/or motivating factor in plaintiff's termination was his CEPA
protected conduct.  To the extent there is any "mixed motive,"
plaintiff need only show that a determinative and/or motivating
factor in the conduct directed towards him was him having engaged
in CEPA protected conduct.

Because the Defendants' actions were undertaken by members of upper
management and/or because members of upper management were
willfully indifferent to the same and because those actions were
egregious punitive damages are warranted.  Defendant Markham made
the decision to terminate plaintiff. As a result of Defendant's
unlawful conduct, the plaintiff has been forced to suffer both
economic and non-economic harms, the lawsuit states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700

ALLURA USA: Guinn Suit Transferred to South Carolina Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned Guinn v. Allura USA
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00858, was transferred on April 2,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston).

The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00978-DCN to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.[BN]

Plaintiff Shara Guinn, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, is represented by:

          William Franklin Cash, III, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7059
          E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com

Defendants Allura USA LLC, Plycem USA LLC, doing business as:
Allura, Plycem USA Inc., Elementia USA Inc. and Elementia SA de CV
are represented by:

          Anthony Vale, Esq.
          Leah Greenberg Katz
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 981-4502
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: valea@pepperlaw.com
                  katzl@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          James Eugene Burke, Esq.
          Amanda Brooke Stubblefield, Esq.
          KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL
          One E Fourth Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 579-6428
          Facsimile: (513) 579-6427
          E-mail: jburke@kmklaw.com
                  astubblefield@kmklaw.com


AMERICA MOVIL: Unit Still Defends Class Suits in Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------
America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's
subsidiary, Telcel, continues to face class action lawsuits
regarding the brand's quality of service.

Telcel is subject to two class action lawsuits initiated by
customers allegedly affected by Telcel's quality of service and
wireless and broadband rates.

The Company cannot assess whether these class action lawsuits could
have an adverse effect on the Company's business and results of
operations in the event that they are resolved against Telcel due
to the lack of factual and legal claims underlying these
proceedings.

Consequently, the Company has not established a provision in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements for a loss arising
from these proceedings.

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

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. provides telecommunications services
in Latin America, the United States, the Caribbean, and Europe. The
company offers wireless and fixed voice services, including
airtime, local, domestic, and international long-distance services;
and network interconnection services. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V.
was founded in 2000 and is based in Mexico City, Mexico.


AMGEN INC: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Anticompetitive Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Amgen Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Watson
Laboratories, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis Pharma,
Inc., and Actvais PLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01510-WB (E.D.
Pa., April 9, 2019) seeks damages and equitable relief arising from
Defendants' anticompetitive agreement, which eliminated generic
competition in the United States for branded and generic version of
Sensipar (cinacalcet hydrochloride tablets).

Sensipar is a drug used to treat certain conditions associated with
chronic kidney disease and thyroid cancer. Amgen received FDA
approval for Sensipar in March 2004. After launch, Sensipar's sales
grew rapidly. As of 2017, Amgen's U.S. sales of Sensipar exceeded
$1.3 billion annually. Because Sensipar was a blockbuster drug,
numerous generic manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications ("ANDAs") with the FDA seeking the approval of generic
version of Sensipar. Teva was one such generic.

As part of their applications, these generic manufacturers were
required to make certain certifications against the patents
covering Sensipar. Among these patents was U.S. Patent No.
9,375,405 ("the '405 patent"), "Rapid dissolution formulation of a
calcium receptor-active compound." Generic manufacturers filed
"Paragraph IV" certifications against the '405 Patent, stating that
the patent was invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed by the
proposed ANDA applicants' generics. Amgen sued each generic
manufacturer that filed an ANDA for allegedly infringing the '405
patent.

With Teva competing in the market, Amgen had limited options:
either apply to the trial or appellate court for a stay of the
non-infringement order and an injunction against Teva, or engage in
self-help. Instead of applying for relief in court, Amgen chose
self-help, and broke the law. On January 2, 2019, Teva and Amgen
entered a confidential agreement in which Teva agreed to stop
selling its generic version of Sensipar. Amgen's quickly-reached
deal with Teva re-established and maintained Amgen's brand
monopoly. Moreover, the deal eliminated not only Teva as a
competitor but other generics as well. Amgen and Teva stopped other
generics from entering and driving the price of Sensipar sell below
Teva's discount.

Absent Defendants' unlawful agreement, Plaintiff and the memebrs of
the Class would have been able to purchase generic Sensipar tablets
during the period after January 2, 2019 at significantly lower
prices than Amgen has charged since then. Indeed, the injury to
Plaintiff and the Class is ongoing, as there still is no generic
alternative to Amgen's branded Sensipar available to purchase, says
the complaint.

KPH operates retail pharmacies in the Northeast under the name
Kinney Drugs, Inc.

Amgen is the holder of NDA #021688 and sells Sensipar throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
     Eric C. Burns, Esq.
     Michael Tarringer, Esq.
     NastLaw, LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: 215-923-9300
     Facsimile: 215-923-9302
     Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
            eburns@nastlaw.com
            mtarringer@nastlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
     Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
     Roberts Law Firm, P.A.
     20 Rahling Circle
     Little Rock, AR 72223
     Phone: 501-821-5575
     Facsimile: 501-821-4474
     Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
            debrajosephon@robertslawfirm.us
            stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us


APC ROOFING: Moreno Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------------
ARLEN N. MORENO, And other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff (s), v. APC ROOFING, LLC, and ALBERTO PONCE-CONTRERAS,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00159-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., March
29, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the APC Roofing was the employer of the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated who worked 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 non-exempt, full-time, roofing laborer.

APC Roofing is full-service roofing contractor specialized in
residential and commercial, roofing construction, roofing
replacement, and roofing repairs.[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

ARCOAIRE AIR: Bid to Certify Georgia Injunctive Relief Class Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit STEVE ODDO ET AL., the Plaintiff, v.
ARCOAIRE AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING ET AL., the Defendant, Case
No. 8:15-cv-01985-CAS-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A.
Snyder entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification;

   2. denying as moot Carrier Corporation's motion to exclude
      opinions of Paul J. Sikorsky and Plaintiffs' motions to
      exclude the expert reports of Ravi Dhar, Wayne Schneyer,
      and John H. Johnson;

   3. denying Linda Lamm's request to certify the Georgia
      Injunctive Relief Class, purportedly consisting of:

      "all original purchasing owners and subsequent owners in
      Georgia, including individuals and entities, that purchased
      new, 1.5- to 5-ton Carrier condensing units or Small Packaged

      air conditioning units that utilize 410A refrigerant and
      contain an Emerson scroll compressor with a serial number
      beginning 13L through 14H, but excluding the compressors
      identified by Emerson in CARRIER_0043279 as not containing
      Ryconox"; and

   4. denying Parties' various motions to strike expert testimony
      as moot.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages that arose from an alleged
manufacturing defect in their HVAC systems that has allegedly
caused widespread failures of Thermal Expansion Valves ("TXVs")
used in the units. The TXV "is a precision valve that controls the
expansion of refrigerant central to the cooling process."

The Court held that both parties raise numerous issues with the
expert testimony proffered by the opposing party. However, even
accepting Plaintiffs' expert testimony in its entirety, and
disregarding Carrier's expert testimony, the Court finds that class
certification is inappropriate.

The Plaintiffs shall have 120 days to file a renewed motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs contend that they will demonstrate that Carrier was
unjustly enriched by the amount it avoided paying to properly
remediate the contaminated units. Carrier argues that
individualized questions predominate as to whether Carrier's
retention of any benefit was "unjust" because this inquiry "depends
on what materials California class members reviewed, whether those
class members have experienced any problems with their unit,
whether any problems they experienced could actually be traced to
Ryconox, and so on."

The Court declines to certify plaintiffs' unjust enrichment class
because individualized issues predominate with respect to whether
Carrier's retention of any benefit was "unjust."  It appears that
the class includes purchasers who would have never been exposed to
a disclosure of the defect even if one had been made, purchasers
whose HVAC systems have never failed, as well as purchasers who
obtained repairs from Carrier after their systems experienced a TXV
failure. Any purchaser in one of the aforementioned scenarios would
have difficulty proving that Carrier's receipt of any benefit was
unjust in those circumstances. Thus, the Court finds that
individualized inquiries predominate with respect to plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim.[CC]

ARROW CONTAINER: Kruger Sues Over Incorrect Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS KRUGER III on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arrow Container, LLC and James LaSarre,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01402-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 5,
2019) is a proposed collective action brought on behalf of all
former and current hourly employees of Defendants who earned
incentive bonuses against Defendants.

Plaintiff Mr. Kruger was not paid overtime premiums based upon the
correctly calculated "regular rate" which included the incentive
bonus earned by Mr. Kriguer for a given workweek. The Defendants
willfully failed to pay Mr. Kruger overtime premiums at the correct
amount, the complaint alleges.

Mr. Kruger began employment with Arrow as an hourly employee on
March 30, 2017. He was terminated by Defendants on February 4,
2019.

Defendant, Arrow, is a limited liability company that operates a
facility in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
     Weldy Law
     8383 Craig Street, Suite 330
     Indianapolis, IN 46250
     Phone: (317) 842-6600
     Fax: (317) 288-4013
     Email: weldy@weldylegal.com


ART VAN FURNITURE: White Sues over Illegally Stored Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Art Van Furniture,
Inc. for its alleged violations of Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA). The case is captioned WHITNEY WHITE, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ART VAN
FURNITURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04671 (Ill. Cir., Cty.
of Cook, April 11, 2019). Plaintiff Whitney White accuses Art Van
Furniture, Inc. of unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of sensitive and proprietary biometric data. She claims
that the Defendant failed to provide a publicly available retention
schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying biometric
identifiers and biometric information as specified by BIPA.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an order to cease the Defendant's
unlawful activities. She also seeks for an awarding of statutory
damages to her and the proposed class members.

Art Van Furniture, Inc. is a furniture retail store headquartered
in Eastpointe, Michigan with locations throughout the Midwest.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza
     Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 233-1550
     Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
     E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
             jzouras@stephanzouras.com


ASBURY GARDENS: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Hitzeman, writing for Daily Herald, reports that two former
employees of a North Aurora-based assisted-living center are
seeking class-action status on a lawsuit over biometric data.

Shenae Scott and Louis Bermudes argue that Asbury Gardens has been
collecting data, such a fingerprints of employees, in violation of
the state's 2008 Biometric Information Privacy Act, according to a
lawsuit recently filed in Kane County.

The lawsuit doesn't object to Asbury using biometric data; it
argues Asbury failed to make proper disclosures and to implement
safeguards required by the act.

"We plan to ask the court to allow the case to proceed as a
class-action suit," said David Fish, attorney for the two former
workers.

Fish said he did not know how many employees could be included in
the suit and that to his knowledge, neither of his clients'
information had been hacked or stolen. Fish declined additional
comment.

Asbury Gardens Executive Director Elizabeth Gilbert said the
company has not been served with the lawsuit, and that Asbury is in
compliance with the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

"We take the privacy of our employees and our clients very
seriously," Gilbert said.

According to the suit, Scott worked at Asbury through early 2019
and Bermudes was an Asbury employee until mid-2018.

While working there, both plaintiffs had to scan their fingerprints
through a biometric time-tracking system instead of using a key fob
or identification card, according to the suit. A card or key fob
can be replaced if lost, an employee's biometric data is unique and
permanent and can have grave consequences if compromised, stolen or
hacked, the suit argues.

"This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached or
otherwise exposed, employees would have no means by which to
prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking," the suit
argued.

Asbury employees all had to have their fingerprints entered into
the database and were required to scan their fingerprint to clock
out at the end of a work day, according to the suit. Asbury did not
have employees sign a written release for their biometric data and
the company never told them how long the data would be kept and if
it would be destroyed.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and is due for an initial
court appearance May 30. [GN]


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from August 4, 2016
through January 31, 2019, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for AVEO investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the AVEO class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1519.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 throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the TIVO-3 trial was inadequately designed to address the
overall survival concerns regarding AVEO's lead candidate drug,
tivozanib, from the TIVO-1 trial presented back in the June 2013;
(2) tivozanib had insufficient survival data to obtain U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval following its initial
rejection by the FDA in 2013; (3) this lack of sufficient survival
data would put tivozanib at greater risk of delayed FDA approval;
and (4) as a result, AVEO'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 26,
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-1519.html

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: OK Police Pension System Files Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INC.; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC.; FIRST TENNESSEE BANK, N.A.; FTN FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP.;
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J. P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; AND UBS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03091 (S.D. N.Y., April 5, 2019) asserts violations of the
federal antitrust laws and common law unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' unlawful, anticompetitive
scheme to fix, raise, maintain, stabilize, or otherwise manipulate
the price of unsecured bonds issued by the Federal National
Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), which were sold and purchased
throughout the United States.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue unsecured bonds ("FFBs") to
finance their operations in providing liquidity to banks and
mortgage companies that make residential mortgage loans to
consumers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue FFBs by selling
directly to an exclusive, pre-approved group of banks ("Approved
FFB Dealers") through a process referred to in this Complaint as
the "FFB Issuance Process". The Defendants are Approved FFB
Dealers. From January 1, 2009 to April 27, 2014, Defendants were
the largest players in the primary market where Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac issued and sold FFBs. As a result, Defendants had
control over the FFB supply ultimately available to investors.

In a normally functioning secondary market, Approved FFB Dealers
compete with each other for the purchase and sale of FFBs.
Competition is primarily driven by the prices at which dealers are
willing to buy and sell FFBs. However, during the Class Period,
rather than compete with each other, Defendants colluded to fix,
raise, maintain, stabilize, or otherwise manipulate the prices at
which they bought and sold FFBs in the secondary market, asserts
the complaint.

The Defendants' misconduct has injured U.S. investors who buy and
sell FFBs, notes the complaint. Defendants have inflated the prices
at which they sold FFBs to investors and reduced the prices at
which they purchased these products from investors, including
Plaintiff and members of the Class. Thousands of U.S.-based
investors have transacted hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of
FFBs in the United States directly with Defendants. Plaintiff, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, seeks damages
as a result of the unlawful conduct, trebled as provided by law, as
well as restitution under unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System is a
defined benefit pension plan based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     GREGORY S. ASCIOLLA, ESQ.
     JAY L. HIMES, ESQ.
     ROBIN A. VAN DER MEULEN, ESQ.
     DOMENICO MINERVA, ESQ.
     MATTHEW J. PEREZ, ESQ.
     LARA GOLDSTONE, ESQ.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            jhimes@labaton.com
            rvandermeulen@labaton.com
            dminerva@labaton.com
            mperez@labaton.com
            lgoldstone@labaton.com


BECTON DICKINSON: Olson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
PHIL OLSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON
AND COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00017985-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., April 5, 2019) alleges that Defendants
engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California.
This scheme involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all hours
worked, missed meal periods, and missed rest breaks in violation of
California law.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages
to Plaintiff and the other class members for all hours worked.
Plaintiff and other class members were required to work more than 8
hours per day and/or 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation.

The Defendants, jointly and severally, hired Plaintiff and the
other class members and classified them as hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked,
missed meal periods, and/or missed rest breaks.

Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from
approximately in or about December 2016 to September 2017, in the
State of California.

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY is a New Jersey corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DOUGLAS HAN, ESQ.
     SHUNT TATAVOS-GHARAJEH, ESQ.
     JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
     751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
     Pasadena, CA 91103
     Phone: (818) 230-7502
     Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


BELLICUM PHARMA: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAKKAR, Plaintiff, v. BELLICUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-00338 (S.D. Tex.),
Judge Alfred H. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, granted Plaintiffs David Kim,
Linda Silberstein, Francisco Dos Ramos Alvarado, and Robert Kennard
("Bellicum Investor Group")'s Motion to for Appointment as Lead
Counsel.

Before the Court are Plaintiff John Sodec, Jr.'s Motion for
Appointment as Lead Counsel, Bellicum Investor Group's Motion to
for Appointment as Lead Counsel, and Plaintiff Dong Kang's Motion
for Appointment as Lead Counsel.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
investors who purchased publicly traded securities of Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals between May 8, 2017 to Jan. 30, 2018.  The class is
seeking to recover damages caused by the 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 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of
its top officials.  The case Rudy v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., Civ. No. H-18-000795 (S.D. Tex.) was consolidated into the
case.

None of the Movants filed either the complaint in the case or the
Rudy complaint, but each made a timely motion to be appointed as
the Lead Plaintiff.  The notice concerning the pendency of the
lawsuit was published on Globe Newswire and none of the moving
parties challenged its adequacy.  Because each Movant timely filed
their Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, Judge Bennett turns
to the two remaining elements of the presumption.

First, the PSLRA does not delineate a procedure for determining the
'largest financial interest' among the proposed class members.
Bellicum Investor Group has the largest financial interest.
Collectively its members suffered $420,806 in losses.  As to the
other Movants, Plaintiff Sodec suffered $57,604.78 in losses and
Plaintiff Kang suffered $95,452.17 in losses.  On each measure --
losses suffered, total shares, net shares purchased, and net funds
expended -- Bellicum Investor Group's expenditures or losses is
greater than the other two Movants.  Accordingly, Bellicum Investor
Group suffered the largest financial loss and therefore has the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.

Second, after determining the largest financial interest, the Judge
must then ensure that the persons with the largest financial
interest otherwise satisfies the requirement of Rule 23.  He finds
that Bellicum Investor Group has made a "preliminary showing" that
two of Rule 23's requirements -- typicality and adequacy -- are
satisfied.
Bellicum Investor Group is represented by Pomerantz LLP and
Federman & Sherwood.  The Judge finds that Pomerantz LLP and
Federman & Sherwood have extensive experience in prosecuting
securities litigation and have worked together with efficiency and
without duplication of efforts or unnecessary increase in
attorney's fees.  He sees no reason to not adhere to Bellicum
Investor Group's choice: Pomerantz LLP and Federman & Sherwood are
the appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel.  The Judge will place as a
condition on this appointment that the law firms insure that there
is no duplication of services or unnecessary increase in fees.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bennett appointed Bellicum
Investor Group as the Lead Plaintiff, and Pomerantz LLP and
Federman & Sherwood as the Co-Lead Class Counsel.  Accordingly,
Plaintiff Bellicum Investor Group's Motion is granted.  Plaintiff
Kang and Plaintiff Sodec's Motions are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Noeq5X from Leagle.com.

Nipun Kakkar, Plaintiff, represented by Willie C. Briscoe --
wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com -- The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC.

Frances J. Rudy, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Robbins
-- RRobbins@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP & Jason
Anthony Richardson -- jason.richardson@mhllp.com -- McDowell
Hetherington LLP.

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richard A. Fair & Alan A. Musso,
Defendants, represented by Gerard G. Pecht --
gerard.pecht@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP & Peter Andrew Stokes -- peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP.

Bellicum Investor Group, Movant, represented by William B. Federman
-- WBF@FEDERMANLAW.COM -- Federman Sherwood.

Dong Kang, Movant, represented by Danielle S. Myers --
danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Jason
Anthony Richardson -- jason.richardson@mhllp.com -- McDowell
Hetherington LLP.

David Kim, Francisco Dos Ramos Alvarado, Robert Kennard & Linda
Silberstein, Movants, represented by J. Alexander Hood --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman.


BK GENERAL: Quinde Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
EFRAIN GUSTAVO QUINDE VILLA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BK GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LLC
(D/B/A BK CONSTRUCTION), B.K. CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. (D/B/A BK
CONSTRUCTION), MAGDALENA VICTORIA, and DIEGO OCHOA, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01824 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2019), seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards,
and the New York Labor Law.

Quinde is a former employee of BK General Construction. He worked
for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked.

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

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

The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located at 89 Hunter Avenue No. 3, Yonkers, NY 10704 under the name
"BK Construction", which performed a variety of construction jobs
mostly in Brooklyn and Queens.[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

BLOOD CENTERS: Danielsson Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUBY DANIELSSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BLOOD
CENTERS OF THE PACIFIC, a California corporation; BLOOD SYSTEMS, an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-574826 (Cal. Super., March 29, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums,
unpaid rest period, unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, jointly and severally,
employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from
December 2005 to April 2017, in the State of California, County of
San Francisco. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class
members, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and
missed meal periods and/or rest breaks.

Blood Centers of the Pacific Blood Centers of the Pacific is a
nonprofit, community-based organization that provides blood
components to hospitals, physicians and patients throughout
Northern California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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


BP EXPLORATION: Ct. Recommends Dismissal of Clean-up Worker's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE KRISTINE KING v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC. ET AL., SECTION "J" (2). Related to: 12-968 BELO in MDL
10-2179, Civil Action No. 19-1081 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge
Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana recommended that (i) the Defendants' motion
to dismiss be granted, and (ii) the Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.

King was employed as a clean-up worker along the Alabama gulf
coast, where she also lived, after the BP/Deepwater Horizon
explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010.  The Plaintiff filed her
complaint pursuant to the Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO")
provisions of the BP/Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement Agreement.  As a member of the BELO settlement
class, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and related costs
for latermanifested physical conditions that she allegedly suffered
as a result of exposure to substances released after the oil spill.


Defendants, BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America
Production Co., filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint.  They argue that the Plaintiff failed properly to file
her individual BELO lawsuit by the Medical Settlement Agreement's
filing deadline and that the complaint should be dismissed with
prejudice as time-barred.  

Magistrate Wilkinson finds that the Court-approved Medical
Settlement Agreement is not a case management order.  Instead, it
is an unambiguous, binding contract that cannot be modified or
altered without the express written consent of the Medical Benefits
Class Counsel and BP's counsel.  The BELO lawsuit process is the
exclusive remedy for class members who did not opt out of the
settlement and who seek compensation for Later-Manifested Physical
Conditions, as defined in the agreement.  

As a condition precedent to filing a BELO suit, a class member must
submit a Notice of Intent to Sue to the Medical Settlement
Agreement Claims Administrator, who must transmit the notice to BP
within 10 days.  BP then has 30 days to decide whether to mediate
the claim.  If, as in the instant case, BP chooses not to mediate,
the claimant must file her BELO lawsuit within six months of being
notified by the Claims Administrator of BP's election not to
mediate.

No opposition to the motion has been filed.  The Plaintiff did not
file her BELO lawsuit until Feb. 6, 2019, two days after the
Medical Settlement Agreement's deadline of Feb. 4, 2019 had
passed.

King failed to meet the condition precedent to filing a BELO
complaint by timely filing her lawsuit.  No explanation for doing
so has been provided. No purpose would be served by dismissing the
case without prejudice, when its untimely filing under the Medical
Settlement Agreement clearly means that the claim is barred and
must be dismissed with prejudice.  The Magistrate Judge therefore
modifies the CMO insofar as it applies to this particular BELO case
to permit filing of the motion to dismiss with prejudice, pursuant
to CMO.

Having considered the motion, the complaint, the record and the
applicable law, Magistrate Judge Wilkinson recommended that (i) the
Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted, and (ii) the Plaintiff's
complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/umeiTy from
Leagle.com.

Michelle Kristine King, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L. Nations
-- info@howardnations.com -- Nations Law Firm.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune McEldowney
-- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC,
Devin C. Reid, Liskow & Lewis, Georgia Lee Lucier --
georgialucier@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Kevin
Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP &
Scott C. Seiler -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


CANADA: Seeks Approval of Veteran Benefits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Law Times discusses the case captioned Toth v. Canada (2019), 2019
CarswellNat 209, 2019 FC 125, Catherine M. Kane J. (F.C.).

Federal pension plans
Settlement agreement was fair and reasonable and was in best
interests of class members

Class Action addressed claims of veterans who were in receipt of
various benefits, including Disability Pension benefits, and had
Disability Pension amounts deducted from other benefits which they
received or were entitled to receive. Representative Plaintiff, MT,
and defendant brought joint motion seeking approval of Settlement
Agreement in Class Action. Class Counsel and MT also sought
approval of legal fees and disbursements of Class Counsel and
honorarium of $50,000 for MT, to be paid by Class Counsel out of
approved legal fees. Motion granted. Settlement Agreement was fair
and reasonable and was, therefore, approved. The $50,000 honorarium
for MT as representative plaintiff was warranted given contribution
to litigation and settlement and was approved. Fees and
disbursements of Class Counsel were also fair and reasonable and
were approved. Consideration of all relevant factors supported
court’s finding that Settlement Agreement was fair and reasonable
and was in best interests of Class Members. Determination included
court’s careful consideration of nature of Charter claims
advanced; defences which defendant would have advanced if
litigation continued; overall benefits of settlement, which
resulted from concessions and compromises on both sides; and views
of Class Members. If proposed Settlement Agreement was not
approved, litigation would continue and would likely be long,
arduous and costly. Continuing litigation could involve further
discovery, trial, possible appeals and determination of individual
claims. This could take three to five years. [GN]


CANADA: Veterans to Sue Over Anti-Malarial Drug Effects
-------------------------------------------------------
CTVNews.ca reports that Canadian soldiers who took a
military-issued anti-malarial drug held a town hall in Ottawa,
Ont., on March 24 to discuss both their concerns that the drug may
have caused incapacitating mental health side-effects and a
class-action lawsuit they are set to launch.

Nearly 1,000 Canadian veterans have joined the lawsuit, which will
sue the federal government, claiming that the anti-malarial
medication mefloquine has left them suffering from depression,
night terrors, aggressive behaviour and suicide.

Philip Brooks, a retired air force captain who joined to lawsuit,
was on the drug for two weeks before his mission to the Congo was
cancelled.

He said he received no warning about any potential side effects of
the drug, but immediately after taking it, began having vivid
nightmares and experiencing a sense of doom.

"I went down and couldn't recover," said Brooks, who had no
previous history of depression or anxiety.

Mefloquine is highly effective against malaria and was first given
to the Canadian troops heading to Somalia in the early 1990s, even
before it was approved by Health Canada.

But some experts believe it may be linked to long-term effects that
often mimic the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

"In some people, the drug either accumulates or acts in some way in
the brain tissue to cause damage," said Dr. Remington Nevin, the
executive director of The Quinism Foundation, a non-profit
dedicated to supporting research and education of the effects of
mefloquine.

She added that related drugs "have actually been known to cause
permanent injury and destruction in diverse areas in the brain stem
or limbic system."

A Canadian Armed Forces study in 2017 found that there is "limited
evidence" that the drug causes "long-lasting and permanent
neurological and psychiatric adverse events."

In a statement, the Canadian Armed Forces said that it takes the
health and well-being of its members seriously. It said that it
stopped using mefloquine in 2017 as its preferred anti-malarial
drug as a precaution.

Mefloquine has been the subject of lawsuits before. In the United
States, veterans who claimed to have been harmed by the drug are
receiving disability compensation. Earlier this year, lawyers for a
former American army sergeant argued in court that the drug caused
psychosis that was linked to his massacre of 16 Afghan villagers in
2012.

The sergeant, Robert Bales, was sentenced in 2013 to life in prison
without parole. [GN]


CARRIER CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Injunctive Relief Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, PAUL CORMIER ET AL., the Plaintiff v.
CARRIER CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-07030-CAS-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder entered an order:

   1. denying Linda Lamm's request to certify a Georgia Injunctive
      Relief Class, consisting of:

      "all original purchasing owners and subsequent owners in
      Georgia, including individuals and entities, that purchased
      new, 1.5- to 5-ton Carrier condensing units or Small Packaged

      air conditioning units that utilize 410A refrigerant and
      contain an Emerson scroll compressor with a serial number
      beginning 13L through 14H, but excluding the compressors
      identified by Emerson in CARRIER_0043279 as not containing
      Ryconox"; and

   2. denying Carrier Corporation's motion to exclude opinions of
      Paul Sikorsky and the Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the
      expert reports of Ravi Dhar, Wayne Schneyer, and John
      Johnson.

The Court said, "Both parties raise numerous issues with the expert
testimony proffered by the opposing party. However, even accepting
plaintiffs' expert testimony in its entirety, and disregarding
Carrier's expert testimony, the Court finds that class
certification is inappropriate. Accordingly, the Court denies the
parties' various motions to strike expert testimony as moot. In
accordance with the foregoing, the Court denies without prejudice
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs shall have
120 days to file a renewed motion for class certification."

The Court explained that the parties' arguments entirely focus on
whether Lamm's future injuries are speculative and neglect to
discuss the fact that the Court has already dismissed plaintiffs'
GUDPTA claim to the extent it relies on allegations that Carrier
imposed repairs that caused further damage.

On June 8, 2018, Paul Cormier and Nicholas Shoner filed a class
action complaint against Carrier Corporation. The Plaintiffs
alleged injury arising from a manufacturing defect in air
conditioners and heat pumps ("HVAC Systems") manufactured by
Carrier, which purportedly causes a sticky substance to form in the
system, causing degraded performance or failure of the HVAC
systems. The Plaintiffs asserted claims based on breach of
warranty, violation of state consumer protection laws, and unjust
enrichment.[CC]

CENTURYLINK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP disclosed that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of CenturyLink, Inc. ("CenturyLink" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CTL) between May 10, 2018 and March 4, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
CenturyLink shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased CenturyLink securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options, please visit CenturyLink
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) CenturyLink had undisclosed material weaknesses in its
internal controls over revenue recording processes and the
procedures for measuring fair value of assets and liabilities
assumed in connection with its Level 3 Communications, Inc.
acquisition; (2) consequently, CenturyLink would delay the filing
of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018
despite initially reporting those financial results in a press
release dated February 13, 2019; and (3) as a result, CenturyLink'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.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 6, 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.

         Daniel Sadeh,Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


CENTURYLINK 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 CenturyLink, Inc. ("CenturyLink" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CTL) and certain of its officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. Shareholders are
encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more.

According to the complaint, which was filed in the Central District
of California: (1) CenturyLink had undisclosed material weaknesses
in its internal controls over revenue recording processes and the
procedures for measuring fair value of assets and liabilities
assumed in connection with its Level 3 Communications, Inc.
acquisition; (2) consequently, CenturyLink would delay the filing
of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018
despite initially reporting those financial results in a press
release dated February 13, 2019; and (3) as a result, CenturyLink'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.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink securities
between May 10, 2018 and March 4, 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/centurylink.Additionally, those interested
in serving as lead Plaintiff must apply do so before the May 6,
2019, lead plaintiff deadline.

         Dan DeMaria, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (888) 868-2385
                    (617) 398-5660
         Email: dan@blockesq.com [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against purchasers CenturyLink, Inc.
("CenturyLink" or the "Company") (NYSE: CTL) and its directors, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased CenturyLink securities between
May 10, 2018 and March 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ctl.  

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 false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) CenturyLink did not
reveal material weaknesses in its internal controls over revenue
recording processes and the procedures for measuring fair value of
assets and liabilities in connection with its Level 3
Communications, Inc. acquisition; (2) as a result, CenturyLink
would delay the filing of its 4th quarter Form 10-K for the fiscal
year 2018 despite initially reporting those financial results in a
press release dated February 13, 2019; and (3) consequently,
CenturyLink's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 4, 2019, CenturyLink revealed that it had "identified
material weaknesses in internal controls over the Company's revenue
recording processes and the procedures for measuring fair value of
assets and liabilities assumed in connection with the Level 3
Communications, Inc." Consequently, it would not be able to file
its annual report for the period ended December 31, 2018 on time.
Following this news, CenturyLink stock dropped $0.82 per share, or
over 6%, to close at $12.15 per share on March 4, 2019.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ctl 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 CenturyLink you have until May 6, 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.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Website: www.bgandg.com/ctl
         Email:  peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


CENTURYLINK 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.

CenturyLink, Inc. (NYSE: CTL)
Class Period: May 10, 2018 - March 4, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 6, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/centurylink-inc-loss-form?wire=3

Allegations: CenturyLink, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) CenturyLink had undisclosed material weaknesses
in its internal controls over revenue recording processes and the
procedures for measuring fair value of assets and liabilities
assumed in connection with its Level 3 Communications, Inc.
acquisition; (2) consequently, CenturyLink would delay the filing
of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018
despite initially reporting those financial results in a press
release dated February 13, 2019; and (3) as a result, CenturyLink's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

To learn more about the CenturyLink, 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.

         Contact:
         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
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


CERTIFIED ROOFING: Noel Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARLENE N. NOEL, And other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), v. CERTIFIED ROOFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, TITUS LEA, and
ALBERTO PONCE-CONTRERAS, Individually, the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00162 (M.D. Fla., March 29, 2019), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was a non-exempt, full-time, roofing laborer.The
Plaintiff on behalf of Plaintiff, and all other current and former
employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, who worked in excess of
40 hours during one or more weeks on or after July 2018 without
being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was a non-exempt, full-time, roofing laborer. While
employed by Defendants Plaintiff worked weeks of 6 days and weeks
of 7 days per week. Every month, Plaintiff worked 2 weeks of 6 days
and 2 weeks of 7 days. Thus, during his relevant time of employment
Plaintiff worked approximately 12 weeks of 6 days, and 12 weeks of
7 days, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a general contractor, specialized in residential,
commercial, and industrial new roofing construction, roofing
replacement, and roofing restorations.[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

CHEMOURS CO: Court Grants Bid to Strike in Cape Fear Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
7:17-CV-195-D (E.D. N.C.), Judge James C. Dever, III of the I.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern
Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss; (ii) denied their motion to stay; and (iii)
granted their motion to strike.

On March 2, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
consolidated class-action complaint, and filed a memorandum in
support.  On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs responded in
opposition.  On April 27, 2018, the Defendants replied.

The Judge (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss; (ii) denied their motion to stay; and (iii)
granted their motion to strike.  In due course, he will issue an
order expounding on his conclusions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/qkCvxj from Leagle.com.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Plaintiff, represented by
George William House -- ghouse@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce
McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., Vernon R. Tinsley --
rtinsley@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey &
Leonard, LLP, William P.H. Cary -- wcary@brookspierce.com -- Brooks
Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ponzi --
jponzi@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey &
Leonard, L.L.P.

The Chemours Company FC, LLC & E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Sasser --
jon.sasser@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters, LLP, John K. Sherk
-- jsherk@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kenneth J. Reilly
-- kreilly@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Mark D. Anstoetter
-- manstoetter@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Stephen D.
Feldman -- stephen.feldman@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters,
LLP.

Victoria Carey, Interested Party, represented by Andrew O.
Whiteman, Whiteman Law Firm & Steven M. Seigel -- sseigel@gmail.com
-- Susman Godfrey LLP.


CHEMOURS CO: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Morton Torts Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROGER MORTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-CV-197-D (E.D. N.C.),
Judge James C. Denver, III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, (i) granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss; (ii)
denied their motion to stay; and (iii) granted their motion to
strike.

On March 2, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
consolidated class-action complaint, and filed a memorandum in
support.  On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs responded in
opposition.  On April 27, 2018, the Defendants replied.

The Judge (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss; (ii) denied their motion to stay; and (iii)
granted their motion to strike.  In due course, he will issue an
order expounding on his conclusions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/MTVdDc from Leagle.com.

Roger Morton, Plaintiff, represented by Hoyt G. Tessener --
hoyt.tessener@farrin.com -- Law Offices of James Scott Farrin,
Andrew O. Whiteman, Whiteman Law Firm, Gary K. Shipman --
info@shipmanandwright.com -- Shipman & Associates, LLP, Steven M.
Seigel -- sseigel@gmail.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP & Gary W. Jackson
-- gary.jackson@farrin.com -- The Law Offices of James Scott
Farrin.

Marie Burris, Michael Kiser & Brent Nix, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gary K. Shipman, Shipman & Associates, LLP, Steven M. Seigel,
Susman Godfrey LLP & Theodore J. Leopold --
tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC.

The Chemours Company FC, LLC & E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Sasser --
jon.sasser@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters, LLP, John K. Sherk
-- jsherk@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kenneth J. Reilly
-- kreilly@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Mark D. Anstoetter
-- manstoetter@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Stephen D.
Feldman -- stephen.feldman@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters,
LLP.

Ellis McGaughy & Michael E Johnson, Defendants, represented by
Jonathan D. Sasser, Ellis & Winters, LLP & Stephen D. Feldman,
Ellis & Winters, LLP.

Victoria Carey, Interested Party, represented by Andrew O.
Whiteman, Whiteman Law Firm, Steven M. Seigel, Susman Godfrey LLP &
Theodore J. Leopold, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Interested Party, represented
by Joseph A. Ponzi -- jponzi@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce
McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P..


CHEMOURS CO: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Nix Torts Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRENT NIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-CV-189-D (E.D. N.C.),
Judge James C. Denver, III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, (i) granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss; (ii)
denied their motion to stay; and (iii) granted their motion to
strike.

On March 2, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
consolidated class-action complaint, and filed a memorandum in
support.  On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs responded in
opposition.  On April 27, 2018, the Defendants replied.

The Judge (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss; (ii) denied their motion to stay; and (iii)
granted their motion to strike.  In due course, he will issue an
order expounding on his conclusions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JMFvNv from Leagle.com.

Brent Nix, Plaintiff, represented by Hoyt G. Tessener --
hoyt.tessener@farrin.com -- Law Offices of James Scott Farrin,
Andrew O. Whiteman, Whiteman Law Firm, Gary K. Shipman --
info@shipmanandwright.com -- Shipman & Associates, LLP, Steven M.
Seigel -- sseigel@gmail.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Gary W. Jackson
-- gary.jackson@farrin.com -- The Law Offices of James Scott Farrin
& Theodore J. Leopold -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC.

Victoria Carey, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew O. Whiteman,
Whiteman Law Firm, Gary K. Shipman, Shipman & Associates, LLP,
Steven M. Seigel, Susman Godfrey LLP & Theodore J. Leopold, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC.

Marie Burris & Michael Kiser, Plaintiffs, represented by Gary K.
Shipman, Shipman & Associates, LLP, Steven M. Seigel, Susman
Godfrey LLP & Theodore J. Leopold, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,
PLLC.

The Chemours Company FC, LLC & E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Sasser --
jon.sasser@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters, LLP, John K. Sherk
-- jsherk@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kenneth J. Reilly
-- kreilly@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Mark D. Anstoetter
-- manstoetter@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Stephen D.
Feldman -- stephen.feldman@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters,
LLP.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Interested Party, represented
by Joseph A. Ponzi -- jponzi@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce
McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P..


CHINA XD: Time to Appeal Order of Dismissal Expired
---------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the time
for lead plaintiffs to appeal the dismissal of their lawsuits has
expired.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  

These actions, which alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, were filed on
July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et
al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company
Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359 (GBD), respectively.  

On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 17, 2015, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of
a class of all persons other than the defendants who purchased the
common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between March 25,
2014 and July 10, 2014, both dates inclusive.  

Specifically, the lead plaintiffs alleged that the Company and two
of its officers made false or misleading statements and/or omitted
material facts in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q for the first quarter
ended March 31, 2014. They also asserted that the individual
defendants are liable because they allegedly controlled the Company
during the time the allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions were made. The lead plaintiffs sought damages in
unspecified amounts.  

On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint. On March 23, 2016, the Court entered an
Opinion and Order dismissing the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint without prejudice. On May 6, 2016, the lead plaintiffs
moved the Court for leave to amend the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. On June 24, 2016, the Company filed its opposition to
the lead plaintiffs' motion. On August 8, 2016, in conjunction with
filing the reply brief in support of their motion, the lead
plaintiffs moved to strike certain documents referred to in the
Company's opposition.  The Company filed its opposition to the lead
plaintiffs' motion to strike on September 16, 2016. The lead
plaintiffs filed their reply on October 7, 2016.  

On March 8, 2017, the Court entered an Order in the Company's favor
denying the lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and denying
the lead plaintiffs' motion to strike. The time for the lead
plaintiffs to appeal the dismissal of their lawsuits has expired.

China XD Plastics Company Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the research, development, manufacture, and sale of
modified plastics primarily for automotive applications in the
People's Republic of China and Dubai, the United Arab Emirates.
China XD Plastics Company Limited sells its products through
distributors, as well as directly to end customers. The company was
founded in 1985 and is based in Harbin, the People's Republic of
China.


CLIENT SERVICES: Shahin Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as MD Shahin on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc., CSI
Interco, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02070 (E.D. N.Y., April
9, 2019).

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

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COATES ELECTRIC: I.B.E.W. Seeks FLSA Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, I.B.E.W. Local No. 494 et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. Coates Electric, LLC Brody Coates, the Defendants,
Case No. 18CV1849 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a Fair Labor Standards Act class and that their motion for
default judgment include FLSA damages owed to non-named plaintiffs
Glen Savage, Justin Beatovic, and Walter Thornton.

The Plaintiffs seek to enforce against Coates Electric an
arbitration award that IBEW Local 494 has obtained against the
Company, rather than through this FLSA case, other than for rare
weeks when FLSA liquidated damages owed to them for a late payment
exceeded the amount of contractual damages.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          Christopher Ahrens, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: 414-271-4500
          Facsimile: 414-271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

CONNECTICUT: New DCF Commissioner Seek to Do More Than Compliance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Florin, writing for The Day, reports that Department of
Children and Families Commissioner Vannessa L. Dorantes says she
wants the state child welfare agency to do more than just "check
the boxes" to prove compliant oversight of approximately 4,200
children in its care.

The new occupant of the 10th floor corner office in the DCF
building at 505 Hudson St. started with the agency 27 years ago as
a social worker. After working under six commissioners, she is in
charge of the agency that has 3,200 employees, a budget approaching
$800 million and a mission -- protecting abused and neglected
children -- that sometimes seems impossible.

Dorantes succeeds Joette Katz, a former state Supreme Court justice
who served as the DCF commissioner during the Malloy
administration. Her annual salary is $172,000.

On her way to the commissioner's office, the 49-year-old Bristol
resident held every position on the social work continuum: social
worker, investigator, supervisor, program manager and regional
administrator. She has a master's degree in social work and has
taught social work at Central Connecticut State University since
2004.

She has firm ideas about what's needed to ensure the best outcomes
for the vulnerable children and families involved with DCF. She
said during an interview that it's also important for her to be a
role model for her 17-year-old twin daughters.

The agency's first African-American commissioner, she's committed
to eliminating racial disparities in the department, which has a
disproportionate number of African-American and Hispanic children
in its care.

"When we talk about racial justice, I want to make sure it's not
the message of white people doing bad things to people of color,"
said Dorantes, who chairs the Statewide Racial Justice workgroup.
"We are a diverse child welfare agency, and a lot of the decisions
are being made by people of color, too. If we know our client base
is disproportionally people of color, we have to look at it. We
have to look at each of our decision-making points and recognize if
race is a factor."

She has tweaked the agency's organizational structure, and said one
of the first memos she sent to employees had to do with reinforcing
the supervision message so that social workers, supervisors and
managers are not making decisions on their own.

Dorantes was one of the first social workers hired after the state
entered into a consent decree in 1991 with the federal government
in a class-action lawsuit known as Juan F. The lawsuit charged that
the agency failed to provide necessary services for children who
were neglected and abused.

The DCF's staffing levels and protocols still are under federal
oversight, though in recent years the agency has moved closer to
meeting the outcome requirements in place under an exit plan.

Strong partnerships

Dorantes said that sometimes oversight of families can evolve into
mere compliance.

"You get really good at checking the boxes, and move away from the
social work that brought us into this field in the first place. I
know it's a cliché, but it's about putting the human back into
human services, building a Connecticut that families can feel safe
in and thrive in. It's driven who I am over the years."

She cited a case study she read recently about the issue of "safe
sleep," which is a leading cause of death for infants. In it, the
social worker didn't just "check the box" by giving a new mother a
pamphlet about the importance of putting a baby to sleep alone and
on its back and keeping the crib clear of items. The worker talked
to the mother about safe sleep, and when visiting the home looked
at the baby's crib and removed stuffed animals or bumpers that
could pose a risk.

During the next visit, the worker had a conversation with a
resistant grandparent who said she raised her children with certain
sleep habits that are now considered unhealthy. The next visit, the
crib had been moved to make way for a Christmas tree, and another
safety discussion ensued.

"If that case were to result in a safe sleep fatality, you saw all
the building blocks for really trying to prevent that outcome. And
if it still happened, you can feel comfortable that negative
outcomes happen but we set up a structure that was less
compliance-driven and more focused on how to try and avoid the
things we all don't want to see happen," she said.

When there are fatalities and other bad outcomes, how the agency
responds is important, Dorantes said. Her approach, she said, would
be to learn from negative outcomes and develop a system where
workers can do a good job.

"Sometimes you messed up," she said. "Sometimes systemic problems
got in the way. Sometimes, even with the best intentions, there are
bad outcomes."

Her vision for DCF includes strong partnerships with law
enforcement, schools, mental health service providers and
communities who "lean in" to help. As the daughter of teen parents,
she said she and her parents were able to thrive because of
grandparents and others who were willing to step in while her
mother went to college and her father served in the Navy.

The DCF is embarking on a $900,000 Fatherhood Initiative geared
toward getting fathers and paternal relatives more involved with
treatment planning of children, training fathers to become
effective advocates for their children and providing counseling and
education to make them more effective parents.

"I've always approached this work from, children do well in
resilient families and those families do well with communities who
wrap around them," she said. "My childhood felt like one big
community."

Her most recent position as regional administrator for 43 towns in
the Danbury-Torrington-Waterbury area, which has both urban and
rural communities, gave her insight into the economic diversity of
the state's families. She also worked to create connections that
improve outcomes for kids such as involving DCF early if a drug
bust is about to happen in a home where children are involved. She
said she recently met with police chiefs from across the state and
is looking to create strong outposts for social workers in police
departments, hospitals and clinics.

"Then you are really part of a larger network," she said. "It's
important to nurture the partnerships ahead of time. If the
building is on fire, people are less likely to want to run in with
you. If you cultivate those ahead of time, people are more likely
to help."

Criticism is inevitable

Dorantes knows that an onslaught of criticism is inevitable in her
role and spoke of DCF employees who don't admit what they do
publicly because of the negative publicity.

"I think it comes with what we do every day," she said. Even on the
worst day, she said she loves what she does. When Gov. Ned Lamont
announced her nomination, Dorantes was touched to see that one of
her first clients on the job, a young woman struggling with her
sexual identity, was standing in the back of the room. The woman,
now married and raising a family with her wife, had come out to
Dorantes during a time when the agency didn't have protocols for
LGBTQ youth. Dorantes said they figured it out together and checked
in with each other over the years.

"For me, that is what propels us to do this work," she said. "Not
what we do for our kids and families, but what they do for us."

Beresford Wilson, executive director of the parent advocate
organization and DCF contractor known as FAVOR, was the parent of a
DCF-involved child, himself. FAVOR operates a simulation lab in
which social workers and trainees respond to true-to-life scenarios
enacted by parents.

Wilson said by phone that he's seen DCF commissioners break down
and cry at committee meetings and that the agency's work can be
emotional and heart-wrenching. He said he has known Dorantes for
years.

"I feel for her, but I have her back because of the person she is,
the way she makes decisions," Wilson said in a phone interview.
"She doesn't do them in isolation. She gathers as much information
as she can. That's why I believe in her and I believe in this
administration." [GN]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Long Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Long, n/k/a Davis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Convergent Outsourcing,
Inc., a Washington corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01281-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 29, 2019), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ms. Long brings this action individually and as a class action on
behalf of all persons similarly situated in the State of Indiana
from whom Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted, time-barred
consumer debt, allegedly owed to Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., via
the same form collection letter, that Defendant sent to Plaintiff,
from one year before the date of this Complaint to the present.

Defendant regularly engages in debt collection, using the same form
collection letter it sent Plaintiff Davis, in its attempts to
collect defaulted consumer debts from other consumers, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Convergent is licensed as a debt collection agency.[BN]

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

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          SAWIN, SHEA & STEINKAMP, LLC
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 255-2600
          Facsimile: (317) 255-2905
          E-mail: john@sawinlaw.com

CONWAY, AR: Police Officers, Firefighters' Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Hale-Shelton, writing for Arkansas Democrat Gazette, reports
that lawyers for a group of Conway police officers and firefighters
whose lawsuit against the city has been pending since 2012 are to
gather for another round of negotiations with attorneys for the
city.

Filed in Faulkner County Circuit Court, the lawsuit accuses the
city of not adequately compensating employees between Dec. 2, 2001,
and Dec. 31, 2012, based on a pay grid they say was distributed to
each employee. [GN]




CR ENGLAND: Court Denies Renewed Harper Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MILTON HARPER; RONNIE STEVENSON; JONATHAN MITCHELL,
individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-906 (D. Utah), Judge
Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah denied the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.

The case arises from the compensation and training-expense
arrangements between the Plaintiff Class Members and the Defendant.
The Harper Named Plaintiffs assert various class claims arising
from two distinct interactions with Defendant C.R. England.  First,
they assert wage claims stemming from the model C.R. England
allegedly used to compensate them.  Second, they assert contract
claims relating to training expenses they allegedly incurred while
attending C.R. England's trucking school.6

The case is before the Court on remand from the Tenth Circuit.
Previously, the district court held a fairness hearing, granted
approval of a proposed class settlement, and certified a class for
the purposes of class settlement.  That class consisted of all
current and former truck drivers employed by C.R. England in the
State of California from March 12, 2014 to Oct. 6, 2016.  The
Objectors to the settlement appealed, arguing among other things
that the district court erred in certifying the settlement class.

Specifically, the Objectors challenged the validity and sincerity
of the Plaintiffs' contract claims.  As to validity, the Objectors
argued the Plaintiffs' contract claims were invalid because the
operative contracts were entered into before the start date of the
Class period; covered by a prior class-action release; outside the
statute of limitations; or covered by a contractual release.13 In
support of this argument, the Objectors directed attention to the
Plaintiffs' decision to not submit a declaration or other
admissible evidence showing the Plaintiffs actually possess viable
claims under a contract theory of liability.  Regarding sincerity
(i.e., good-faith), the Objectors argued the Plaintiffs added the
contract claims to their Second Amended Complaint "by joint
agreement of the parties in preparation for their settlement.  In
essence, the Objectors maintained the Plaintiffs' contract claims
were meritless, and therefore atypical of the Class' meritorious
claims.

The Tenth Circuit was unable to address the Objectors' arguments or
otherwise review the appropriateness of class certification because
the accompanying certification analysis was insufficiently
thorough.  The Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded for the district
court to more meaningfully explain its bases for class
certification.

The Court is now called on to rigorously analyze and determine
whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).  To conduct its analysis, it
considers the Harper Named Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, other court filings, and a
hearing transcript.  

Because the Plaintiffs supply no evidence of an "injury in fact,"
Judge Shelby concludes the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert
claims arising from the training-expense arrangements (i.e.,
contract claims).  He further finds Rule 23(a)'s typicality
requirement has not been satisfied because the Plaintiffs supply no
evidence they and the Class Members share the same legal or
remedial theory.  Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/5Q8W1I from Leagle.com.

Milton Harper, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Ronnie Stevenson, individuals,
on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated & Jonathan Mitchell, individuals, on behalf of themselves,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com --
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, pro hac vice & Lauren I. Scholnick
-- lauren@utahjobjustice.com -- STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK LLC.

C R England Inc, a Corporation, Defendant, represented by David B.
Dibble -- ddibble@rqn.com -- RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER, Drew R. Hansen
-- dhansen@tocounsel.com -- NOSSAMAN LLP, pro hac vice & Scott A.
Hagen -- shagen@rqn.com -- RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER.


CREATIVE WERKS: Cutrell Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Joseph Cutrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v., Creative Werks, LLC and Midwest Investors
Group, Inc. d/b/a Metro Staffing, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH04420
(Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 5, 2019) is a class action
complaint brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated against Defendants to stop Defendants'
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and
the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric
data.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") expressly
obligates Defendants to obtain an executed, written release from an
individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture,
collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or
biometric information, especially a fingerprint or fingerprint
geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it. BIPA
further obligates Defendants to inform their employees in writing
that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being
collected or captured; to tell its employees in writing for how
long it will store their biometric data or information and any
purposes for which biometric information is being captured,
collected, and used; and to make available a written policy
disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information.

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

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Elk Grove Village, Illinois
through on or about 2017-2018.

Creative Werks is an Illinois company and has at least one place of
business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS HEALTH: Perez Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Felix Perez, an individual, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation a/d/a CVS Caremark; CVS
Pharmacy Inc., a Rhode Island corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV-19-000292 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on April 5, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00249.

Plaintiff brought this putative class action on behalf of current
and former non-exempt employees who worked in Defendants'
California distribution centers. Plaintiff claims that he and
alleged putative class members were not compensated for time spent
undergoing security checks when arriving at and leaving the
distribution center; that waiting in line for security checks
caused him and alleged putative class members to work uncompensated
overtime hours; and that meal and rest periods were short, missed
or late due to security checks. Plaintiff also claims that he and
alleged putative class members were not paid vested vacation wages
at the end of their employment and were not paid all wages due at
the time of termination of their employment, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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


DELTA AIR: Donoff Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELTA
AIR LINES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs Judith Marilyn Donoff and Walter Cappillo ask
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons in the United States who purchased a trip
      insurance policy on Delta's website within the applicable
      limitations period;

   2. appointing Mr. Cappillo as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Leon Cosgrove and Robbins Geller as Class
Counsel.

The lawsuit alleges that Delta engaged in deceptive conduct and a
racketeering enterprise by intentionally creating the misimpression
that the insurance it offered to consumers on its website was
provided by an independent company. And Delta intentionally fails
to disclose to anyone that it operates the program to allow itself
to receive substantial illegal commission payments. Instead, Delta
purports to be acting in the best interests of its customers by
merely allowing a third party to market travel insurance on Delta's
website. Common evidence will be used at trial to prove that
Delta's misrepresentations and omissions are deceptive and that its
conduct is unlawful.

According to the complaint, Walter Cappillo purchased an insurance
policy through Delta's website on October 5, 2017.  Just like all
Class members, nothing on Delta's website  disclosed to Mr.
Cappillo that Delta was receiving a  commission from Allianz in
connection with his purchase of an insurance policy.  Mr. Cappillo,
as with all Class  members, received a copy of his insurance policy
from Allianz, which also failed to disclose Delta's profit
interest or reveal Allianz's commission payment to Delta.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.
          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305.740.1986
          Facsimile: 305.437.8158
          E-mail: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
                  aschultz@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  cgold@rgrdlaw.com
                  bbeall@rgrdlaw.com

Attorneys for Delta Air Lines:

          Lazaro Fernandez, Jr., Esq.
          Denise B. Crockett, Esq.
          STACK FERNANDEZ & HARRIS, P.A.
          1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 2650
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 371-0001
          E-mail: lfernandez@stackfernandez.com
                  dcrockett@stackfernandez.com
                  gmartich@stackfernandez.com
                  mwolf@stackfernandez.com

               - and -

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine P. Nobles, Esq.
          Edward Bedard, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com
                  pnobles@kslaw.com
                  ebedard@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Gayle I. Jenkins, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Tel: (213) 615-1863
          E-mail: gjenkins@winston.com
                  rsalyer@winston.com
                  docketla@winston.com


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Johnson Fistel Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Diplomat Pharmacy,
Inc. ("Diplomat") (NYSE: DPLO) common stock during the period
between February 26, 2018 through February 21, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, case No.
1:19-cv-01735.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Diplomat securities
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 25, 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.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Diplomat had downplayed
its success in integrating and growing its PBM business, which
included LDI Integrated and National Pharmaceutical, two companies
Diplomat had acquired in late 2017; (2) consequently, Diplomat
would need to record a non-cash impairment charge upwards of
approximately $630 million relating to its PBM business and these
2017 acquisitions; (3) due to the foregoing, Diplomat would
withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook issued less than
seven weeks prior; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements
about Diplomat's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Diplomat securities during the
Class Period.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Telephone: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. ("Diplomat" or the "Company")
(NYSE: DPLO) and certain of its officers and directors.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, and indexed under 19-cv-01642, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who acquired Diplomat securities between February
26, 2018 through February 21, 2019, both dates 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,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Diplomat securities between
February 26, 2018, and February 21, 2019, you have until April 25,
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.

Diplomat operates as an independent specialty pharmacy in the
United States.  Diplomat stocks, dispenses, and distributes
prescriptions for various biotechnology and specialty
pharmaceutical manufacturers.  It also provides specialty infusion
pharmacy, patient care coordination, clinical, compliance and
persistency program, patient financial assistance, specialty
pharmacy training/consulting, benefits investigation, prior
authorization, risk evaluation and medication strategy, retail
specialty, and hub services, as well as clinical and administrative
support services to hospitals and health systems.

In late 2017, the Company entered the pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") business through its December 2017 acquisition of LDI
Holding Company, LLC, doing business as LDI Integrated Pharmacy
Services ("LDI Integrated"), and its November 2017 acquisition of
Pharmaceutical Technologies, Inc., doing business as National
Pharmaceutical Services ("National Pharmaceutical").

Diplomat's PBM segment purports to "provide[] services designed to
help [its] customers reduce the cost and manage the complexity of
their prescription drug programs."  On April 30, 2018, Diplomat
launched a new brand, CastiaRx, which united its specialty pharmacy
capabilities with its PBM capabilities of LDI Integrated and
National Pharmaceutical to serve as a specialty benefit manager.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Diplomat had downplayed its success in integrating and growing
its PBM business, which included LDI Integrated and National
Pharmaceutical, two companies Diplomat had acquired in late 2017;
(2) consequently, Diplomat would need to record a non-cash
impairment charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to
its PBM business and these 2017 acquisitions; (3) due to the
foregoing, Diplomat would withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year
outlook issued less than seven weeks prior; and (4) as a result,
defendants statements about Diplomats business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On February 22, 2019, Diplomat filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing it was postponing the release of its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, due to a "recent
determination" that it would need to record a non-cash impairment
charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to 2017
acquisitions for its PBM business.  Diplomat also disclosed that it
was withdrawing its preliminary 2019 full-year outlook provided in
January.

On this news, shares of Diplomat fell $7.59, or over 56%, to close
at $5.87 per share on February 22, 2019.

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


DOORDASH INC: Moore Sues Over Illegal Tax Collection
----------------------------------------------------
Ashley Moore and Greg Safian, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DoorDash, Inc.,
Defendant, (D. Del., April 5, 2019) is a class action against
DoorDash for its unlawful practice of collecting sales tax from
customers located in the States that do not permit collection of
sales tax, including Delaware, New Hampshire, and Montana.

The complaint asserts that DoorDash's charging and collecting of
sales tax from customers, including those located in Tax-Free
States, is unlawful, unfair, and deceptive.

Prior to completing an order on the DoorDash website or app,
DoorDash provides customers with an overview of their order,
including the amount of sales tax to be charged. In reality, the
amount of sales tax is simply a disguised fee to DoorDash, which
DoorDash retains as revenue. Customers in Tax-Free States pay this
charge under the incorrect impression that it is a lawful, required
tax charge, when it is not. DoorDash has reaped millions of dollars
in unlawful sales tax charges from customers in Tax-Free States,
adds the complaint.

Plaintiffs have used DoorDash's services in the State of Delaware.

DoorDash is a nationwide on-demand food delivery company founded in
2013, which currently values itself at over $7 billion. The Company
provides customers with a web- or app-driven interface to order
food delivery from local restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     123 Justison Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: 302-622-7000
     Fax: 302-622-7100
     Email: kmcgee@gelaw.com


DR REDDY'S: Court Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Business Standard reports that Dr Reddy's Laboratories announced
that the audit of research and development facility of Aurigene
Discovery Technologies, a wholly owned subsidiary, situated at
Miyapur, Hyderabad by the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA),
completed on March 21, 2019. No FDA 483 was issued at the end of
inspection.

Meanwhile, the drug maker said that the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey has granted in part and denied
in part its motion to dismiss a U.S. Securities Class Action
Lawsuit.

On March 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued its decision (dated 20 March 2019)
granting in part and denying in part the drug maker's Motion to
Dismiss. The court has dismissed plaintiff's claims with respect to
17 out of the 22 alleged misstatements. Dr Reddy's Laboratories
said it believes that the remaining alleged claims of misstatements
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against
them. The announcement was made after market hours on Friday, March
22, 2019.

On a consolidated basis, net profit of Dr Reddy's Laboratories rose
65.28% to Rs 500.30 crore on 1.16% rise in net sales to Rs 3850
crore in Q3 December 2018 over Q3 December 2017.

Dr Reddy's Laboratories is an integrated pharmaceutical company.
[GN]


DUBLIN CONTRACTORS: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Marmolyo Asserts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Marmolyo, Michael Williams, Andrew Poker, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Dublin
Contractors, Inc. James Holton Sr. Gerald Holton Sr., Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00502-NJ (E.D. Wis., April 8, 2019) is a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and an
individual and class action under Wisconsin law by Plaintiffs,
current and former employees of Defendant, to seek redress for
Dublin's failure to pay legally required compensation to the
Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
Wisconsin law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs would occasionally report to
work and begin working a few minutes before their noticed start
time, or work for a few minutes past their scheduled quitting time,
but would still be paid based on their noticed start times and
scheduled quitting times. Dublin also permitted its employees to
bank their overtime hours worked, so that for those hours worked
they were paid at a later time. However, Dublin has not paid its
employees in full, at a rate equal to 1.5 times their hourly rates,
for their hours worked that were banked, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are adult residents of the State of Wisconsin who were
employed by Dublin.

Defendant Dublin is a Wisconsin company with a principal place of
business located in Butler, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Yingtao Ho, Esq.
     The Previant Law Firm S.C.
     310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
     Milwaukee, WI 53203
     Phone: 414-271-4500
     Fax: 414-271-6308
     Email: vh@previant.com


DYNAMEX: SCOTUS Ruling to Set New Test for Worker Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Rodd, writing for Stateline.org, reports that it started with
installing some red and green LED lights. Then came the disco
balls, neon eyeglasses and a gold Bluetooth karaoke microphone.

Daniel Flannery had transformed the car he drives for Uber and Lyft
into a party on wheels.

"You put everything together, and it encourages people to loosen
up," he said. "Sometimes, I have people call me up and say, 'We
don't want to go anywhere -- we just want to drive around and
sing.'"

Flannery, who drives to supplement his retirement income, said he
loves the freedom that comes with it -- setting his own schedule
and adding his own flair to what he dubs his "Swag Rides."

Much of that freedom comes from being classified as an independent
contractor. But a 2018 California Supreme Court decision could
change the nature of working in the gig economy while providing a
model for other states.

The "Dynamex decision," as it's commonly called, established a new
test for how businesses in California must classify workers.
Depending on how the state legislature acts, employment experts say
the decision likely will require a range of businesses -- from
ride-hailing companies to trucking firms to barber shops -- to
reclassify independent contractors as employees or to restructure
their business models.

Critics argue the decision threatens to disrupt industries that
have traditionally relied on independent contractors. Some
contractors, like Flannery, say they are worried that being
reclassified as an employee would limit the professional freedom
they currently enjoy in their work schedule, habits and rates.

But labor advocates argue the decision can help ensure that the
growing number of gig workers receive benefits, such as health
insurance coverage, and workplace protections, such as a guaranteed
minimum wage, overtime and workers' compensation.

The California labor department estimates that the practice of
wrongly classifying workers as contractors instead of employees
costs the state about $7 billion a year in potential payroll tax
revenues.

While some businesses have started reclassifying workers under the
new court test, others are awaiting the outcome of an ongoing
battle in the California legislature. Lawmakers might codify the
test in state law, override the decision or create carve-outs for
specific industries.

"We want to clear up any confusion about the new test," said
Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who introduced a bill in
December to preserve the court's decision in the state labor code.
"Instead of going piece by piece through the court system, we want
to codify it in law."

The court reached its decision in a lawsuit filed by drivers for
Dynamex, a delivery and logistics company that ships goods to
consumers. In 2004, the company reclassified its employees as
independent contractors. Drivers now had to use their own vehicles
and cover work-related expenses, such as liability insurance, fuel
and vehicle repairs.

The drivers pushed back, taking legal action to preserve their
status as employees. The court's decision determined Dynamex's
drivers should be classified as employees. The decision set a
precedent that would ostensibly apply to all employers in
California.

The Dynamex test is modeled on nearly identical tests established
in other states. Massachusetts changed its labor laws in 2004 to
apply the same test criteria, which has sparked legal challenges by
independent contractors aiming to be reclassified and by businesses
that want to continue to classify workers as independent
contractors.

In February 2018, for example, a Massachusetts appeals court ruled
against GateHouse Media, finding the company must classify its
newspaper delivery drivers as employees.

New Jersey's labor laws apply the same test, but state elected
officials disagree over its application and enforcement.

In 2013, then-Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have
automatically classified truck drivers as employees and imposed
harsh penalties against trucking companies that misclassified
drivers. The Republican argued it would make New Jersey "unfriendly
to the trucking industry."

The requirement that a worker perform a job outside the employer's
usual line of work is the most crucial part of the test, said Lukas
Clary, a Sacramento-based labor and employment attorney at
Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corp.

"Almost all pre-Dynamex independent contractors were hired to
perform work that is within the scope of the company's business,"
Clary told Stateline.

Clary said some industries, such as the trucking industry, see the
new test as an "existential" threat.

"This decision will potentially put me out of business – and
thousands of people like me," said John Pitta, the owner-operator
of a trucking business in Salinas.

Pitta drives a dump truck, a niche that makes his services in
demand. He contracts with larger trucking companies as an
independent contractor. He said he fears the Dynamex decision will
dissuade large trucking companies from hiring him because they
won't want to classify him as an employee.

In July, the Western States Trucking Association, which represents
large trucking outfits and independent truckers in 11 states, filed
suit against the state of California in federal court, claiming the
Dynamex decision is pre-empted by the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act of 1994. That law prohibits states
from enacting laws "related to a price, route, or service of any
motor carrier."

"Trucking companies … will either have to dramatically increase
their prices to account for all of the additional costs associated
with hiring employees, or they will have to dramatically reduce the
quantity and quality of services they provide," according to the
association.

Clary said many California businesses have started to reclassify
their workers as employees, while others are attempting to adjust
their business model.

"Misclassification can be extremely costly," Clary said. "If enough
workers are misclassified, the claims can be brought as class or
representative actions, and the damages could be multiplied across
the workforce."

Drivers and barbers

About 1 in 10 Californians in the previous year had participated in
the gig economy, such as driving for companies like Uber and Lyft,
a 2018 survey found. Conducted by the Public Religion Research
Institute, a nonpartisan polling group, the survey found that
nearly half the Californians who participated in the gig economy
were low-income.

The decision should extend employee benefits, such as guaranteed
minimum wage, health care coverage and overtime pay, to gig economy
workers, argues Shannon Liss-Riordan, a class action attorney and
partner at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. in Boston.

Liss-Riordan said she has filed lawsuits on behalf of workers
against all major gig economy employers, including Uber, Lyft,
Postmates and DoorDash.

Liss-Riordan is currently representing a worker in a lawsuit
against Grubhub in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in
California. The case seeks a declaration from the court that the
worker is an employee under the new Dynamex test.

But Loni Mahanta, vice president of public policy development at
Lyft, said in a statement that the company's drivers "are
independent contractors who decide when, where and for how long
they wish to drive," and that "they tell us that this flexibility
is incredibly important to them."

Flannery, the Uber and Lyft driver, said the flexibility goes
beyond the lights and karaoke microphone in his car – he also has
a medical condition that can prevent him from working, so he said
he needs to have control over his schedule.

Uber, DoorDash and Grubhub did not respond to requests for
comment.

To comply with the Dynamex test, Sacramento barbershop and cocktail
lounge Bottle & Barlow last summer reclassified its barber staff as
employees, instead of independent contractors. The shop's seven
barbers quit.

"It was strictly a business decision for me," one of the barbers,
Adrian Olivares, 27, said in an interview. "We would be making
minimum wage plus commission, (but) you can't live off that. We all
have bills to pay, and a lot of us have kids."

Olivares, who is married with a young daughter, estimates that
switching to minimum wage plus commission would have cut his pay by
60 percent.

Within three weeks of quitting, Olivares and three co-workers
leased a storefront, gutted the space and refurbished it with fresh
paint and new barber chairs. The shop opened under the name Midtown
Barbershop, but Olivares and his associates operate as individual
businesses, and they pay rent to control their respective chairs.

But Midtown Barbershop, at least on paper, is not a barber shop –
it's a real estate company. That allows the barbers to rent the
chairs and classify themselves as independent contractors. But it
also means the barbers have to secure a business license, on top of
their state barber license.

Competing legislation

Assemblywoman Gonzalez in an interview said she intends to include
a carveout in her bill for hair stylists and barbers to remain
independent contractors but for not truckers, saying that
historically they have been employees.

Jennifer Barrera, executive vice president of the California
Chamber of Commerce, which has criticized the Dynamex decision,
said she anticipates a vigorous debate in the legislature over who
should be exempt from the test under the proposed legislation.

"Some (carveouts) we'll agree on, and others we won't," Barrera
said in an interview.

Meanwhile, Republican Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez has introduced
a bill that would implement a "multifactor test" for classifying
workers, overriding the Dynamex test and making it easier for
employers to classify workers as independent contractors.

"Without clear legislative action, the Dynamex case could unravel
gig and tech economies and threaten the traditional business models
of Realtors, teachers, beauticians, truck drivers, construction
trades and countless other professions," Melendez said in a
statement.

Last year, nine gig economy companies, including Uber and Lyft,
signed a letter addressed to then-Gov. Jerry Brown's secretary of
labor and cabinet secretary, warning that the Dynamex ruling could
"decimate businesses" and "stifl(e) innovation."

Another company to sign the letter, the delivery service Postmates,
doesn't want to reclassify its workers as employees, according to
its vice president of global public policy and strategic
communications, Vikrum Aiyer. But, Aiyer added, Postmates and other
tech companies "have an obligation to work with labor unions and
policymakers to explore creative ways to achieve the best practices
and protections for workers."

Lyft also is working with drivers and lawmakers to find a potential
middle ground, Mahanta said in a statement. "We are engaging with
drivers, labor and policymakers to actively explore options to
allow drivers to maintain this flexibility while also addressing
the lack of benefits for independent contractors."

Employee vs. independent contractor

The new test established three criteria for employers to use to
identify a worker as an independent contractor.

   -- The worker must be free from the employer's "control and
direction" in carrying out duties

   -- The worker must perform a job outside the employer's usual
line of work; and must regularly do the same type of work as will
be done for the employer. [GN]


ECLINICAL WORKS: Court Dismisses Amrhein Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT AMRHEIN, as Administrator of the Estate of
STJEPAN TOT, and RANDY STERN, as Executor of the Estate of ANNETTE
MONACHELLI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ECLINICAL WORKS, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-11658-RGS (D.
Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (i) allowed the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice;
and (ii) denied as moot the Defendant's motion to strike nationwide
class allegations.

ECW is a leading cloud-based Electronic Health Records ("EHR")
vendor in the U.S. used by hospitals, doctors, health groups and
other healthcare and medical providers.  Its software is used by
130,000 physicians nationwide and is chosen by up to 90% of
healthcare providers.

The Plaintiffs allege that ECW violated its duty to patients by
failing to provide, secure and safeguard their healthcare records.
They also allege that ECW falsely represented to healthcare
providers, its certifying bodies and the federal government that
its software complied with the requirements for certification.
According to the Amended Complaint, ECW's software displayed
incorrect medical information, presented multiple patients'
information at once, failed to properly display medical history,
and did not accurately record the users' actions.  As a result, ECW
compromised the Plaintiffs' healthcare records, and those of
millions of patients nationwide.

In 2016, before his death, Tot learned that his physician could not
"deactivate" inaccurately recorded "active" problems.  After
Annette Monachelli died as a result of a cerebral aneurism in
February of 2013, Stern learned that her physician had ordered a
magnetic resonance angiogram ("MRA") that was never performed.
Although a Diagnostic Image ("DI") entry showed that her physician
had placed the order, the entry was not in the DI tab, indicating
that the ECW software either dropped the order or failed to
populate the appropriate screens through which orders are
communicated and tracked.  Stern contends that had Monachelli
undergone an MRA, her brain aneurysm could have been detected
before it ruptured, and possibly repaired.

Amrhein, as Administrator of Stjepan Tot's Estate, and Randy Stern,
as Executor of Annette Monachelli's Estate, bring the putative
class action against eClinical Works ("ECW"), for failing to
protect theirs and other patients' healthcare records.  

The Amended Complaint sets out five claims: breach of fiduciary
duty and constructive fraud (Count I), negligence (Count II),
breach of express warranty (Count III), breach of implied warranty
of merchantability and fitness for intended purpose (Count IV), and
unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 93A, Sections 2, 9 (Count V).

ECW moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. ECW
also moves to strike the nationwide class allegations. For the
reasons to be explained, ECW's motion to dismiss will be allowed
for lack of standing and ECW's motion to strike will be denied as
moot.

Judge Stearns finds that the Plaintiffs' reliance on identity theft
and data breach cases is misplaced.  In those cases, data was
stolen and at risk of being misused.  The Paintiffs do not allege
that their confidential information was breached by a third party,
but only that ECW's software produced inaccurate and unreliable
medical records.  While the Amended Complaint omits any suggestion
that Tot was personally harmed by his physician's inability to
deactivate inaccurately recorded medical information, it does
suggest that Monachelli may have suffered from the software's
failure to properly register her physician's request for an MRA.
However, the claim for class damages with respect to all five
counts is based on the allegation that no member of the Class can
rely on the accuracy and integrity of their healthcare records
maintained on ECW software.  Consequently, the Plaintiffs seek
class damages consisting of the cost of investigation and
remediation of compromised healthcare records.  They do not seek
damages for personal injury or wrongful death.

For purposes of standing, however, the problem is this: an
inability to rely on the accuracy of personal medical records is
not a concrete injury, nor does it create an imminent risk of harm.
Thus, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead an injury sufficient to
establish standing.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stearns allowed the Defendant's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without
prejudice.  He denied as moot the Defendant's motion to strike
nationwide class allegations.

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

Randy Stern, As Executor of the Estate of ANNETTE MONACHELLI, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by David M. Given -- dmg@phillaw.com -- Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, pro hac vice, Gordon Price Diefenbach
-- gordon@diefenbachlaw.com -- Diefenbach PLLC, pro hac vice &
Patrick M. Groulx, Isenberg Groulx LLC.

eCLINICAL WORKS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M. Wyatt --
geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, pro hac vice, James R. Carroll -- james.carroll@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Jessica D. Miller --
jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, pro hac vice.


EI DU PONT: Court Denies Bid to Stay Brunswick County Torts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. E.I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-CV-209-D (E.D.
N.C.), Judge James C. Denver, III of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, (i)
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss; (ii) denied their motion to stay; and (iii) granted their
motion to strike.

On March 2, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
consolidated class-action complaint, and filed a memorandum in
support.  On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs responded in
opposition.  On April 27, 2018, the Defendants replied.

The Judge (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss; (ii) denied their motion to stay; and (iii)
granted their motion to strike.  In due course, he will issue an
order expounding on his conclusions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ORw6Bi from Leagle.com.

Brunswick County, Plaintiff, represented by Brett D. Land --
info@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Carla Burke Pickrel,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Cary L. McDougal, Baron & Budd, P.C., M.
Cristina Sanchez, Baron & Budd, P.C., Stephen C. Johnston, Baron &
Budd, P.C. & J. Harold Seagle, J. Harold Seagle.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, a business entity form
unknown, The Chemours Company, a Delaware corporation & The
Chemours Company FC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Sasser --
jon.sasser@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters, LLP, John K. Sherk
-- jsherk@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kenneth J. Reilly
-- kreilly@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Mark D. Anstoetter
-- manstoetter@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Stephen D.
Feldman -- stephen.feldman@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters,
LLP.

Victoria Carey, Interested Party, represented by Andrew O.
Whiteman, Whiteman Law Firm & Steven M. Seigel -- sseigel@gmail.com
-- Susman Godfrey LLP.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Interested Party, represented
by Joseph A. Ponzi -- jponzi@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce
McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P..


FCA US: Directed to Produce Risk, Threat Assessments in Flynn Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE BROWN, KELLY BROWN, and MICHAEL
KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC and HARMAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-855-SMY-RJD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs, owners and lessees
of Chrysler vehicles, claim there is a design flaw in the Uconnect
system in certain Chrysler vehicles manufactured in 2013-2015.

The Uconnect system, manufactured by Harman International
Industries, Inc. ("Harman"), is an infotainment system that allows
integrated control over phone, navigation, and entertainment
functions in certain vehicles.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
design and installation of the Uconnect system makes it vulnerable
to hackers seeking to take remote control of the affected vehicles,
as reported in a 2015 WIRED magazine article.

District Judge Reagan issued an order on the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on July 5, 2018, certifying three classes of
the Plaintiffs on various consumer fraud and warranty claims.  On
November 29, 2018, Judge Reagan entered an order allowing the
parties to engage in additional merits-based discovery.  On March
5, 2019, this matter was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Reona J.
Daly to address pre-trial and discovery matters and the Court was
promptly made aware of a pending discovery dispute.

Generally, the Plaintiffs seek additional documents related to
Defendant FCA US LLC's ("FCA") penetration tests, cybersecurity
risk assessments, and consumer survey information. The Plaintiff
also contends that FCA's responses to various contention
interrogatories are improper and ask that the Court order FCA to
supplement the same.  A discovery dispute hearing was held on March
26, 2019.

The Plaintiffs ask, among other things, that FCA be ordered to
provide its vehicle threat and risk assessments that it maintains
on a dedicated repository.  At the hearing, FCA represented that
counsel recently discovered that such a repository exists, but was
not sure if it contains any documents that have not yet been
produced.  FCA represented that it would produce documents that had
not yet been produced, but indicated there is a dispute concerning
the scope of relevant documents.  The Plaintiffs posit that they
are entitled to information concerning the Affected Vehicles and
their components, as well as any information concerning potential
threats to any vehicles because there may be something in common
with the Affected Vehicles.

The Court is not convinced that the appropriate scope should be
threats to any vehicles.  The scope is not appropriately limited to
the claims at issue in this lawsuit and the Court finds that
production of such a wide breadth of documents is not proportional
to the needs of this case. However, FCA shall produce documents
discussing its risk and threat assessments related to the Affected
Vehicles by May 3, 2019.

Accordingly, the Magistrate issues the following amended Scheduling
Order:

   1. Plaintiffs' expert(s) must be disclosed by June 14, 2019.

   2. Plaintiffs' expert(s) must be produced for deposition by June
28, 2019.

   3. Defendants' expert(s) must be disclosed by July 12, 2019.

   4. Defendants' expert(s) must be produced for deposition by July
26, 2019.

   5. Merits discovery must be completed by August 9, 2019.

   6. Dispositive motions must be filed by August 23, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Order dated April 18, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y47yosd4 from Leagle.com.

Brian Flynn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, George Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Kelly Brown, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
D. Baucom, Esq. -- cbaucom@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD, Charles W. Steese, Esq. --
csteese@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, IJay
Palansky, Esq. -- ipalansky@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, Lloyd M. Cueto, Law Office of Lloyd M.
Cueto, P.C., Lucas T. Pendry, Esq. -- lpendry@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Stephen R. Wigginton, Law Office of
Stephen R. Wigginton & Michael J. Gras, Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD.

Michael Keith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Baucom,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Charles W. Steese, Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
Christopher F. Cueto, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD, Michael
J. Gras, Law Office of Christopher Cueto, LTD & Stephen R.
Wigginton, Law Office of Stephen R. Wigginton.

FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant,
represented by Jan Paul Miller, Esq. -- jmiller@thompsoncoburn.com
-- Thompson Coburn LLP, Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq. --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn, Stephen A.
D'Aunoy, Esq. -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn,
Sharon B. Rosenberg, Esq. -- srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com --
Thompson Coburn & Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq. --
tazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn.

Harman International Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth Mazzocco, Esq. -- emazzocco@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner,
LLP, John R. Trentacosta, Esq. -- jtrentacosta@foley.com -- Foley &
Lardner LLP, Kevin Michael LeRoy, Esq. -- kleroy@foley.com -- Foley
& Lardner, Michael D. Leffel, Esq. -- mleffel@foley.com -- Foley &
Lardner, Vanessa L. Miller, Esq -- vmiller@foley.com -- Foley &
Lardner LLP-Detroit & William J. McKenna, Jr., Esq --
wmckenna@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner.

Federico Chrysler Dodge, Interested Party, represented by William
J. Niehoff, Esq. -- wniehoff@mmrltd.com -- Mathis, Marifian &
Richter, Ltd..


FIRST CHOICE: Maz Partners Sues over Pump and Dump Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, MAZ PARTNERS LP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIRST CHOICE HEALTHCARE
SOLUTIONS, INC. and CHRISTIAN ROMANDETTI, SR., the Defendants, Case
No. 6:19-cv-00619 (March 29, 2019, M.D. Fla.), seeks 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
Exchange Act.

The case is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired First Choice
common stock from April 1, 2014 through November 14, 2018, both
dates inclusive.

First Choice is a non-physician-owned, healthcare services company
focused on the delivery of Orthopaedic care and treatment. Prior
to, and during, the Class Period, Romandetti participated in, and
profited from, a classic pump and dump scheme that manipulated and
artificially inflated the stock price of First Choice, along with
Elite Stock Research, Burnett, Miller, Sarro, and Vassallo.

Unbeknownst to the public, including First Choice investors,
beginning no later than September 2013, Burnett, Miller, Sarro, and
Vassallo, with the help of Romandetti, acquired large blocks of
First Choice shares. Next, Burnett, Miller, Romandetti and Sarro
engaged Elite Stock Research, a "boiler room" company operated and
controlled by Vassallo, to artificially promote, or fraudulently
"pump," the market price and trading volume of First Choice shares.


On November 14, 2018, the United States Department of Justice
("DOJ") filed a criminal indictment, and the following day, the SEC
filed a civil action against Romandetti and his co-conspirators --
Elite Stock Research, Vassallo, Burnett, Miller and Sarro -- for,
among other charges, securities fraud in connection with their
conducting a multi-million dollar pump and dump scheme from May
2013 through June 2016, to defraud investors in FCHS stock. Through
various manipulative trading practices, Romandetti and his
co-conspirators, defrauded investors in First Choice "by
artificially controlling the price and volume of traded shares in
FCHS through, inter alia: (a) artificially generating price
movements and trading volume in the shares; and (b) material
misrepresentations and omissions in their communications with
victim investors about the stock of FCHS."

The pump and dump scheme alone caused at least $2.5 million in
losses "to more than 100 unsuspecting retail investors", while
generating more than $3.3 million of illegal profits for the
participants in the pump and dump scheme, including $560,000 in
kickbacks for Romandetti. But the retail investor victims of the
pump and dump scheme were not the only First Choice investors
harmed by Defendants. During the Class Period, First Choice's SEC
filings, all of which were certified by Romandetti pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, repeatedly discussed
the volatility and fluctuations of the Company's stock prices,
attributing such volatility/fluctuations to a number of possible
factors, but not the fact that the price was being manipulated by
Romandetti and his co-conspirators.

Moreover, First Choice's SEC filings touted the Company's
"Compliance Program," including its Code of Conduct and Ethics put
in place "to deter wrongdoing" and "conflicts of interest," all
while Romandetti, the leader of First Choice, was willfully
engaging in such misconduct and conflicts of interest.
Additionally, Romandetti's signed SOX certifications that
misleadingly stated that Romandetti had disclosed "any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting." However, Romandetti failed to
disclose his own fraudulent conduct and involvement in the pump and
dump scheme. Finally, First Choice's SEC filings touted Romandetti
as a valuable asset of FCHS, when in fact he was a liability due to
his undisclosed illegal activities. When news of the pump and dump
scheme involving Romandetti was revealed to the public in the
November 14, 2018 DOJ Indictment, November SEC Complaint, and
November 15, 2018 DOJ and SEC press releases, First Choice common
stock declined $0.66 per share or nearly 65%, to close at $0.35 per
share on November 15, 2018, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
          Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-759-4600
          Facsimile: 212-486-2093
          E-mail: jruthizer@wolfpopper.com
                  cwaldman@wolfpopper.com

FORT SMITH, AR: Sued for Dumping Recyclables in Landfill
--------------------------------------------------------
Times Record reports that "wishful recycling" is a new term we were
introduced to.

It's when people put stuff like unwashed recyclables, plastic bags,
and even clothes, into their recycling bins thinking it will be
magically transformed into something else.

News alert: It doesn't transform.

It gets thrown in the trash, right alongside the banana peels and
broken coffee mugs.

While plastic bags and clothes are recyclable, they're not
"curbside" recyclables. And if you don't rinse out those black bean
cans and milk jugs, they're going to be thrown in the trash, too.

Proper recycling requires a little extra effort, and for that
matter, money. Get this: The city pays about $80 a ton to process
recyclable material, and about $30 a ton to not bother with it and
dump it in the landfill instead.

But no one expected improving our ecological footprint to be as
easy as throwing the Big Mac wrapper out the car window, right?

The Fort Smith sanitation director told a Times Record reporter
that if there's an unreasonable amount of what they consider trash
in the recycling bin, guess where all of that is going to end up.

Right. The dump. All that extra effort at home -- sorting and
separating, and picking up recyclables strewn all over the yard
after a strong wind comes and blows your bin over -- is wasted.

It won't be turned into a new playground for children to play on,
or be made into an airplane toy, or a food container or any other
number of things that plastic can be recycled back into. The only
thing it will be good for then is telling an archeologist a few
hundred years from now how dumb we were.

We're not sure yet how much of residents' recyclables the Fort
Smith Sanitation Department is dumping in the landfill. But any
unreasonable amount is too much, considering the wasted expense and
time this situation creates, not to mention the irony of it all.

The city of Fort Smith is in the middle of a long-running,
class-action lawsuit because it was dumping recyclables in the
landfill for several years. The lawsuit is in a holding pattern,
while the lawyers haggle over who is going to pay to notify
residents. But in the end, we're all going to pay for the mistake.
Whether the payment comes in the form of legal fees or the city's
reputation, the price will be significant. Just because we're a
Southern blue-collar community doesn't mean we can't do our due
diligence and be good stewards of the planet like the good Lord
intended.

The city of Fort Smith and its Sanitation Department has taken a
lot of heat over the aforementioned class-action lawsuit. For those
few people who have blocked all news coverage from their world, the
city was dumping a portion of the recyclables in the landfill for
several years, and between the summers of 2016 and 2017, the city
dumped all of the collected recyclable materials into the landfill.
In June 2017, the city entered into a contract with Third Rock
Recycling LLC, and now residents have the potential to get back on
track and make up for some lost ground.

But this won't happen without educated effort.

All of this dumping of recyclables in the landfill over "wishful
recycling" has us doing some wishful thinking. If you care about
recycling, work with the city to care to get it right.

Here are a few tips that we've published in the past, per the
city's guidelines:

   -- Residents can recycle steel and aluminum cans and plastic.
These include shampoo bottles, prescription medicine bottles
(without labels), dental floss containers and laundry detergent
bottles.

   -- Newspaper, office paper, magazines, phone books, envelopes
and catalogs. Citizens can also recycle corrugated cardboard,
cereal boxes, toilet paper rolls and paper towel rolls.

   -- Anything separated for recycling is supposed to be cleaned
and free of food, liquid or mildew. Otherwise, the contaminants
cause all of it to be disposed at the landfill.

   -- Clothing, plastic bags, glass, electronics, paint and oils
are not taken in the curbside recycling program.

The city of Fort Smith's website
(fortsmithar.gov/index.php/recycling) also has a colorful,
easy-to-read page that breaks down all of the needed information to
keep your recyclables on the right path and out of the landfill.

There are more suggestions and tips for reusing or recycling
materials at eccopartners.org, which is a website dedicated to
waste education from the Sebastian County Solid Waste District.

These resources are not "War and Peace," and spending a little time
now to get educated will save us all money and even more time in
the future. If residents can't make the effort to do recycling
right, it won't be the city to blame when the program becomes too
costly and ineffective to continue. [GN]


FRESH MARKET: Bid for Narrow Discovery in Arvilla FLSA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BETH ARVILLA, PATRICK RYAN, CHRISTINE THOM, THOMAS
BROOKS, THOMAS LEE SOUZA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE FRESH MARKET, INC., a
foreign profit corporation, Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-3129-T-33AAS (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold
Sansone of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, denied Fresh Market's Motion for Leave to
Conduct Narrow Discovery.

Fresh Market seeks leave to conduct narrow discovery to respond to
the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and notice to
employees of their opt-in rights.  The Plaintiffs oppose the
motion.

The Plaintiffs filed their collective class action complaint
against Fresh Market, alleging under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as amended.  The Court issued an FLSA Scheduling Order, staying all
discovery aside from that outlined in the order.  The Plaintiffs
moved for conditional certification and notice, and Fresh Market's
response is due on April 8, 2019.

Fresh Market requests leave to depose the Plaintiffs and opt-ins to
discovery stay.  The discovery period has not begun.

Magistrate Judge Sansone explains that when a party seeks discovery
absent a conditionally certified collective action, that discovery
request is often denied.  Because no collective action has been
conditionally certified, the requested discovery is premature.

Fresh Market cites Rolle v. TPUSA, Inc., to support its request to
conduct narrow discovery.  However, the Magistrate finds that Rolle
relied on certain circumstances not present in the instant case,
including the fast-approaching discovery deadline and the lack of a
discovery is in place.

Considering the foregoing, she denied Fresh Market's Motion for
Leave to Conduct Narrow Discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RkH81b from Leagle.com.

Beth Arvilla, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Patrick Ryan, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Christine Thom, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Thomas Brooks, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated & Thomas Lee Souza, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by William Jonathan Sheslow -- will@theFLlawfirm.com --
Whittel & Melton, LLC & Jay Paul Lechner --
lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com -- Whittel & Melton, LLC.

Donald Hammons, Wendell Gordon & Michael Grippo, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jay Paul Lechner, Whittel & Melton, LLC.

The Fresh Market, Inc., a foreign profit corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kevin Douglas Zwetsch -- kevin.zwetsch@ogletree.com
-- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Ina Franziska
Young -- ina.young@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.

Mark Hanley, Mediator, pro se.


G.A.M. TORRES: Manuel-Macedo Seeks Overtime Wage for Cooks
----------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO MANUEL-MACEDO, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216 (b), the Plaintiff, vs. G.A.M. TORRES II, LLC, a/k/a
G.A.M. TORRES LLC II, a/k/a POETRY PLACE EVENTS, d/b/a FISH N'
TAILS OYSTER BAR, MIGUEL ANGEL TORRES RAMIREZ, GUILLERMO TORRES,
ROBERTO TORRES, and ALEX RODRIGUEZ, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00782-L (N.D. Tex., March 29, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cook at "Fish N' Tails
Oyster Bar" restaurants in Garland, Texas and in Plano, Texas from
August 29, 2016 through March 17, 2019.

The case is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action. The
Defendants have allegedly employed other similarly situated
employees like the Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime for
work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly and/or minimum wages as
required by the FLSA as a result of being paid set weekly salaries
regardless of the hours actually worked.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL , P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: 972-233-2264
          Facsimile: 972-386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com

GARFIELD BEACH: Naffaa Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Moeses Naffaa, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARFIELD BEACH CVS,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RIC1901707 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 5, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00616.

Plaintiff claims that he and alleged putative class members were
routinely given workloads that would reasonably be accomplished at
50 to 60 hours per work week, and worked in 50 or more hours per
week without receiving overtime compensation or minimum wage.
Plaintiff also claims that he and alleged putative class members
were not permitted off-duty meal and rest breaks, were not provided
with accurate wage statements, and were not timely paid earned
wages at the time of termination, says the complaint.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
     Megan McDonough, Esq.
     MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     300 South Grand Avenue
     Twenty-Second Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
     Tel: +1.213.612.2500
     Fax: +1.213.612.2501
     Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
            megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com


GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows Claims in Hilsley Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part, with
leave to amend, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, CRYSTAL
HILSLEY, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased the Defendants' fruit
flavored snacks multiple times, brought the putative class action
alleging that the product label was misleading to consumers because
it falsely claimed that the snacks had "no artificial flavors" and
were "naturally flavored," although they contained d-l malic acid
as an artificial flavoring.  According to the complaint, d-l malic
acid is a synthetic petrochemical.  It confers a tart, fruit-like
flavor to help make the Products -- which are over 50% corn syrup
and sugar -- taste more like fruit.  Furthermore, the Plaintiff
contends that listing malic acid among the ingredients by its
generic name is independently misleading to the consumers.

The Plaintiff filed the action in State court, which tje Defendants
removed.

The complaint alleges violations of California Unfair Competition
Law, California False Advertising Law, and California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of express and implied
warranties. It was filed against General Mills, as the manufacturer
and General Mills Sales, Inc. as the distributor.  Also named were
two advertising agencies and five media companies, which licensed
the use of children's cartoon characters for marketing.  

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims under Rule
12(b)(6).
  Throughout their motion, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff
does not sufficiently allege that malic acid is an artificial
flavor, or that it was used as a flavoring agent in the fruit
flavored snacks.  They claim that General Mills used malic acid as
a pH control agent and not as an artificial flavor.

Judge Lorenz finds that the Plaintiff has alleged the underlying
facts with sufficient specificity to plausibly allege her claims.
Whether the Plaintiff is correct that General Mills used the d-l
form of malic acid, and whether it used malic acid as a flavoring
agent rather than a pH balancing agent are issues of fact that
cannot be resolved at the pleading stage.

Next, the Judge finds that insofar as the Plaintiff's claims are
based on failure to label the fruit snacks as artificially
flavored, they are not preempted.  The Plaintiff's claims are based
on the contention that Defendants did not comply with this
requirement.  In addition, the FDA regulations do not require that
malic acid be listed in the ingredients by a more specific name.
To the extent the Plaintiff's claims are based on the contrary
proposition, they are preempted.

He also finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a UCL
violation.  The Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the product
label violated 21 C.F.R. Section 101.22.  The Sherman Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sections 109875 et
seq., which the Plaintiff alleged as the basis of her UCL claim,
incorporates FDA regulations by reference.

He further finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged breach of the
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.  To the
extent she relies on this theory for her implied warranty claim,
the claim is dismissed.

As to the claims against the Advertiser and Licensor Defendants,
the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's allegations do not provide the
facts necessary to raise her "right to relief above the speculative
level."  Accordingly, insofar as the Defendants move for dismissal
of the claims asserted against the Advertiser and Licensor
Defendants, their motion is granted.

Finally, the Judge granted the Plaintiff leave to amend her implied
warranty claim to allege facts in support of the implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose.  The Plaintiff is also granted
leave to allege facts in support of her claims against the
Advertiser and Licensor Defendants.  Leave to amend is denied as to
the preempted portion of the Plaintiffs' claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lorenz granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The motion is granted
insofar as: (1) any claim based on the Defendant's failure to list
d-l malic acid on the list of ingredients is preempted; (2) the
Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied warranty is dismissed
to the extent she relies on the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; and (3) all of the Plaintiff's claims are
dismissed as to the Advertiser and Licensor Defendants.  In all
other respects, the motion is denied.

The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her implied warranty claim
and claims asserted against the Advertiser and Licensor Defendants.
If the Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she must do
so no later than 21 calendar days after the Order is filed.  The
Defendants will file their response, if any, no later than 14
calendar days after the service of the Plaintiff's amended
complaint.  If she chooses to forego amendment, the Defendants'
response, if any, will be filed no later than 35 calendar days
after the Order is filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3peEaK from Leagle.com.

Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Elliot --
davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com -- The Elliott Law Firm, Michael
Houchin -- admin@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron, Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office
of Ronald Marron & Tania Babaie, Law Offices of Ronald A Marron.

General Mills, Inc. & General Mills Sales, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Charles C. Sipos -- CSipos@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice, David T. Biderman --
DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP & Lauren Watts
Staniar -- LStaniar@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac
vice.

McCann-Erickson USA, Inc., Saatchi & Saatchi North America, Inc.,
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Universal City Studios LLC,
Viacom International Inc. & Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Defendants,
represented by Charles C. Sipos, Perkins Coie LLP, David T.
Biderman, Perkins Coie LLP & Lauren Watts Staniar, Perkins Coie
LLP, pro hac vice.


GENERAL MILLS: Lopez Balks at Real Cocoa Labeling in Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Oscar Lopez individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. General Mills Sales, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01841 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2019),
targets Defendant's deceptive labeling of Cocoa Products, including
Chocolate Cheerios, Cocoa Puffs, Chocolate Toast Crunch, Chocolate
Chex and other seasonal cereals (i.e., Count Chocula).

According to the lawsuit, the Chocolate Cheerios' front label
states "Made with Real Cocoa" while the back label contains the
outline of a "Cheerio" shape made from cocoa powder with strips of
chocolate, stating: "Cocoaoooh Yeah! Made with real cocoa for
chocolatey goodness. From cocoa bean to bowl, the real flavor of
cocoa in your Cheerios is a chocolatey treat. Go ahead, indulge.
With no artificial flavors or colors from artificial sources, and
whole grain oats, you deserve it." The Cocoa Puffs, Chocolate Toast
Crunch and Chocolate Chex similarly emphasize the importance and
presence of cocoa: "Made With Real Cocoa mmm REAL cocoa & cinnamon
Made With 100% Real Cocoa."  The representations are false,
misleading and deceptive because their ingredient lists disclose
they actually contain "Cocoa Processed with Alkali", the lawsuit
says.

Cocoa powder ("cocoa") is the "core of a chocolate's flavor,
without any extra fat, sugar, or milk to get in the way."  Cocoa
powder is derived from cocoa beans, which are fermented and dried
before their shells are cracked by large rollers. What remains are
the edible portions of the cocoa bean called "nibs." The nibs are
crushed and ground into a fine paste, a process which breaks open
their cellular structure and causes release of the fat in the nibs
(cocoa butter).  Friction during this process produces enough heat
to melt the cocoa butter, and the combination of crushed, ground
nibs and cocoa butter produces chocolate liquor. The chocolate
liquor is pressed between hydraulic plates to squeeze out at least
half of the excess cocoa butter.

The remaining hard-cocoa cakes are then grated into a fine powder.
Depending upon the end-use, not all of the fat from the cocoa
butter (c. 50% fat) will be extracted in producing cocoa powder.
The result is powders of different qualities, based on the percent
remaining of their most valuable constituent -- fat: high or
"breakfast cocoa" (22% +), medium or "cocoa" (10-12%) and lowfat
cocoa (less than 10%).

The Defendant's representation of the cocoa as "real cocoa" gives
the false impression that the cocoa powder is not modified prior to
the point which it would otherwise be suitable for inclusion into
the Products. The representation "real cocoa" is false, deceptive
and misleading because consumers expect "real cocoa" to indicate a
higher quality cocoa than had the ingredient merely been accurately
identified as merely "cocoa," the term for when the fat content is
between 10% and 22%.  By misrepresenting medium fat cocoa as "real
cocoa," consumers will expect the cocoa powder component to be
nutritionally and organoleptically superior than it actually is.

Such a type of higher fat cocoa -- above 22% -- is referred to as
breakfast cocoa, which has a more intense "chocolate-y" flavor. The
Products contain other representations which are misleading and
deceptive. As a result of its false and misleading labeling,
Defendant was able to sell its Products to hundreds of thousands of
consumers throughout the United States and realize large profits,
the lawsuit says.

General Mills manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
chocolate-based breakfast cereals to consumers from third-party
brick and mortar stores and websites.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., No. 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0052
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

GEORGE WESTON: Gets Favorable Ruling in Negligence Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Times discusses the case captioned Das v. George Weston Limited
(2018).

Civil Practice and Procedure
Class and representative proceedings
Representative or class proceedings under class proceedings
legislation

No duty of care on service provider to third party to perform
activity outside scope of limited retainer

Defendant retailer purchased clothes from manufacturer whose
factory was in building in Bangladesh. Building collapsed, 1,130
people died, and 2,520 people were seriously injured. Retailer had
retained defendant consulting services enterprise to conduct what
was known as "social audit" of factories in Bangladesh, including
one of factories in building in issue. Plaintiffs, four citizens of
Bangladesh, commenced proposed class action in Ontario pleading
causes of action in negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of
fiduciary duty against retailer, and pleaded negligence action
against consulting services enterprise. Defendants were successful
in their motions to have proposed class action dismissed as it was
held laws of Bangladesh governed plaintiffs' claim, claim was
limitations-barred for all class members other than minors at time
of collapse, and defendants did not owe class members duty of care.
Plaintiffs appealed. Appeal dismissed. Essence of claim was based
on injuries and since injuries occurred in Bangladesh, governing
law was that of Bangladesh. Motion judge's determination that
Bangladesh's one-year limitation period applied to claims in
wrongful death and personal injury was correct. Plaintiffs'
submission that limitation period did not run respecting retailer
under s. 13 of Bangladesh's Limitation Act, 1908, which tolled
limitation period while defendant was absent from country was not
accepted. With reference to Indian case law, provision did not
apply because plaintiffs pleaded that retailer was engaged in
garment manufacturing activities in Bangladesh, and retailer's
representatives visited Bangladesh. With respect to claim against
retailer, alleged duty of care was not analogous to those found in
English authorities that held parent companies liable for actions
of subsidiaries. Among other things, English cases were
distinguished in that retailer had little control over factories;
was not in same business as factories, did not have superior
knowledge or expertise about issues of structural safety; and did
not undertake to audit building for structural safety. Similarly,
respecting claim against consulting services, it was plain and
obvious that no duty of care was owed to plaintiffs since
consulting services had not undertaken to inspect for structural
integrity. No precedent case law imposed duty of care on service
provider to third party to perform activity outside scope of its
limited retainer. Possibility was acknowledged that defendants
could owe duties of care to third parties, including class members,
however, scope of that duty was limited by defendants'
undertakings.

Das v. George Weston Limited (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 21598, 2018
ONCA 1053, Doherty J.A., K. Feldman J.A., and D.K. Gray J. (ad hoc)
(Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 10590, 2017 ONSC
4129, Perell J. (Ont. S.C.J.). (Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2017), 2017
CarswellOnt 14604, 2017 ONSC 5583, Perell J. (Ont. S.C.J.). [GN]


GERMANY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Namibia Genocide Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro, writing for New Era Live, reports that "It
is fair to conclude that the efforts to have the German government
recognise genocide and pay reparations has failed to produce the
desired results thus far. This was to be expected. Despite the
fevered rhetoric in Namibia around this issue," says a retired
eminent Namibian and a veteran politician in his own right.

The genocide and reparation campaign seems to have been dragging on
for years now without any workable, legitimate, and credible
conclusion in sight. It all started with late Ovaherero Paramount
Chief Kuaima Riruako and his close aide Professor Kerina Mburumba,
who led a pack of Otjiherero-speaking eminent and traditional
folks-men and women with the first claim filed with the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, against the Deutsche Bank for
N$28 billion (two billion U.S. dollars) in compensation. The case
was moved to the federal court and then dismissed in 2004 "for
failure to state an actionable claim". Circuit Judge Randolph
determined that the complaint "did not identify the specific law
supplying the cause of action", which left applicants (Ovaherero)
without a statutory basis for asserting jurisdiction.

The case against Deutsche Bank was refiled in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York and again dismissed because
it made the same claims that already had been decided on in 2004.
The Ovaherero tried once more in 2006 with a case against Woermann
Brock, a company that bought prisoners. The case was filed in the
US District Court of New Jersey with the Ovaherero alleging forced
enslavement and crimes against humanity under the Alien Tort Claims
Act. The case was dismissed in 2006, without a "valid cause of
action under ATCA" and because "the applicable statute of
limitations had expired". The Ovaherero appealed this case in 2007
in the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, resulting in the
same conclusion.  

This by no means meant the end as the prime mover, Riruako
soldiered on until the case gained local and international
momentum, especially after the centennial commemoration of the
genocide of the Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama at Ohamakari in
2004.

After a few years of Riruako and the Ovaherero and Ovambanderu
Genocide Foundation, and the Nama Genocide Technical Committee,
with parliamentarian Ida Hoffman at its forefront as well as the
Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama Council for Dialogue 1904
(ONCD1904) in their own way separately, a motion tabled by Riruako
was unanimously adopted by the Namibian National Assembly in 2006.
This motion, the Namibian government has since been maintaining,
forms the basis of the ongoing negotiations between it and the
German government on genocide and reparations.

"Following this adoption, a Parliament to Parliament process
started on the reparations.

While, I was still a backbencher, I accompanied the Hon. Speaker
who was invited for a visit by his counterpart of the Bundestag,
and while there, I attended the discussions on the reparations in
the Bundestag. Some parliamentarians in the German Bundestag
supported it but eventually the motion seeking a formal apology and
consideration of restorative justice was defeated.

Against this background, we said let the government take up this
matter on a State to State basis, because international practice
dictates that Non-7 State Actors such as individuals and groups
cannot negotiate with State Actors and governments." Geingob, then
Prime Minister updated the National Assembly, particularly
Kazenambo on the progress on the issue.

Surely, this is an explanation some affected communities have been
suspicious of, if not rejecting it in total. Close to 13 years
after the motion, the talks have yet to deliver anything tangible,
especially in the eyes of the affected communities of the
Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama, some of whom have been saying they
have been excluded from the ongoing negotiations.

"Pursuant to this 2016 Ohamakari Declaration -- we reserve every
right to seek whatever political and legal recourse against any
intransigent authority, and to take any action, against   whoever
stands in the way of the just and legitimate cause of our people.
We pledge to continue to ever, untiringly and unwaveringly be
seized with this issue as well as to continuously make the Namibian
government and the government of the Federal Republic of Germany
aware of our resoluteness to have the issue of genocide and
reparation ever on their agenda for as long as they continue to
discuss "us, without us"!

"Finally, we shall dedicate ourselves to ensure that, unless we
become part of the process to resolve this vexed problem, that the
issue of genocide and reparations enjoy the requisite attention and
resolutions by regional, continental and international governmental
organisations like Sadc, AU, EU, OAS, Nam and the United Nations to
mention but a few."

"This is to the extent that ultimately, as long as the government
of the Federal Republic of Germany remains intransigent on the
issue of genocide and reparations, it becomes an international
pariah State," reads the said declaration signed by the affected
communities during the 112th commemoration of the Battle of
Ohamakari at Okakarara on August 13, 2016.

Consequent to the Ohamakari Declaration, the affected communities
outside the negotiations launched a lawsuit in the USA with United
States District Court of New York against the government of the
Federal Republic of Germany on January 5, 2017. This is for among
others damages for loss of lives because of the 1904-1908 genocide,
and notably for inclusion in the ongoing negotiations between the
two governments.  Two years after the court's verdict in this
regard is now out, upholding Germany's plea and countermotion
against the initial application that the court does not have
jurisdiction to try the country under the Foreign Service Immunity
Act (FSIA) of the United States.

Where to now? Given that both attempts has as yet to see the
desired outcome, which is reparation for the Ovaherero, Ovambanderu
and Nama; here in Namibia and in the Diaspora, especially Botswana
and South Africa.

"Yes, the case is no longer in our hands. It is in the hands of the
Namibian and Germans governments, and in the court. With us now
reduced to screaming," reflects Ida Hoffman, one of the first, if
not the only lone voice of the Nama on genocide and reparations.  

"Until it is understood that genocide/reparations dispute, is
universal and not only confined to Namibia, nothing will be
resolved between Windhoek and Berlin!" opines retired diplomat, Ben
Karamata.

"From forums like Keetute, one hears that the discussion
(Otjihingiriro) between the two governments is nearing the end
(after about eight rounds).  As far as I am concerned there is no
resident German ambassador who has used the term genocide when
referring to the killings of the Namas and the Ovahereros during
the 1904 war; the reference term is mainly "those atrocities."
Thus it begs the question if the German government still refuses to
acknowledge the killings as genocidal, how can the discussion reach
a conclusion; or perhaps the discussion is based on "those
atrocities in the past", and if that is the case then that is a
total betrayal of our ancestors whose blood watered our freedom,"
says Uazuvara Honga who has been close to the reparations movement
since picking up momentum in 2003 to this day.

"This issue would have been concluded had the Namibian government
kept to the letter and spirit of the Parliamentary motion of 2006,"
says Muvatera Ndjoze-Siririka another close observer and activist
of the reparations campaign.

Mburumba on his part does not think it is late for amends to the
process where mistakes have been with a caveat that current
president Hage Geingob has meant well with the ongoing
negotiations. However, he emphasises that the campaign to get
Germany to acknowledge and recognise the genocide of the Namibian
people and subsequently to atone thereto was started by specific
people. Whom the government must recognise and consult.

"The legitimate starting point should have been for any government
initiating some interest in this matter, whether by social
obligation or by invitation or appeal from the victims, to first
affirm the victims as the owners and primary players in this
course. In that way then the said government should have explored
avenues or sought audience with any other government that houses
any section of the victims. This would have been with a view for
the said governments to canvass operational strategies and
consolidate their efforts as a common force, working in a parental
capacity and further playing a representative participatory role on
behalf of the victims. There should have also been an internal
modus operandi especially outlining the roles and parameters of
each party's participation between the victims and the collective
governments' structure. And the talks with Germany would be either
through direct dialogue with the victims or their representatives,
or elected to be done by the governments structure on terms set and
agreed in the best interests of the victims (assuming they have a
composite structure or any other credible representative organs),"
opines yet another descendant of the victims of genocide, adding a
voice of the Diaspora, especially from Botswana.  

"The United Nations (UN) recognised the Ovaherero and Nama genocide
as genocide under the UN Convention on genocide.  The Namibian
government and that of Germany are both UN members, therefore one
wonders how do these two governments get it right on renaming the
Ovaherero and Nama genocide into political, moral and atrocities
contrary to or in gross violation of the principles of UN genocide
Convention, an international body to which they are member states?"
muses Kazenambo Kazenambo, a descendant of the victims also born in
the Diaspora in Botswana and who may also represent the voices of
other descendants in the Diaspora, be that in Botswana or South
Africa and beyond.

"Dr Zed credibility is verified as a Diplomat, an academic by
qualification, a Historian and a descendant of the victims of
genocide himself but the problem that results from what I think is
an " ethical blind spot " kind of a situation is that he has
subjected himself to an operation framework that preaches a dogma
that has compromised him to an extent of now not being here nor
there.  What can he claim to be solely in his power? Remember he
seeks approval from the PS even if he wants to respond to an
article in the media. Perhaps we should write an article with the
heading: The degradation of an icon through state capture and
non-progressive diplomatic endeavours," opines Negro Katupose from
the Kambazembi Traditional Authority but in his private and
individual capacity.

"It is hard to see the current government led negotiations leading
to such an outcome.   I am afraid, political and economic
opportunism rather than a deep understanding of the effects of the
genocide and a genuine desire to right a wrong motivates these.  
In fact, I am afraid any agreement based on the current governments
led negotiations will lead to further marginalisation and
victimisation of the affected communities - aided by the Namibian
government.  How can a flawed process, where people feel alienated
and marginalised, lead to empowerment?" are the initial comments of
Dr Kavemuii Murangi, one of the descendants of genocide in the
Diaspora in the United States of America. Dr Murangi is the
Director and co-founder with Jephta Nguherimo, of the US-based
Ovaherero/Manderu and Nama Genocides Institute (ONGI).   

These views may seem divergent as their holders may be diverse but
there is a common theme underlying all of them. Those ongoing
efforts at reparations are yet to reach the Promised Land and
deliver milk and honey ala reparations. As limited as they may be,
they flatly goes against the excitement of some that the Namibian
and German governments' negotiations on genocide and reparations,
which in February entered and concluded the latest round talks in
Swakopmund in Namibia. The latest round yet again seemed to invoke
the usual premature excitement, among some participants, that the
end is nearer, albeit a cautious one. With real business, only
beginning now as some have been heard saying but that other fellow
players saw as nothing more than a delusional slip of the young.
This is after close to five years of intense expectations by
especially the affected communities, that these negotiations have
been less than businesslike.

During latest round of negotiations, the German government has
understandably eventually conceded that indeed what was inflicted
on the Ovambanderu, Ovaherero and Nama by colonial Germany,
especially between 1904 and 1908, was genocide. Only time will tell
because as there has been nothing official, either from the
Namibian or German government, to affirm this. Not while even
Geingob is still calling on the German government to accept
genocide. The President made this appeal lately in Gibeon in the
Hardap Region in the south of Namibia on the repatriation of some
looted colonial artefacts from Germany, a Bible and whip belonging
to erstwhile Nama Captain Hendrik Witbooi of the Witbooi cultural
group.

In addition, the observers and opinion makers quoted earlier in
this article, the jury is obviously yet to come out on the entire
reparations campaign, irrespective which side, in terms of
delivery.

Neither could Namibia's special envoy on genocide and reparations,
Dr Ngavirue, categorically assure that indeed the road is nearer
following the recent negotiations. He on March 14 brief descendants
of genocide about the negotiation's progress. This was during the
commemoration of the death of erstwhile Ovaherero Paramount Chief
Samuel Maharero, the Commander-in-chief of the Ovaherero and
Ovambanderu during the very war of resistance against Imperial
Germany, which eventually culminated in their genocide.  Informing
that indeed the Germany has accepted genocide as such, and is ready
to apologise, the special envoy says she has yet to agree to any
atonement, having disagreed with the Namibian's government
submission although not disputing its content. Namibia has to jump
to the current ostensible window of opportunity by the Angela
Merkel administration, or given the changing political landscape in
German with Merkel exiting, be prepared to wait another 20 years or
so. However, the special envoy could let the cat out of the bag
what the counter German proposition entails in monetary terms safe
that it entails building houses, vocational training,
electrification, etc. Nor would he let it out whether this is part
of the reparation quantum and what the actual quantum is, as well
as for how long such projects would be extended to the affected
communities. However, that briefly, Dr Ngavirue is the current
scenario regarding the negotiations. It is for the affected
communities to inform him (Dr Ngavirue) and fellow on the
negotiating team, which is which.

"The late Paramount Chief, Dr Kuaima Riruako tabled a motion in
the Namibian parliament to pave way for the 1904 genocide
engagement; this engagement (as per his intention) was supposed to
have been on three fronts: the German Government, the descendants
of 1904 genocide (wherever they may find themselves) and the
Namibian Government.  

Nevertheless, the Namibian government changed this format and the
engagement (directly that is) is between the Namibian government
and the German government," says Honga.

Ala, Honga, the first thing should have been to develop a framework
for the discussion with its approval by the Namibian parliament for
the Cabinet to execute.  " How can the negotiations reach a
conclusion without the Namibian parliament getting regular
feedbacks as to what has been agreed on what is still pending;
because I am positive that if the Namibian parliament was getting
regular feedbacks they would have influenced these negotiations
differently." "As far as I am concerned the deal breaker should be
the refusal of the German government to use the word genocide.
Therefore, to me negotiations are on the wrong path and the
Namibian parliament should immediately call the Cabinet to order
and stop the process of negotiation: it is not bearing any fruits
at all; rather it is confusing the Namibian Nation as to what is
happening," says Honga.

To him a descendant of the 1904 genocide, he would only be
satisfied if the following are in place:

Initially the framework for reparation dialogue is discussed and
agreed upon among all stakeholders (that did not happen)

Relevant stakeholders are identified at the start (e.g. decedents
of 1904 genocide, German government, Government of the Republic of
Botswana, Our own Government and the Government of the Republic of
South Africa)

Role of stakeholders is defined

Terminologies for discussion are defined up front (to avoid any
ambiguity during the negotiation process)

The apology becomes the prelude for any discussion (i.e. apology
first)

A neutral arbitrator is identified and agreed upon by all (e.g. the
UN)

Direct participation of the descendants of 1904 genocide at the
negotiating table (and not indirectly); thus, they will be
signatory to the outcome and not signed by someone else on their
behalf.

Karamata says for the genocide issue to take a different dimension
and direction from all current efforts, among them the ongoing
negotiations between the Namibian and German governments, the
undermentioned must pertain sino quanon;

A universal consensus must emerge among the genocide descendants in
and outside Namibia in terms of formulating an agenda and form;

A multilateral diplomatic framework under the auspices of the UN,
bringing citizens of countries were descendants of genocide reside
such as Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Namibia, South Africa, Togo,
and such persons in the Diaspora, mainly due to Namibia's lack of
Universal Jurisdiction to convene such a Diplomatic Genocide
Conference, as an affected party who's impartiality would be in
doubt;

Stakeholders within Namibia not only traditional authorities but
other stakeholders as well be it political parties in parliament or
civic societies not represented by traditional authorities or
genocide committees affiliated to neither authorities or political
parties must agree on a common blueprint before any talks with
Germans but in line with a Universal agenda agreed to by all
stakeholders in and outside Namibia;

Ethnic solidarity and unity among the victim communities are
prerequisites to any resolution of the dispute with Germany;

Germany's intentions are clear not acknowledging genocide not
offering an apology not ready to pay reparations, concepts embedded
in international law with legal obligations, but cleverly   trying
to invent new narratives of atrocities, reconstruction, terms never
used in any case under international law or conventions about
genocide are evidence enough to conclude that Germany is dishonest
and never had honourable intentions, thus not ready to resolve the
issue on the table;

Until it is understood that Genocide/Reparations dispute, is
universal and not only confined to Namibia nothing will be resolved
between Windhoek and Berlin none!

Germany must admit that this genocide was the first of the
twentieth century, says Ndjoze-Siririka. "And since we already had
the Jewish precedence, the same procedures and processes would
apply. That is, they must deal directly with the Nama/Herero
nations or people as they dealt with the Jewish International
Conference, the state of Israel and other Jewish representatives,"
he emphasises.  While agreeing to a role for the Namibian
government, he thinks it should "not try to usurp our role as
affected communities".  "My call to the Namibian government is that
it should let my people free to decide their own destiny. Provide
that necessary support that you would be called upon to render,"
pleads Ndjoze-Siririka.

"As for the Class Action Court Case in New York, I see this as the
only salvation to this issue of Genocide, Apology and Reparation.
It must be understood that our case is of genocide, and we as the
affected communities, expect unreserved apology from the German
government and people," says he. According to him, the next step is
for the German government to trace its steps, and remember how it
dealt with the Jewish people. "Should the German government fall
short in tracing their steps, they should know they have the
Nama/Herero on their doorstep and we would continuously demand our
right as affected communities. It is my considered view, that we
have a better case despite the machinations and shenanigans of the
Germans and their compradors. The two governments in their charade
should know that they would not shut us up."

In the meantime, the verdict on the class action, after two years
of waiting, is out to the obvious disappointment of a section of
the affected communities, supporting Germany's countermotion that
it is immune from prosecution as a sovereign nation under the
Foreign States Immunity Act. However, for a section of the affected
communities this is and cannot be the end of the matter declaring
their intention to appeal. "We assert that Judge Swain has made
some fundamental errors of law in her jurisdictional analysis and
we are determined to see to it that this decision is reversed on
appeal and that our claims for reparations shall proceed. To this
effect we have directed our lawyers in New York to proceed with
immediate effect," Ovaherero Paramount Chief and the spokesperson
of choice of the affected Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama
communities, who have brought the class action has declared,
ushering in another indefinite period of wait and see, and of
uncertainty if the US courts shall ever redeem the affected
communities who for long have been seeking justice.

"The legitimate starting point should have been for any government
initiating some interest in this matter, whether by social
obligation or by invitation or appeal from the victims, to first
affirm the victims as the owners and primary players in this
course. In that way then the said government should have explored
avenues or sought audience with any other government that houses
any section of the victims. This would have been with a view for
the said governments to canvass operational strategies and
consolidate their efforts as a common force, working in a parental
capacity and further playing a representative participatory role on
behalf of the victims," views the genocide descendant from the
Botswana Diaspora.   "There should also have been an internal modus
operandi especially outlining the roles and parametres of each
party's participation between the victims and the collective
governments' structure. And the talks with Germany would be either
through direct dialogue with the victims or their representatives,
or elected to be done by the governments structure on terms set and
agreed in the best interests of the victims (assuming they have a
composite structure or any other credible representative organs),"
adds he. He foresees as the only workable all-embracing approach
the matter of genocide and reparations a framework of compensation
supported by "individual agreements or undertakings between each
respective government and its victim citizens spelling how the
compensation money should be distributed or utilised, or, if it's
in development form what type of development and where?"  "Under
the current circumstances where there is discontent between the
government and some section of the community, who cite exclusion,
the process may go on, despite the bad blood, but there are already
indications of a sluggish pace by the Germans on suspicion that
accelerating the matter with the standoff between GRN and these
concerned victims unresolved, Germany might find itself faced with
multiple claims even after the matter is purported to be closed,"
says then voice from the Diaspora.

"Further, should the talks go on and a conclusion reached between
the Germans and GRN, there will be a problem of access to the
benefit of the outcome by those in the Diaspora," the descendant
from the Botswana Diaspora thinks. "I think anybody is free to
explore any avenue they feel right and convenient to achieve a
goal," adds he about the court case but adding "precedent shows
there to be a bleak possibility of victory in our favor. A plethora
of cases of similar nature in facts and invoking the same laws and
brought by parties with similarities in circumstances as us, have
been dismissed by the lower courts and Supreme Court alike every
now and then. Though loss is not anyone's dream, especially in
light of the gravity of this matter on us, it will still be an
opportunity for introspection and re- strategising," opines the
Diasporan.

"The United Nations (UN) recognised the Ovaherero and Nama genocide
as genocide under the UN Convention on genocide.  The Namibian
government and that of Germany are both UN members, therefore one
wonders how do these two governments get it right on renaming the
Ovaherero and Nama genocide into political, moral and atrocities
contrary to or in gross violation of the principles of UN genocide
Convention, an international body to which they are member states."
questions Kazenambo Kazenambo, a descendant of the Diaspora in
Botswana. "It is a fact that if the ongoing talks between the
Namibian and German governments are about the Ovaherero and Nama
genocide, but not something else, then the two governments are in
gross violation of UN convention on Ovaherero and Nama genocide,"
he adds.  

"For me reparations would mean the beginning of emotional healing,
socio-economic and cultural restoration and revitalisation, it
would mean empowerment and political and economic security for the
affected communities.  The manifestations have to be targeted and
concrete, and as evident and palpable as the effects of the
genocides," says Murangi, adding, it is hard to see the current
government led negotiations leading to such an outcome.   "On the
side of the affected communities, every descendant has the moral
authority to represent themselves on this issue. However, that is
not ideal or feasible.  We need a mechanism through which
descendants can express themselves and directly participate in the
negotiations. I see a need for a representative body that
represents all Ovaherero/Ovambanderu people and Nama people in
these negotiations - similar to Jewish Claims Conference.   Such a
body should be inclusive of people from all walks of life-
traditional leaders, political leaders, civic leaders, academics,
students, women and men, farmers, Namibians, and other
nationalities who are descendants.  It should operate independently
and with transparency, with direct consultation from and feedback
to the communities," proposes Murangi.

"The current talks between the two governments are, generally
speaking, a good thing and are to be welcomed by all advocates of
reparative justice. These talks i.e. negotiations clearly confirms
that it is simply impossible to leave historical injustices behind.
But, addressing this historical injustice in a genuine way goes
beyond negotiations between states and raise several questions."
says John Nakuta, a reparation activist.  "But who is talking about
whom and about what?" Nakuta asks.

"The notion of 'nothing without us' still holds true in these
genocide negotiations. Perceptions of exclusion in this regard are
concerning and alarming. It has the potential of the eventual
outcome being rejected by a significant section of the descendants
of genocide. Holding the view that is a government-to-government
matter is narrow, formalistic and put form above substance. Related
to this, is the secrecy with which the current negotiations are
conducted. Genuine negotiations involves, amongst others, obtaining
mandates and giving regular feedback to your constituency to report
on progress and challenges," says he.  "Reparation for injustices
in financial terms is usually mentioned as one of the key things in
the process of achieving reconciliatory justice. However, monetary
compensation alone is not sufficient. Non-monetary forms of redress
are equally important. Key amongst these is symbolic form of
redress. These may include, for instance, public acknowledgements,
official apologies, memorials, commemorations, museums, curricular
reforms, and the like. Such forms of redress recognise that
historical injustices do not only consist of material wrongdoings.
It acknowledges that even though material wrongdoings theoretically
ended, their consequences continue to impact those alive today.
And, that the memory of the injury demands attention years after
the injustice. Hopefully, those involved in the current genocide
negations between the Namibian and Germany governments will keep
this in mind," Nakuta says.

Meantime, it is an open secret there is no solid unity among the
affected communities whether inside or outside the ongoing
negotiations, a fact that Ngavirue is much cognisant of.  A section
feels marginalised by the generally considered the mainstream
Ovaherero affected communities with a divine monopoly over the
issue, bordering on hegemony over fellows within. Those within the
negotiations may also not be said to be without any suspicion and
circumspection about the ongoing negotiations as much a part
thereof as they may be and have been publicly putting a façade of
being an integral part thereof. These dynamics certainly must have
been exploited by those envious at best and at worst destructive of
the reparations cause, least of them all the German government.
Not to mention the seeming cold war within the Nama Traditional
Leaders Association that lately has been seeing one of the pioneers
and stalwarts of the cause, Ida Hoffman not only being isolated by
her community people, but also being sidelined by long-time
comrades in this cause. Certainly, these dynamics must have been
fueling doubts if the cause either way is and must have been on the
right track, if not somehow derailed. [GN]


GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS: Faces Child Abuse Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glen Mills Schools on
behalf of the hundreds of youth who suffered at the hands of Glen
Mills leadership and staff. The case is captioned Derrick through
and with his next friend and mother Tina, Walter through and with
his next friend and mother Janeva, Thomas through his next friend
and mother Michelle, and Sean through his next friend and
grandmother Andrea, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Glen Mills Schools; Teresa D. Miller,
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services in her
individual capacity; Theodore Dallas, former Secretary of the
Department of Human Services in his individual capacity; Cathy Utz,
Deputy Secretary for the Office of Children, Youth, and Families in
her individual capacity; Pedro A. Rivera, Secretary of Education of
the Pennsylvania Department of Education in his official capacity;
Pennsylvania Department of Education; Chester County Intermediate
Unit; Randy Ireson, former Executive Director of Glen Mills
Schools; Andre Walker; Robert Taylor; Sean Doe; Chris Doe 1; Chris
Doe 2; John Does 1 - 20, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01541-HB
(E.D. Pa., April 11, 2019). Instead of receiving any treatment or
services, as required by the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act as a
condition for their involuntary commitment at Glen Mills and in
violation of their constitutional and legal rights, these youth
were subjected to extreme and sustained physical violence and
psychological abuse and deprived of an education. This shocking
abuse had an especially dire impact upon Black youth, who were
disproportionately sent to Glen Mills, and students with
disabilities whose educational rights were ignored. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs bring this civil rights class action to seek redress for
these violations of their constitutional, legal and common law
rights.

Glen Mills is a registered non-profit Pennsylvania corporation,
with its headquarters and principal place of business located at
185 Glen Mills Road, Glen Mills, Pennsylvania 19342, in Delaware
County. It operates a residential educational facility for juvenile
delinquents. Glen Mills prided itself on being the oldest "reform
school" in the country, touting its 800-acre picturesque campus,
rigorous athletics, "world-class" education, and sociological
approach to rehabilitation based on "peer pressure and group
confrontation" including its "Battling Bulls" accountability
hierarchy. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marsha Levick, Esq.
     Katherine E. Burdick, Esq.
     JUVENILE LAW CENTER
     The Philadelphia Building
     1315 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: (215) 625-0551
     E-mail: mlevick@jlc.org
             kburdick@jlc.org

             - and -

     Maura McInerney, Esq.
     Kristina A. Moon, Esq.
     EDUCATION LAW CENTER PA
     The Philadelphia Building
     1315 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone (215) 238-6970
     E-mail: mmcinerney@elc-pa.org
             kmoon@elc-pa.org


GOOGLE INC: Alston & Bird Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
-------------------------------------------------
Steven Erkel, Esq. -- steven.erkel@alston.com -- and Gavin Reinke,
Esq. -- gavin.reinke@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, in an article
for JDSupra, report that the Supreme Court recently issued an
opinion concerning the requirements for Article III standing for
statutory violations under the Stored Communications Act (SCA).  In
Frank v. Gaos, the Supreme Court in a per curiam decision remanded
a class action settlement because there remained a standing issue
in light of Spokeo v. Robins.  While the Supreme Court did not
express an opinion about how this issue should be decided, its
ruling signals the Court's direction to carefully examine Article
III standing for mere statutory violations.

The class action Complaint in Frank alleged that when a user would
conduct a Google search and click on a webpage, Google would
transmit certain user information (including the terms of the
search) to the server that hosted the selected webpage.  The
Complaint alleged that Google's practice violated the SCA.  The SCA
prohibits "a person or entity providing an electronic communication
service to the public" from "knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or
entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage
by that service."  18 U.S.C. Sec. 2702(a)(1).  Gaos also asserted a
variety of state law claims, which were eventually dismissed.

Gaos' putative class action was consolidated with a similar
complaint and the parties negotiated a class wide settlement.  The
terms of the agreement required "Google to include certain
disclosures about referrer headers on three of its webpages" and
"to pay $8.5 million."  Frank, slip op. at 3-4.  None of the money
would be paid to absent class members, and "most of the money would
be distributed to six cy pres recipients."  Frank, slip op. at 4.
Class counsel and Google selected the cy pres recipients.  Five
class members objected to the settlement, arguing that the cy pres
relief was improper and violated Fed. Rule Civ. Proc., Rule 23(e),
which requires that class action settlements be fair and
reasonable. The District Court granted final approval of the
settlement and the objecting class members appealed.

After briefing in the Ninth Circuit was completed, but before the
Ninth Circuit's decision, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, which held that "Article III standing requires a concrete
injury even in the context of a statutory violation."  136 S. Ct.
1540, 1543 (2016).  A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the District Court's approval of the settlement without ever
addressing Spokeo or whether the named plaintiff had standing to
sue.

While the parties' briefed the merits of the cy pres settlement
before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General filed a brief as
amicus curiae arguing that the Court should remand this case for
the lower court to address standing in light of Spokeo.  After oral
argument, the Court agreed and remanded the case without ever
addressing the fairness of the class settlement.  The Court noted
in its opinion that "[t]he supplemental briefs filed in response to
our order raise a wide variety of legal and factual issues not
addressed in the merits briefing before us or at oral argument."
Frank, slip op. at 6.

Though the Court expressly stated that "[n]othing in [its] opinion
should be interpreted as expressing a view on any particular
resolution of the standing question," the Court recognized that
Spokeo abrogated a prior Ninth Circuit decision, Edwards v. First
American Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), which held that
Article III standing exists whenever the plaintiff alleges that the
defendant violated a statute that provides an individual plaintiff
with a cause of action.  Frank, slip op. at 6.  Instead, to
establish standing, the named plaintiff must "allege[] SCA
violations that are sufficiently concrete and particularized to
support standing."  Id.

The Court's remand is not insignificant.  It signals a continued
trend to revisit Article III standing in light of Spokeo v. Robins.
It is worth watching how the Ninth Circuit resolves the standing
question. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Recent Settlement Ruling No Cause for Celebration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, Ben Kochman and Jimmy Hoover, writing for
Law360, report that legal aid groups may have dodged a challenge to
a source of important funding when the U.S. Supreme Court kicked
questions surrounding a class action settlement with Google back to
the lower courts, but there were no sighs of relief.

Leaders of several access to justice groups told Law360 the court's
decision in Frank v. Gaos, which didn't address the case's attack
on class action settlements that give some or all of the money to
charities, leaves the future of needed funds for representing the
poor and other causes in limbo. The class is made up of 129 million
Google users who claim the company illegally shared their search
information.

"There's certainly no celebrations going on right now based on the
decision," said Don Saunders, the vice president of civil legal
services at the National Legal Aid & Defender Association.

There are more cases like this in the pipeline, Saunders said, and
the Gaos case could make its way back to the high court as well.

"No one thinks this issue has gone away as a matter of interest to
the Supreme Court," he said.

The case, which saw a pair of objectors challenge the fairness of a
class action settlement with Google that awarded $8.5 million to
charities, universities and others but nothing to the class, gave
the high court a chance to dramatically alter such "cy pres"
awards.

But instead of addressing the issue, the court's decision on March
20 said questions about whether the class actually had standing to
sue needed to be resolved.

The unsigned 8-1 ruling sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit to
address whether the class had met the Spokeo v. Robins standard,
which says standing can't be based exclusively on statutory
violations.

The objectors are Ted Frank and Melissa Holyoak, attorneys with the
Center for Class Action Fairness, which represents class members in
objections to settlements the group deems abusive or unfair.

Frank and Holyoak, who objected on their own behalf, criticized the
settlement, which gave the $8.5 million Google had agreed to pay --
minus attorney's fees and incentive awards for the named plaintiffs
-- to groups like Carnegie Mellon University, the World Privacy
Forum and the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent
College of Law Center for Information, Society and Policy.

That use of the funds contravened the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure requiring settlements to be "fair, reasonable and
adequate," the objectors told the court.

In response, Google and the class said it did not make sense to try
to distribute the money, which amounted to a little more than $5
million after fees and other costs, to the 129 million class
members.

The Supreme Court decided to hear the case in April 2018.

For legal aid advocates, the court's decision to take up a case
addressing cy pres had been a long time coming.

In 2013, the court denied certiorari in another case, Marek v.
Lane, brought by objectors to a $9.5 million settlement Facebook
had reached with a class of its users over claims one of its
programs violated privacy laws. Like the Gaos settlement, charities
would be receiving the bulk of that money, according to court
records.

Following the court's decision in that earlier case, Chief Justice
John Roberts wrote a statement noting that the court had not yet
had a chance to address cy pres in settlements.

"In a suitable case, this court may need to clarify the limits on
the use of such remedies," he wrote.

Other justices expressed similar concerns in considering the Gaos
case.

During oral arguments in October, Justice Samuel Alito Jr.
questioned whether any effort was made to see if the class members
wanted to support the chosen organizations, or if that would even
be possible. And in a dissent from his colleagues' decision not to
reach the merits of the case, Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with
Frank and Holyoak that the settlement suggested the Google users'
interests were not represented.

David Stern, executive director at Equal Justice Works, said he was
at the oral arguments and definitely got the sense the court had an
interest in weighing in.

"You could see ... the justices were very strongly leaning toward a
very tight tie-in between the underlying case and the cy pres
award," he said.

But the Gaos case also showed them that there will be situations
when distributing the remainder of a settlement, or the settlement
as a whole, will cost more than it is worth to the class members,
he said.

The court will take up the issue again, Stern said, and that's why
he sees the most likely outcome as increased restrictions on who
exactly can receive the money. That's the direction the federal
appellate courts are going towards, he added.

"If legal aid thinks it's just going to go into general support, I
think those days are numbered," he said.

That may not mean much of a shift for legal aid organizations like
Equal Justice Works and the National Consumers League, who say they
have already been putting cy pres money towards work that closely
tracks the class action's themes.

"You have to make a case, talk about the specific work that you're
doing, and that goes into the judge's order," said Sally Greenberg,
executive director of the National Consumers League. "It's not a
slam dunk."

But Greenberg said there's no predicting how the Supreme Court will
rule, and it's clear cy pres's critics are seeking major changes.

In response, "We will continue to argue how important a legal
concept it is," Greenberg said. [GN]


GRUBHUB: Seeks Arbitration In Restaurants' Proposed Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that the online ordering
website Grubhub has asked a federal court to send a proposed class
action alleging the popular digital service collects undeserved
commissions to arbitration.

Grubhub filed a motion to compel arbitration with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The filing in
Tiffin EPS v. Grubhub argued that Tiffin Indian Cuisine
restaurants, which filed the proposed class action late last year,
agreed to arbitrate disputes on a non-class basis before the
American Arbitration Association when it agreed to the terms and
conditions on Grubhub's website.

The 27-page motion, filed by Jones Day attorney Rebekah Kcehowski,
Esq. -- rbkcehowski@jonesday.com -- said not only that the terms of
service were clearly outlined on the company's website but also
that Tiffin was not an unsophisticated user, and the restaurant
chain, which regularly used the online ordering service, included
similar terms and conditions notifications on its own website.

"Tiffin -- just like Grubhub -- also imposes a limitation of
liability provision on all of its users through these terms and
conditions," Grubhub said in the filing. "But, notably, the Tiffin
‘[r]elease' can be found and reviewed only after the customer
reads half-way through the terms and conditions and past the
heading, 'You're Going To Need Some Food To Get Through The Rest Of
The Jargon. Go Ahead And Order . . . We'll Wait,' which encourages
customers to participate in and use the sites before reading the
terms in full."

Tiffin Indian Cuisine restaurants filed a proposed class action
lawsuit in the Eastern District in December, contending that
Grubhub was withholding millions from restaurants across the
country because it charged commissions on "sham" phone calls that
did not result in takeout orders. The complaint alleged that
Grubhub's practices had deprived "tens of millions" of dollars in
revenue from more than 80,000 restaurants.

According to the complaint, the online ordering company charged
commissions on phone calls, regardless of whether they resulted in
an order being placed for takeout. The complaint said the company
did this by issuing new phone numbers for restaurants that appear
on Grubhub's sites, and, when dialed, the company redirected the
call to the intended restaurant and recorded the calls.

The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose these
practices, misrepresented how it charges commissions, and failed to
undertake, or disclose, any of the methods by which it analyzes the
calls to determine which result in orders. Grubhub is a Chicago
company, so Tiffin also alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, which allows for treble
damages.

"Grubhub's actions, and failure to act when required, have caused
plaintiffs and tens of thousands of other restaurants across the
country to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost profits
in the tens of millions of dollars over the past seven years,"
Tiffin said in the complaint.

Grubhub in January asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing,
among other things, that it had disclosed the commission to Tiffin
in monthly statements, online ledgers, public disclosures and in
its contract with one of the restaurants.

In its most recent motion, Grubhub contended that, on several
occasions, it provided notice to its users about its terms and
conditions, with banners on its web page announcing updates and
"timed pop-up" notifications forcing users to acknowledge updates.
Notice of the terms, the company argued, was "unavoidable."

"Plaintiffs, accordingly, accessed the Grubhub platforms repeatedly
and continuously to check their microsites and receive notice of
the Grubhub.com terms of use," Grubhub said.  "Therefore,
plaintiffs here accepted the Grubhub.com terms of use as they were
updated by Grubhub, and, as such, they have agreed to be bound by
those terms of use, including the provision compelling individual
arbitration of any dispute."

Kcehowski did not return a call for comment, and Dilworth Paxson
attorney Catherine Pratsinakis, Esq. -- abed@dilworthlaw.com --
declined to comment. [GN]


GYMBOREE: Class Action Over WARN Act Violation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
David Dayen, writing for The Intercept, reports that Mera Chung had
known for weeks that her 30-year career in retail was coming to an
end. But Chung, a vice president of design for Crazy 8, a division
of Gymboree Group Inc., wasn't prepared for what CEO Shaz Kahng and
human resources chief Bridget Schickedanz would tell her late on a
Wednesday afternoon in mid-January.

They had called Chung in to inform her of an imminent bankruptcy
filing, Gymboree's second in two years, which would accompany the
liquidation of two of the company's three brands, including Crazy
8, which caters to lower-income parents. Chung was ready for that;
the closure of Crazy 8 was announced in December, and the
bankruptcy was long rumored. But then Schickedanz dropped the
bomb.

"She said, 'We had to make some other decisions and you've been
impacted,'" Chung explains. "'We had to terminate the severance
plan.'"

The severance plan, according to Chung and two of her close
friends, was a key reason why she decided to move to Gymboree from
Old Navy five years earlier. The retail sector's volatility has
boiled over recently, with rapid-fire bankruptcies and store
closures emptying malls across the country, much of it driven by
private-equity firms busting out otherwise profitable companies.
But Chung, a single parent caring for an elderly father, came to
Gymboree because she knew she'd be due a year's worth of salary if
the company ever went belly-up.

Instead, on the same day as the bankruptcy filing, Gymboree's board
triggered Article VII of the severance plan, a self-destruct button
that enabled the company to terminate the plan "at any time in any
respect" via a majority vote from the board of directors. As a
result, none of the roughly 400 staff members at Gymboree
headquarters in San Francisco would receive severance, to say
nothing of the nearly 10,000 clerks at 800 Gymboree and Crazy 8
locations, who would now be managing going-out-of-business sales
without the promise of assistance in the aftermath.

Kahng told Chung that there just wasn't enough cash available to
pay severance. But Chung said she had information, which she would
later share with the U.S. bankruptcy trustee overseeing the case,
that at least a few executives would leave Gymboree with golden
parachutes.

A few weeks earlier, she had learned about a confidential deal
between the board and eight members of Gymboree's executive
leadership team. According to Chung, those executives received
paper checks with a "retention bonus" equal in value to their
severance payouts. The board, which includes representatives from
hedge funds and private equity firms, told the executives to
deposit the checks immediately. Bankruptcy experts often call this
type of payment a "disguised severance."

Chung heard this firsthand from one of the bonus recipients. Chung
had an equivalent title to most of the members who she was told
received the bonuses, but she was left out. She would later tell
the bankruptcy trustee in a letter that she watched as four of
those bonus recipients jetted off to the Sundance Film Festival,
just days after Gymboree declared bankruptcy.

In the meeting, Chung had asked, "What about the retention bonuses
the others have, including you?" referring to Schickedanz, a member
of the executive leadership team. Kahng would only reply, "That is
not an appropriate question and I will not comment on it."

Chung said she had replied, "The answer is what's not
appropriate."

Gymboree, founded in 1976, is on its way to history. Children's
Place, a rival retailer, paid $76 million for the rights to the
Gymboree and Crazy 8 brands, and the Gap is purchasing Gymboree's
139-store luxury chain, Janie and Jack. But the disguised severance
maneuver Chung has alleged reveals how in corporate America, the
winners at the top can win even in failure. And nobody else is safe
-- certainly not the line-level workers, but not even vice
presidents like Mera Chung.

The Intercept has reviewed documents confirming the termination of
the severance plan on the day of the bankruptcy. Chung made her
allegations about the disguised severance to friends, attorneys,
and bankruptcy officials in the weeks after Gymboree's filing,
according to interviews and documents. And Julie Thompson, a vice
president of product integrity and compliance for Gymboree, also
said in a separate interview that bonus payouts were made to the
executive leadership team.

Moreover, Chung alleged to the trustee that Gymboree underreported
the extent of the retention bonus payments in a filing with the
bankruptcy court. In that filing, Gymboree acknowledges
"discretionary bonus payments of $270,000 to two employees," but
Chung asserts that eight executives received bonuses totaling an
estimated $2.1 million.

Gymboree, its executives, and board members have failed to respond
to numerous requests for comment through email, phone, and
LinkedIn. Calls to the company's media relations department have
gone directly to voicemail. Three calls to personal cellphones of
members of Gymboree's executive leadership team were answered, but
the individuals refused to comment.

The situation at Gymboree echoes other recent retail bankruptcies
in which executives got a king's ransom while everyone else got a
firm handshake. Toys "R" Us and Sears were approved for millions in
executive bonuses, a fact that has enraged advocates for line-level
workers. "These are the same handful of people who couldn't run our
company successfully, and they're being rewarded while everyone's
severance is taken away?" asked Lily Wang, deputy director for
Organization United for Respect's Rise Up Retail campaign.

You can make a case for retention bonuses for top executives in
some bankruptcies. They are usually justified as a way to keep the
leadership from decamping to other jobs as soon as the bankruptcy
is filed. "The rationale is by giving good people retention bonuses
so they will stay, the company will have much greater likelihood of
reorganizing and getting back on its feet," said Brett Weiss, a
bankruptcy attorney in Maryland.

But in this case, Gymboree was knowingly liquidating most of its
business before the bankruptcy was ever filed, making retention
bonuses less urgent. "This was a liquidation chapter 11, the
executives are not going to be in these positions a year from now,"
Weiss said. "Maybe they said, 'How can we get more money out
without having the trustee claw it back? What's the greatest number
of people we can do this for without raising red flags? How about
the executive leadership team?'" Gymboree's lawyers in the
bankruptcy case did not respond to a request for comment.

Moreover, while some executives do need to be in place to wind down
operations, the alleged bonuses were not uniformly given to
executives who had that role. For example, the VP of marketing
allegedly got a bonus, even though marketing operations effectively
ceased. Meanwhile, Thompson's job involved regulatory compliance,
which any retailer still selling products (even in a
going-out-of-business sale) needs to maintain. Yet she was denied a
bonus and fired without severance.

The situation has left Chung devastated. "Me and this other woman
were the altar sacrifices for the others to get paid," she says.
"People have to understand how vulnerable they are."

CHUNG WAS RECRUITED to Gymboree five years ago by her former boss
at Old Navy, where she was the vice president of kids and baby
clothing design. She was told that she would have the run of an
entire brand, the low-price Crazy 8. "It was their only brand that
was relevant," Chung says. She took the job.

At the time, Gymboree was under the control of Bain Capital, Mitt
Romney's old private-equity firm. The private-equity business model
involves engaging in buyouts with borrowed money and putting that
mountain of debt on the company it purchases, all the while
extracting profits from the company through management fees. Few
companies, particularly in the high-risk retail sector, can deal
with such a debt burden — it makes it difficult to invest in
stores, personnel, or better products.

Chung says this showed in how Gymboree ran the business. "Instead
of investing in creative talent, they promoted design and
merchandising from within," she says. "Merchandisers became
complacent with wanting product they knew would sell from the year
before. There were years upon years of awful clothes with poodles
and trucks on them." She also complains that Crazy 8 had no
marketing budget, and her work to break with standard fare was
practically hidden.

By 2017, Gymboree couldn't hold out any longer and went into
bankruptcy. The business was put in control of its largest
creditors, who were private equity and investment firms. The
seven-member board included then-CEO of Gymboree, Daniel Griesemer;
Ron Beegle, CEO of investment consultant Carriage House Capital
Advisers; Matt Perkal, a partner at hedge fund Brigade Capital
Management; Brian Hickey from mutual fund firm OppenheimerFunds;
and Eric Sondag, a partner at private-equity firm Searchlight
Capital, who was made board chair. Other members of the board were
not disclosed, and since Gymboree is not a public company, they
have no requirement to do so. Apollo Global Management, Marblegate,
Nomura Securities, and Tricadia Capital Management also had a share
of the company.

Though Gymboree emerged from bankruptcy in decent financial shape,
Thompson described the new board as uninterested. "There was zero
involvement in what was going on day to day," she says. "They just
let the CEO do whatever he wanted."

Griesemer decided to invest in a complete redesign of Gymboree's
clothing line. It was a high-cost gamble off the bankruptcy, and it
failed; when the new clothes hit stores last summer, parents called
them "complete garbage." Says Thompson: "I started paying attention
to sales, and I was like, 'Oh my god, this is so bad.' It was
negative 20 to 30 percent [compared to the previous year] every
single day."

By November, Griesemer was fired, and Kahng, the new CEO, came in.
She had started her career as a food scientist at Kraft and was an
independent member of the board prior to being named CEO, according
to her LinkedIn page.

"She thought they were going to try to rehab the brand, that this
was her career-defining moment," Chung says. She described one
meeting in which Kahng pronounced that Gymboree needed to be a
"disruptor" like Apple. "She said, 'What does every parent
experience?'" Chung recalls. "'Every parent in the world feeds
their child strained carrots. When my children were babies, there
were carrot stains on everything. We could do something so simple,
an orange bib.' She was 100 percent serious. I barely got through
the meeting."

The disruption didn't take. By early December, the company
announced that it would shutter all Crazy 8 stores after the
holidays and significantly reduce the Gymboree footprint. Chung
says that in the month after the announcement, Kahng never formally
addressed Crazy 8 employees, leaving them confused about their
roles. If the brand was closing, there was no need to design or
purchase product for the next season. "My team of 20 said, what do
we do?" Chung recalls. "They said keep showing up until further
notice. They didn't want to let us go because then they would have
to pay severance."

The Gymboree management severance plan was not a package negotiated
individually. It was an employee benefits plan, established under
the auspices of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. This
has become popular, particularly with large companies, says Jim
Keenley, an ERISA attorney in Berkeley, California. The statute
provides protections to workers if they aren't given what's
promised in the severance plan. It offers no protection, however,
if the plan is terminated.

"It's an illusory contract," says Keenley. "It's very common for
severance plans to have language in them that say, here's your
severance but we can take it away at any time for any reason." No
advance warning is needed for termination, under current law. While
retirement benefits under ERISA are better protected, severance
plans are considered a welfare benefit, and the funds do not vest.

So employees have no recourse if a termination occurs. And most of
them don't read the fine print allowing companies like Gymboree to
pull that trigger. "I didn't have anyone look at it," says
Thompson. "I was naïve."

Both Thompson and Chung were told after the 2017 bankruptcy that
the severance plan remained active. And both sought further
assurances after it was clear that Gymboree would slide into
bankruptcy again. Chung says she had asked three colleagues — the
general counsel, the VP of human resources, and the general manager
of her brand, Crazy 8 — whether her severance would be honored.
None gave a straight answer. But Thompson said that when she
approached the general counsel, Kimberly MacMillan, in early
January, MacMillan reassured her, "Don't worry, we will file it as
a first-day motion."

In bankruptcy-speak, MacMillan was saying that the severance plan
would be one of the payouts that Gymboree would seek to get
approved when it filed. Pending court approval, all employees
eligible for the severance plan would be compensated. The severance
plan was approved in the 2017 bankruptcy, so Thompson trusted
MacMillan that the same would happen the second time around. "I had
good working relationship with [MacMillan]," Thompson says. "She
fucking lied to my face."

MacMillan, in a short phone call with The Intercept, said that "we
[Gymboree employees] follow a strict no-comment policy" with the
media, and hung up.

Around the same time, Chris Lu, general manager of Crazy 8, was
commuting home with Chung. "She would always disclose things to me,
she would blab them to me," Chung says. In her letter to the
trustee, Chung writes that Lu told her that members of the
executive leadership team were "paid their severance," after
demanding assurances from the board of directors. The board
arranged for a "retention bonus contract" in the amount of the
severance pay. "She said I couldn't tell anyone about it," Chung
recalls. "I said, 'Why did you tell me that if I cannot say
anything?'"

In a brief phone conversation with The Intercept, Lu would only
say, "I can't talk to you. … I'm going to hang up now."

According to Chung's trustee letter, members of the executive
leadership team who may have received retention bonuses included
Lu, MacMillan, Schickedanz, Chief Financial Officer Jon Kimmons, VP
of Information Technology David Sondergeld, VP of Logistics Dana
Todorovic, VP of Sourcing Patricia Lesser, and VP of Marketing
Parnell Eagle. Those in the "next level down" like Chung were left
out, even though she had the same VP title as several of the
recipients. Chung and Thompson were not formally part of the
executive leadership team.

Thompson had also heard about the not-so-secret retention bonuses.
"Nobody officially told me, but I heard rumors," she says. She
talked it over with Chung just before the bankruptcy. But when
Thompson asked MacMillan about the executive leadership team
meeting with the board, MacMillan told her that she couldn't
comment on it.

Both Thompson and Chung were told about the severance termination
on the same evening. That day, everyone in the office figured out
who was being let go, because human resources had cleared out the
layoff victims' time-off balance from the payroll processing
system. "Everyone compared notes, mine's not cleared out, mine is,"
Thompson says. "Everyone zeroed out is going to get let go. Mine
was zeroed out at end of Wednesday."

Thompson was told by phone that she would be terminated without
severance. Kahng, who as CEO was also a member of the board, told
her that "it wasn't our decision. Goldman Sachs is running the show
now, we couldn't do anything about it."

Goldman Sachs was the lead creditor on Gymboree's remaining loans,
which it used for cash flow. The investment bank was the first in
line to get paid from the bankruptcy. "It's like when you get on an
airplane -- Goldman was group 1," says Chung.

The next day, staff was packed into a tiny conference room. Chung
decided to wear a vintage Sex Pistols T-shirt to the meeting with
the words "No Future" scrawled on the front. Schickedanz, the human
resources chief, read a prepared statement through tears. Everyone
had to turn in their ID badges, laptops, and corporate credit
cards, and vacate the building by the end of the day. Employees
would get their last paycheck and paid time off, and that was it.

Schickedanz, in a phone call with The Intercept, said, "Oh, I
thought you were someone else calling. . . . I'm going to jump off
[the phone]," and hung up.

One employee, Katherine Pocrass, filed a class-action lawsuit
against Gymboree, alleging that the company did not provide 60
days' advance notice of the mass firing, as required under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Attorneys for
that case did not respond to a request for comment.

The WARN Act case is ongoing, and Chung would be eligible to be a
member in the class-action, which could yield up to 60 days of back
pay. But her severance was for a year.

CHUNG SAYS SHE met with 17 different attorneys seeking legal
recourse for her full severance. Each of them said that while
Gymboree's actions were unconscionable, they were technically
legal; the severance plan entitled the company to terminate at any
time. Eugene Pak, a business litigator in the Bay Area, said that
the situation struck him as "unethical." Added Keenley, the ERISA
attorney: "I think Mera felt that it was unfair. … I've been
looking for ways to find that it was not lawful, but I have not
found them."

Ron Tyler, a friend of Chung's and a law professor at Stanford,
provided her with several legal contacts. "I think her devastation
comes from the fact that she, after very carefully and persistently
creating this extremely successful career, to have it end so
dramatically and intentionally by her company," Tyler says. "And
she saw the writing on the wall. Had it not been for that
[severance] agreement, she would have left before."

facebook-01-1553223480 A Facebook post, since taken down, from
Gymboree executive Chris Lu, showing that she was at the Sundance
Film Festival in Park City, Utah, days after the Gymboree
bankruptcy. Screenshot: Courtesy of Mera ChungShortly after the
bankruptcy, Chung felt an even deeper sting. One of the lawyers she
consulted asked how many employees worked at Gymboree headquarters,
and so Chung put the question to Lu. "She was laughing and said,
'I'll call you when I land, I'm going to Sundance,'" Chung says.
Chung wrote to the trustee that Lu and three other members of the
executive leadership team — Tricia Lesser, Shelly Walsh, and
Parnell Eagle — had decamped to the Sundance Film Festival, weeks
after being given a retention bonus to stay on at Gymboree.
Thompson corroborated that Gymboree executives were at Sundance,
though she didn't name names.
Pictures from Lu's Facebook account, since removed, place her in
Park City, Utah, at the time of the film festival. One check-in
still on Facebook places her there as well.

"It's like a B-grade Netflix movie," Chung says. "If they were so
needed for retention, why were they able to go to Sundance?"

Chung began to write letters to members of the board of directors
through LinkedIn. "In your decision to Terminate my Severance Plan
on the same day you filed for Chapter 11, you have succeeding in
destroying my career, and the financial security it took me over 30
years to build," she wrote. "I ask you to search your conscience
and let me know how you sleep at night."

According to Chung, she received vague assurances from Kahng and
board member Beegle. Both later blocked Chung as a contact on
LinkedIn, so she can no longer access these responses.

A week later, Lu texted Chung: "Shaz [Kahng] asked me to tell you
to 'hold tight & not do anything rash.'"

text-message-1553223484 A Feb, 7, 2019, text message from Chris Lu
advises Mera Chung to "hold tight & not do anything rash." Shaz
refers to Shaz Kahng, then the CEO of Gymboree Group Inc.
Screenshot: Courtesy of Mera ChungChung tracked down the emails of
board members and fired off a second letter, expressing her
intention to publicly expose the severance termination and the
secret bonus payment. Schickedanz, the head of HR, wrote her an
email in response that read like a form letter. "The Company's cash
position was so constrained that Gymboree Group had to begin
immediately reducing the Company's workforce," Schickedanz wrote.
"While we wish the circumstances were different, there are not
sufficient resources available to provide severance." The disguised
severance to the executive leadership team was not referenced.
"What this letter does NOT explain is why the company's 'cash
position' was different approximately 3 weeks prior to Jan 16, when
the ELT (executive leadership team) received the now widely known
'confidential' retention bonus," Chung replied. Schickedanz did not
respond.

Shelly Walsh, general manager of Janie and Jack, the viable brand
that Gymboree was attempting to sell, was not present at the
executive leadership team meeting where bonuses were allegedly
distributed. She negotiated a subsequent agreement for a $400,000
bonus to remain with the company through the sale, which Gymboree
had to get bankruptcy court to approve.

In February, the U.S. bankruptcy trustee for the eastern district
of Virginia, where Gymboree's bankruptcy was filed, objected to a
motion to approve an additional $2.2 million in incentive and
retention bonuses to 52 key employees. This included the $400,000
to Walsh.

"These employees comprise less than 0.5 % of Debtors' total
workforce of over 10,000 employees, many of whom – the true
rank-and-file and hourly employees – are literally working
themselves out of jobs in connection with the Debtors' going out of
business sales," wrote the U.S. trustee, a neutral governmental
party that operates in the interest of the process. The filing also
notes: "In the 90-days prior to the Petition Date, the Debtors and
their non-Debtor affiliates made discretionary bonus payments to
two other employees who are also participants under the Employee
Programs in the aggregate amount of approximately $270,000.00."

This appears to refer to the retention bonuses to the executive
leadership team, which Gymboree was required to disclose to the
bankruptcy court because they occurred 90 days before the filing.
But both Chung and Thompson doubt the figures. On March 11, Kahng
resigned as CEO. She did not return a request for comment through
LinkedIn.

In her letter to the bankruptcy trustee, Chung estimated that the
$270,000 represented the average annual salary of each of the eight
executive leadership team members who received the disguised
severance. That would put the total at $2.1 million.

Chung received a response from the U.S. trustee's office, asking if
her email could be shared with the unsecured creditor's committee,
which can seek clawbacks of the bonuses if they were found to be
paid out and undisclosed. Chung agreed. A Justice Department
spokesperson told The Intercept that the U.S. trustee does not
comment on internal communications or deliberations regarding
pending cases.

In addition to clawbacks, other sanctions could include "anything
from jail time to a stern speaking-to and anything in between,"
said Weiss, the bankruptcy attorney. "It could be perfectly
innocent or it could be criminal." So far, a prison sentence seems
unlikely. Despite the U.S. trustee's filing, bankruptcy court Judge
Keith Phillips approved Gymboree's additional bonus payouts, with
some minor modifications. The biggest change was that a
pre-petition retention payment of $52,500 for one undisclosed
employee was cut in half.

Weiss expressed some surprise that the payments were approved over
the U.S. trustee's objections. But "judges don't typically dig into
monthly operating reports in large corporate entities," he says.
And even the trustee is resource-constrained. "They have some
forensic accounting experience, but they're not forensic
accountants. They don't have the staff and expertise to go after
fraud at that [high] level."

Creditors can afford to investigate secret payouts, but the time
and expense of proving a case over a few million dollars may not be
worth it to them. In addition, the 2005 bankruptcy bill includes
some restrictions on bonus and severance payments to senior
officers and managers, but it's up to judges to make the
determinations on which bonuses are reasonable to retain executives
and which are excessive. "The 2005 amendments are garbage," says
Weiss. "It doesn't surprise me in the least that they were not
written in a way that makes it easy to prevent this sort of
stuff."

The upshot of this is that top executives have a relatively free
hand to extract cash from a dying company — a particular problem
in retail, where Payless Shoes and numerous others have closed
shop. And that comes at the expense of both creditors and their
fellow employees, even people high up in the organization like Mera
Chung.

"The Goldman Sachses of the world are going to do whatever they
want," Chung says. While the firing didn't leave her destitute, the
combination of an uncertain future in retail and the need to care
for her father makes things far more treacherous than it would have
been with the severance. She worries about fellow creative
directors, who are unaccustomed to legalese, not knowing the risks
of losing their safety net if the business goes under. And she
wants people to know what was done to her.

Referring to her colleagues and board members, she tells me, "You
are going to have to answer to scrutiny for being a scumbag. I'm
not going to walk away until your face is on a fucking billboard."
[GN]


HENKEL CONSUMER: "All Natural" Detergent Suit Settled for $1.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila A. Millar, Esq., of Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article
for National Law Review, reports that a recent class action lawsuit
that claimed a manufacturer misrepresented its laundry detergent
products as "all natural" when they, in fact, contained synthetic
ingredients, has resulted in a $1.5 million settlement. A New York
federal court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, which
also requires the company to add qualifying language that states
"contains naturally derived and other ingredients" and to add a
"USDA Certified Bio-Based" label. The company must modify its
website content to reflect the labeling changes and refrain from
selling products that do not adhere to the new labeling mandates.
Importantly, the settlement does not constitute an admission of
liability by the company.

With the increase in interest in environmental claims, it is a
useful time to briefly review the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Green Guides. First published in 1992 (the guides were updated and
revised in 1996, 1998, and 2012), the Guides provide guidance on
ways to properly structure many specific environmental claims so
that they are not deemed misleading to consumers under Section 5 of
the FTC Act. The Green Guides provide guidance on 1) general
principles that apply to all environmental marketing claims; 2) how
consumers are likely to interpret particular claims; and 3) how
marketers can substantiate and qualify their claims to avoid
deceiving consumers.

While "natural" claims are not specifically addressed by the Green
Guides, the FTC has made clear it will vigorously pursue businesses
that do not substantiate such claims, as it did when it took
enforcement action against four companies for misrepresenting their
products as "All-Natural" or "100% Natural" when they contained
man-made ingredients. In a response to a submitted comment on the
proposed orders settling those actions, the FTC rejected the
suggestion that the term "natural" means the same thing as "all
natural," but the agency also stated:

. . . the order protects consumers by prohibiting "natural" and
other composition claims unless they are true and not misleading.
For example, if an advertisement states that a product is
"natural," and if reasonable consumers would interpret that
advertisement as a whole to imply that the product is "all
natural," this claim would violate the order unless it is true and
not misleading.

Certain claims, such as "organic," "all-natural," and
"x-chemical-free" resonate with consumers seeking products that
they think might be healthier or better for the environment.
Generally, claims that are material to a consumer's decision to buy
a product -- including environmental claims -- must be supported by
competent and reliable evidence and qualified to the extent
necessary. As FTC enforcement actions and court and self-regulatory
challenges illustrate, regulators, competitors, and class action
lawyers are taking aim at green claims, and advertisers are
well-advised to take note.

The case is Tony Luib v. Henkel Consumer Goods Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-03021, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. [GN]


HILL'S PET: Hess Blames Dog Food for Pet's Untimely Death
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HESS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02171 (D. Kan.,
April 2, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged false
advertising and misrepresentation of certain dog foods.

Hill's Pet Nutrition manufacturers, markets, advertises, labels,
and sells various brands of pet food, including Hill's Prescription
Diet and Hill's Science Diet dog foods.  According to the
complaint, the label of this particular product advertises that it
offers "Clinical Nutrition" and "Therapeutic Dog Nutrition."  The
label also represents that the product "provides complete and
balanced nutrition for maintenance of adult dogs and growing
puppies."

Mr. Hess contends that Hill's advertising and representations were
false because the food was not therapeutic nor did it provide
balanced nutrition.  Instead, he asserts, both the Prescription
Diet and Science Diet dog foods contained elevated, toxic levels of
vitamin D.  He states that he purchased the now recalled batches of
the food, and fed it to his pet, Lucky, which ultimately led to
Lucky having to be put down as a result of complications related to
consuming the recalled food.

Hill's Pet Nutrition is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Topeka, Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  aobergfell@bursor.com


ILLINOIS: Watts Brings Civil Rights Class Action
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the judges of the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The case is styled as
Gordon Wayne Watts individually, and on behalf of similarly
situated persons(some, but not all, whom are named in the instant
complaint), Plaintiff v. Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
James P. Flannery, Jr. in his individual capacity and in his
Official Capacity as Presiding Judge, Diane M. Shelley in her
individual capacity and in her Official Capacity as Circuit Judge,
Michael F. Otto in his individual capacity and in his Official
Capacity as Associate Judge, Appellate Court of State of Illinois
First District, Daniel J. Pierce in his individual capacities and,
in his Official Capacity as Justice for the First District
Appellate Court of State of Illinois, Mary L. Mikva in her
individual capacities and, in her Official Capacity as Justice for
the First District Appellate Court of State of Illinois, John C.
Griffin in his individual capacities and, in his Official Capacity
as Justice for the First District Appellate Court of State of
Illinois, Mary Anne Mason in her individual capacities and, in her
Official Capacity as Justice for the First District Appellate Court
of State of Illinois, Terrence J. Lavin in his individual
capacities and, in his Official Capacity as Justice for the First
District Appellate Court of State of Illinois, Michael B. Hyman in
his individual capacities and, in his Official Capacity as Justice
for the First District Appellate Court of State of Illinois, Carl
Anthony Walker in his individual capacities and, in his Official
Capacity as Justice for the First District Appellate Court of State
of Illinois, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00829-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.,
Apr. 8, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The Circuit Court of Cook County is the largest of the 24 circuits
in Illinois as well as one of the largest unified court systems in
the United States, second only in size to the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County since that court merged with other courts in
1998.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


IMPINJ INC: Securities Suit Complaint to Remain Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Impinj, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
C18-5704RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
granted (i) the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to File Consolidated Class
Action Complaint Provisionally Under Seal; and (ii) the Defendants'
Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Redacted Version of Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and Maintain Unredacted Version Under Seal.
The unredacted versions of the complaint will remain under seal.
The Lead Plaintiff is directed to file a publicly available version
of the complaint implementing the redactions proposed in Dkt. #
39-1.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6AlNCb from Leagle.com.

Richard Montemarano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Karl Phillip Barth --
karlb@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Steve W.
Berman -- steveb@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish
of East Baton Rouge, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Josefson --
avi@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac
vice, Jonathan D. Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN
LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Lucas E. Gilmore --
Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN,
pro hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley -- mikeb@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Salvatore
Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN, pro hac vice & Bradley S. Keller --
bkeller@byrneskeller.com -- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP.

Impinj, Inc, Chris Diorio, Evan Fein & Eric Brodersen, Defendants,
represented by Christopher M. Petroni , WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI, Barry M. Kaplan -- bkaplan@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI, Gregory Lewis Watts -- GWatts@wsgr.com -- WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI & Stephanie Lynn Jensen --
sjensen@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI.

Anthony Katsune, Movant, represented by Colin M. George --
cgeorge@hallgeorge.com -- HALL & GEORGE PLLC.

Foo Kwan, Movant, represented by Karl Phillip Barth, HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish
of East Baton Rouge, Movant, represented by Jonathan D. Uslaner,
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Lucas E.
Gilmore, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice &
Bradley S. Keller, BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP.


INDEPENDENT NATIONAL: ADD Files Class Action Over Electoral Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This Day reports that the Alliance for Defence of Democracy (ADD)
Saturday disclosed that it would institute legal actions against
the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for
rescheduling the presidential and National Assembly elections on
February 16.

The ADD, a coalition of presidential candidates that contested the
2019 election, protested alleged manipulation of the election
results by the INEC, military and other state actors across the
federation

In a communique signed by Director of Publicity, Dr. Olusegun Obe
and Director of Special Duties, Ms. Olufunke Awolowo, the ADD said
a class action had been initiated to query the reasons the INEC
postponed 2019 elections.

The communique, which was titled Our Intervention on the Crisis
Rocking: The 2019 General Elections in Nigeria," said the third
force coalition said the INEC action affected the poll and cost the
mass of the Nigerian electorate so much loss in uncountable
regards.

It said the ADD in conjunction "with a public interest NGO; Common
Voice has undertaken to champion the cause of Nigerian citizens who
have so far sent in strong petitions for a class action to be
instituted on March 25."

It warned the INEC "to desist from the antics of declaring
elections almost won inconclusive to enable its favoured political
parties to put machinery in place for eventual rigging of the
elections as cleverly invented during the Osun State elections.

"We note that this style of mandate circumvention is again about to
happen in the supplementary gubernatorial elections in some states
like Kano, Rivers, among others, which shall be resisted with a
nationwide mass action in expressing our principled grievances
against the obvious lapses in the 2019 elections."

The communique said the third force had no option than "to embark
on the plan after it became obvious that the military, INEC
officials and some state actors allegedly subverted the will of the
people to ensure the All Progressives Congress (APC) achieve their
goal during the elections.

"It is abundantly clear to us that there was a strategic collusion
among state agents, political gladiators and some unscrupulous
officials of the INEC to subvert the will of the electorate by
manipulating, doctoring, concocting, manufacturing and allocating
imaginary votes and figures parties," the communiqué said.

It added that this was contrary "to the actual votes cast in the
various constituencies where elections were held or not held during
the 2019 elections in Nigeria, citing revelations from INEC
officials and ad-hoc staff, among others.

It, therefore, said the presidential election conducted by the INEC
under the leadership of Prof. Mahmod Yakubu was seriously marred by
several infractions that should have warrant it cancelation or
otherwise.

It said, "We also received some pathetic confessions from some
corps members, serving as presiding officers of polling unit in
some Northern states that electoral officials in their areas of
assignment were subjected to heavy terror and duress by state and
political agents. Thus, nothing like card reader, PVC and the rest
was used.

"To this end, a day of national mass action to protest and redress
all the lapses observed in the 2019 elections will be announced in
the first week of April 2019. All allied movements, parties and
stakeholders are hereby put on notice and alert," it added.

The third force, however, congratulated Ogun State Governor-elect,
Mr. Dapo Abiodun and Oyo counterpart, Mr. Seyi Makinde for their
victory at the poll.

According to third force, the victory of both candidates were
further made easy following their candidates abandoning their
ambition to back both governor-elect ambition. {GN}


INOGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Files 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 Central District
of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Inogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: INGN) securities between
November 8, 2017 and February 26, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 6, 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 misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Inogen's business metrics and
financial prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the
true size of the total addressable market (TAM) for its portable
oxygen concentrators and had misstated the basis for its
calculation of the TAM; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its
sales growth to the strong sales acumen of its salesforce, when in
reality it was due in large part to sales tactics designed to
deceive its elderly customer base; (iii) the growth in Inogen's
domestic business-to-business sales to home medical equipment
providers was inflated, unsustainable and was eroding
direct-to-consumer sales; and (iv) very little of Inogen's business
was actually coming from the more stable Medicare market.

If you purchased Inogen 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, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


INOGEN INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Inogen, Inc. ("Inogen" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: INGN) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Inogen between November 8, 2017 and February 26,
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 that Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Inogen had overstated the true size of the total addressable market
("TAM") for its portable oxygen concentrators and had misstated the
basis for its calculation of the TAM; (ii) Inogen had falsely
attributed its sales growth to the strong sales acumen of its
salesforce, when in reality it was due in large part to sales
tactics designed to deceive its elderly customer base; (iii) the
growth in Inogen's domestic business-to-business sales to home
medical equipment ("HME") providers was inflated, unsustainable and
was eroding direct-to-consumer sales; and (iv) very little of
Inogen's business was actually coming from the more stable Medicare
market. As a result of this information being withheld from the
market, the price of Inogen common stock was artificially inflated
to more than $282 per share during the Class Period.

On November 6, 2018, Inogen announced its third quarter 2018
financial results and, while the quarterly financial results were
in line with expectations, Defendants revealed that the growth in
domestic business-to-business sales to HME providers had slowed and
reduced Inogen's guidance for fiscal 2018 adjusted EBITDA. As a
result of this news, the price of Inogen common stock fell over
19%, or $37.44 per share, to close at $155.86 per share. Then,
following the publication of detailed investigative reports by
stock analysts on February 8, 2019 and February 12, 2019, which
challenged, among other things, the size of Inogen's actual TAM,
the basis for its prior TAM claims, and the source of its Class
Period sales growth, the price of Inogen common stock declined
further to close at $138.05 per share on February 12, 2019.

Then, on February 26, 2019, after the close of trading, Inogen
announced disappointing fourth quarter and fiscal year 2018
financial results and significantly reduced its previously provided
fiscal 2019 net income guidance. Inogen's CEO also backtracked on
the Company's prior TAM estimate of 2.5 to 3 million patients, and
blamed Inogen's poor domestic business-to-business sales on order
activity that slowed from one national homecare provider. On this
news, the price of Inogen common stock fell an additional $33.77
per share, or more than 24%, from a close of $140.06 per share on
February 26, 2019, to a close of $106.28 per share on February 27,
2019.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 6, 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
        E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


INOGEN INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Inogen, Inc.
("Inogen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INGN) securities between
November 8, 2017 and February 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the Company led the
market to believe that Inogen's business and financial prospects
were stronger than they in fact were by overstating the strength of
the Company's salesforce and the size of the total addressable
market for Inogen's portable oxygen concentrators during the Class
Period.

If you purchased Inogen securities between November 8, 2017 and
February 26, 2019 and suffered a loss on that investment, you are
encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com
or Marshall P. Dees Esq. -- mdees@holzerlaw.com -- or call the firm
by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and the deadline to move for
appointment as lead plaintiff is May 6, 2019.

         Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
         Marshall P. Dees Esq.
         Holzer & Holzer, LLC
         Telephone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
         Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                mdees@holzerlaw.com [GN]


INTERRAIL SIGNAL: Ford Suit Seeks to Recover Pay Under WARN Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FORD, On behalf of HIMSELF and All Others Similarly Situated
v. INTERRAIL SIGNAL, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01065 (W.D. Tenn.,
April 2, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and owes the Plaintiff
and the class 60 days of pay and benefits.

On January 8, 2019, Interrail Signal permanently laid off more than
50 employees, who reported to work at, or who worked at, its
Cottage Grove, Tennessee office.  The Plaintiff contends that
Interrail Signal failed to provide these employees with 60 days
advance written notice of their terminations, as required by the
WARN Act.

Interrail Signal, Inc., is incorporated in the state of Florida,
has its principal office in Jacksonville, Florida, and maintains an
office in Cottage Grove, Tennessee.  On its Web site, Interrail
Signal describes itself as "one of the country's leading railway
signal design and installation companies."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  stift@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Justin Gilbert, Esq.
          GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC
          54 Exeter Road, Suite D
          Jackson, TN 38305
          Telephone: (731) 664-1340
          Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
          E-mail: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com


J. CREW: Fenwick & West Discusses FACTA Case Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
Hanley Chew, Esq. -- hchew@fenwick.com -- and Tyler G. Newby, Esq.
-- tnewby@fenwick.com -- of Fenwick & West LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, report that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
added its voice to the chorus of circuit courts of appeal that have
held that alleged procedural violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), such as the inclusion of a credit
card's full expiration date or a few additional digits from the
card on a receipt, were, on their own, insufficient to satisfy the
concrete injury requirement necessary for Article III standing.
Other than the Eleventh Circuit, every circuit court to have
confronted similar factual allegations in FACTA cases has found
that they fail to establish standing.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
The FACTA was a 2003 amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) and provides that "no person that accepts credit cards or
debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than
the last five digits of the card number or the expiration date upon
any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or
transaction." Willful noncompliance with FACTA entitles consumers
to "any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the
failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than
$1,000."

Following the enactment of FACTA, Congress passed the Credit and
Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act in 2008 because many merchants
erroneously believed that FACTA only required credit card
truncation, resulting in "hundreds of lawsuits" alleging willful
failure to remove the expiration date but no actual harm. The
clarification act provided a safe harbor for merchants who printed
expiration dates on receipts between 2004 and 2008 but otherwise
complied with FACTA during that period.

Background
In 2014, Ahmed Kamal visited three J. Crew retail stores and made
purchases with his credit card at each of the stores. After each
purchase, Kamal received a receipt which displayed the first six
digits of his credit card number as well as the last four digits.
Other than the cashier, no one saw his receipts. Kamal filed a
putative class action, alleging that J. Crew had willfully violated
FACTA by including the first six digits of his credit card number
on his receipts.

In his complaint, Kamal alleged that he had suffered two harms from
the FACTA violation: the printing of the prohibited information
itself and the increased risk of identity theft caused by such
printing. The district court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice, finding that the printing of the information on the
receipt was not itself a concrete injury. In addition, the district
court stated that it could not "reasonably infer that printing the
first six and last four digits of [Kamal's] credit card materially
increased the risk of future harm." In doing so, it examined the
intervening events that would have had to occur for Kamal's
identity to be stolen and found this chain of future events too
speculative to constitute a concrete injury.

Third Circuit Decision
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal (but
without prejudice), finding that Kamal had failed to allege facts
demonstrating a concrete injury in Kamal v. J. Crew Group (March 8,
2019).

Citing Spokeo v. Robins (2016), the Third Circuit explained that
"Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the
context of a statutory violation" and to determine whether an
intangible injury constituted an injury in fact, courts needed to
look at the "judgment of Congress" and at history. Because Congress
was "well positioned to identify intangible harms that meet minimum
Article III requirements," its judgment was "instructive and
important." The historical inquiry examined "whether an alleged
intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that has
traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
English or American courts." However, "Congress cannot statutorily
manufacture Article III standing in the case of a 'bare procedural
violation, divorced from any concrete harm.'"

The Third Circuit examined its prior standing decisions in other
statutory violation cases and noted that in each case, it found
standing because the alleged violation represented the "very harm
that Congress sought to prevent." In In re Horizon Healthcare
Services Inc. Data Breach Litigation, the alleged unauthorized
dissemination of personal information was the "very injury the FRCA
was intended to prevent." InSusinno v. Work Out World the nuisance
and invasion of privacy from a prerecorded commercial call in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was just harm
that Congress had elevated to a "legally cognizable injury." While,
in St. Pierre v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, the
unauthorized disclosure of a debtor account number and the invasion
of privacy was a "core concern [of Congress in] animating the [Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act]." Finally, in Long v. Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the taking of an adverse
employment action without providing the required consumer report to
the plaintiff in violation of FRCA was "the very harm that Congress
sought to prevent."

Turning to Kamal's allegations of harm, the Third Circuit held that
neither Congressional intent nor history supported the conclusion
that a FACTA violation by itself met Article III's standing
requirements. The court found that, in enacting the clarification
act, "Congress's action to limiting FACTA liability to those claims
implicating actual harm accords with [its] understanding of Article
III." In addition, the Third Circuit found that "Kamal's injury
does not have the requisite 'close relationship' with [privacy and
breach of confidence] actions because he does not allege disclosure
of his information to a third party."

The Third Circuit noted that its decision was consistent with
decisions from the Second, Seventh and Ninth Circuits. In Katz v.
The Donna Karan, the Second Circuit held plaintiffs who alleged
that they received receipts with the first six digits of their
credit card number along with the final four digits in violation of
FACTA did not have standing because they had not alleged a concrete
injury. Similarly, in Meyers v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere and
Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits
held that plaintiffs who alleged that they received receipts with
their credit card expiration dates in violation of FACTA had no
standing because they had failed to establish an injury in fact.

The Third Circuit acknowledged Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, the
only decision where a circuit court has found standing based solely
on a FACTA violation, but distinguished Muransky from the present
case. In Muransky, the Eleventh Circuit held that printing the
first six digits of a credit card number on a receipt "create[d] a
concrete injury" because the alleged FACTA violation was similar to
a common law breach of confidence action. The Third Circuit
declined to adopt the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit, concluding
that an improperly truncated credit card on a receipt was not
analogous to a common law breach of confidence absent a third-party
disclosure.

Takeaways
Kamal further reinforces the limitations on Article III standing
imposed by Spokeo in statutory violation cases and gives defendants
in FACTA cases additional ammunition to challenge complaints that
are premised solely on a procedural violation of the statute
without allegations of actual injury. Joining with the Second,
Seventh and Ninth Circuits, Kamal narrows standing to bring cases
based solely upon technical violations of FACTA. The Eleventh
Circuit is the only outlier to the general trend that a FACTA
violation without any actual harm is insufficient to establish
standing. Therefore, unless they can allege "potential real-world
harm" caused by a procedural FACTA violation, plaintiffs in the
Second, Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits will find it much more
difficult to survive a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing.
[GN]


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Martin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as BRIAN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE
PROTECTION, LP, a foreign limited partnership, Defendant, Case No.
19-2-06156-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Washington in and for the County of King to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 8,
2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00514.

The Complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) failure to pay
applicable prevailing wage, and at the correct overtime rates under
RCW 39.12.020, RCW 49.46.130, and RCW 49.28.010; and (2) double
damages for willful and intentional withholding of wages pursuant
to RCW 49.52.050 and 49.52.070, flowing from the first cause of
action, says the complaint.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Adam T. Pankratz, Esq.
     Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: 206-693-7053
     Fax: 206-693-7058
     Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com

          - and -

     Adam J. Berger, WSBA #20714
     Jamal N. Whitehead, WSBA #39818
     Shroeter Goldmark & Bender
     810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
     Seattle, WA 98194
     Phone: 206-622-8000
     Email: berger@sgb-law.com
            whitehead@sgb-law.com


JVP INC: Fox Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND FOX, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. JVP, INC. D/B/A DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC. and JAY M. WARREN,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00571-JEJ (M.D. Pa., April 2, 2019), is brought as
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and common
law to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages owed to the Plaintiff
and similarly situated delivery drivers.

JVP, Inc., is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company maintaining
its principal place of business within this District.  Jay M.
Warren is an owner, served as officer of the Company and held
managerial responsibilities.

The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
                  jay@foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  joeyl@bsjfirm.com


K12 INC: July 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND JUDICIAL DIVISION

In re K12 INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No. 4:16-cv-04069-PJH

Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who, during the period between
October 10, 2013 and October 27, 2015, inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of K12 Inc. ("K12 Securities")
and were injured thereby (collectively, the "Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $3,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims, both
known and unknown, in the Action.

A hearing will be held on July 10, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Ronald V. Dellums Federal
Building & United States Courthouse, Courtroom 3, 3rd Fl., 1301
Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
November 26, 2018 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.K12SecuritiesLitigation.com.  You may also obtain copies of the
Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at In
re K12 Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 3013,
Portland, OR 97208-3013, 1-888-278-8021.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 13, 2019.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than June 19, 2019, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court such that
they are received no later than June 19, 2019, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, K12, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

In re K12 Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 3013
Portland, OR 97208-3013
888-278-8021
www.K12SecuritiesLitigation.com
                                                                   
                                       By Order of the Court [GN]


KATE SPADE: Calderon Sues over False Reference Pricing
------------------------------------------------------
A consumer action complaint has been filed against Kate Spade &
Company, LLC for alleged violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), and Federal Trade Commission Act. The case
is captioned MARILU CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KATE SPADE & COMPANY, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00674-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., April 11,
2019).

Plaintiff Marilu Calderon accuses Kate Spade & Company, LLC. of
deceptive, misleading, and unlawful practice of advertising
fabricated reference prices and corresponding illusory discounts on
its branded and/or trademarked lines of merchandise sold at its
outlet stores. Through a practice commonly known as "false
reference pricing," Defendant misrepresents the existence, nature,
and amount of price discounts on merchandise sold at Defendant's
outlet stores by purporting to offer steep discounts off of
fabricated market and/or former reference prices. The end result is
a significant price disparity that creates the impression of
considerable savings, and which ultimately induces consumers into
making a purchase. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks restitution and
other equitable remedies, including declaratory relief and an
injunction under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL. Plaintiff also seeks
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure.

Kate Spade & Company, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 2 Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016. It maintains the Kate Spade brand, a luxury fashion
brand that designs, manufactures and markets accessories, apparel,
shoes, jewelry, and more. It operates Kate Spade retail and outlet
stores, as well as the www.katespade.com website, and advertises,
markets, distributes, and/or sells clothing and fashion accessories
in California and throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Bradley K. King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Telephone: (310) 474-9111
     Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
     E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             bking@ahdootwolfson.com

KOHL'S CORP: Class Certification Granted in Collins Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, STACY COLLINS, the Plaintiff, vs.
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., and KOHL'S CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-962 (E.D. Wisc.), a telephone conference
set for April 12 before Magistrate Judge David E. Jones was
cancelled after the parties notified the court that they have
worked out their issues regarding a protective order.

In a March 25 Minute Order, Magistrate Judge Jones granted a Motion
to Certify Class and for Notice to be Issued.  Specifically, the
Court entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary certification;

   2. directing implementation of two-step certification;

   3. adopting Plaintiff's proposed structure for dates but will
      reserve setting dates until next hearing;

A Telephonic Status Conference has been set for either June 19,
2019 at 2:00 p.m. or June 20, 2019 at 10:30 a.m."

The lawsuit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violations.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  mcassorla@llrlaw.com
                  info@llrlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Joel C. Griswold, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER
          E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com

LOCAL SEARCH: Naiman Files TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Sid Naiman, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Local Search Group, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02233-JJT (D. Ariz., April 5, 2019) is a class action
complaint against the Defendant over its practices of placing calls
using an "automatic telephone dialing system" and/or using "an
artificial or prerecorded voice" to the cellular telephone of
consumers without prior written consent.

In an attempt to promote LSG's services and generate sales, the
Defendant conducted (and continue to conduct) a wide-scale
telemarketing campaign that features the repeated making of
unsolicited, autodialed and pre-recorded voice message phone calls
to consumers' phones in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").

Defendant caused Plaintiff and other member of the Class actual
harm and cognizable legal injury, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Naiman is a resident of Scottsdale, Maricopa County,
Arizona.

LSG is a company that offers search engine optimization ("SEO")
services and related web-based services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
     Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
     4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104
     Mesa, AZ 85206
     Phone: (480) 833-1001
     Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz

          - and -

     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
     Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: (4720) 213-0675
     Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
     Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
            tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE: Underpays Hostler Drivers, Herrington Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR R. HERRINGTON, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated v. LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE, INC., a foreign
corporation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00182-TCK-JFJ (N.D. Okla., April 3,
2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated hostler drivers overtime
compensation for hours that they worked in excess of 40 per
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Logistics Warehouse, Inc., is a foreign corporation, registered as
a domestic corporation in the state of Arkansas, who conducts
business in the state of Oklahoma.

Logistics Warehouse operates warehouse services in Sapulpa,
Oklahoma, and Okmulgee, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Vaught, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG & VAUGHT, P.L.C.
          2727 East 21st Street, Suite 505
          Tulsa, OK 74114
          Telephone: (918) 582-2500
          Facsimile: (918) 583-1755
          E-mail: cvaught@a-vlaw.com


LOTTE CARD: South Korean VAN Providers File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jaeshik, writing for ETNews, reports that KFTC (Korea Financial
Telecommunications & Clearings Institute) and 11 VAN (Value Added
Network) providers filed a class action lawsuit against Lotte
Card.

This is the first legal battle between VAN providers and a credit
card company that have been working as partners for 10 years. It
seems that South Korean Government's plan to reduce credit card
transaction fees has turned allies into enemies.

According to industries, KFTC and 11 VAN providers such as NICE
Information & Telecommunication, Daou Data, Smartro, NHN KCP,
JTNet, KIS Information & Communication, KSNET, KOVAN, First Data,
and Korea Information & Communications filed a class action lawsuit
against Lotte Card while claiming that Lotte Card did not pay and
cancel data capture fee without any discussion. KFTC and 11 Van
providers are asking Lotte Card to pay principal and 6% annual
interest until the delivery date of their petition and principal
and 15% annual interest until principal is paid in full from the
following date of the delivery date.

According to the complaint obtained by The Electronic Times, 11 VAN
providers are claiming that Lotte Card has not paid 'data capture
cost', which had been paid to VAN providers, to reduce financial
risks that can stem from South Korean Government's plan to reduce
credit card transaction fees.

They are claiming that Lotte Card notified them about its plan to
exclude data capture service from a contract and that Lotte Card is
forcing an unfair contract to them. VAN providers generally handle
credit card approval transmission and purchasing agency service for
credit card companies and receive fees in return. Purchasing agency
service includes purchase request (data capture), collection of
paper statements, transmission fee of electronic signature, EDI
(Electronic Data Interchange) fee, and supply of statement paper.

KFTC (Korea Financial Telecommunications & Clearings Institute) and
11 VAN (Value Added Network) providers filed a class action lawsuit
against Lotte Card.  This is the first legal battle between VAN
providers and a credit card company.  A warrant of attorney and a
complaint made by 11 VAN providers obtained by The Electronic
Times.  Staff Reporter Lee, Donggeun | foto@etnews.com

Data capture creates a breakdown of approved transactions from
credit cards and sends the breakdown to a corresponding credit card
company. The class action lawsuit is based on a claim that Lotte
Card is not paying VAN providers fees for handling data capture
task.

"Lotte Card informed VAN providers that it would handle data
capture service on its own without any discussion." said HMP Law
that is representing 11 VAN providers. "VAN providers are still
performing data capture service for Lotte Card according to their
contract."

HMP Law announced through the petition that Lotte Card informing
VAN providers about its plan to cancel data capture service has no
effect.

Amount of fees that Lotte Card is not paying to 11 VAN providers is
about $2.02 million (2.3 billion KRW).

VAN industry announced that it is looking into additional class
action lawsuits as few credit card companies are also not paying
appropriate fees to VAN providers. Ultimately, South Korean
Government's plan to reduce credit card transaction fees is forcing
most of credit card companies to negotiate with major franchise
stores and VAN providers.

"We have no legal responsibility as it is stated within DESC (Data
& Electronic Signature Capture) contract that purchase request task
can be enforced separately from collection of statement task
whenever it is necessary." said a representative for Lotte Card
regarding this issue. "It is not true that we are violating
contracts we made with VAN providers." [GN]


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Danford, Houtman Seek Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC for violations
of Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned DANIEL DANFORD
and HARRY HOUTMAN, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S COMPANIES,
INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00674-JLS-WVG (W.D.N.C., April 11, 2019). Plaintiff Daniel
Danford and Harry Houtman were employed as hourly managers, who are
required to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime. However,
Defendants do not compensate them for all hours worked; instead,
Defendants require them to perform compensable work tasks before
and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal
periods, when they are not clocked into Defendants' timekeeping
system. Defendants' policies and practices have deprived hourly
managers of wages owed for the off-the-clock activities they
performed. Because Defendants' hourly managers typically worked 40
hours or more in a workweek, Defendants' policies and practices
also deprived them of overtime pay.

Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC. are American
retail companies specializing in home improvement. Headquartered in
Mooresville, North Carolina, these companies operate a chain of
retail stores in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. As of
February 2018, Lowe's Companies, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC and
their related businesses operate more than 2,390 home improvement
and hardware stores and employ over 310,000 people in North
America. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James J. Mills, Esq.
     BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A.
     2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 560
     Raleigh, NC
     Telephone: (919) 782-1441
     E-mail: jmills@bdppa.com

             - and -

     Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
     Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Telephone: (248) 355-0300
     E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
             rjohnston@sommerspc.com


MARIN COUNTY, CA: Cal. App. Affirms New Trial Order in Walker Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James M. Humes of the Court of Appeals of California for the
First District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's order
granting Walker's motion for a new trial in the case, ANNE WALKER,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A152048 (Cal. App.).

California voters in 1996 passed Proposition 218, which added
articles XIII C and XIII D to the California Constitution.  Article
XIII D limits the ability of local governments to impose
assessments, fees, and charges.  Section 6 of Article XIII D
provides a detailed procedure that local government agencies,
including water districts such as the District, must follow to
impose or increase property related fees and charges.  Subdivision
(a) of section 6 provides a procedure for imposing new or increased
fees and charges.  Subdivision (b) of section 6 imposes
requirements for new and increased fees and charges, as well as
fees and charges that existed at the time of the passage of
Proposition 218.

To promote water conservation, the District uses a four-tiered rate
system for residential customers that charges more per unit as a
customer's usage increases.  Although the tiered-water structure
and the merits of Walker's challenge to this structure are complex,
the facts underlying the current dispute are straightforward and
undisputed.

In 2011 and 2012, the District imposed across-the-board rate
increases but did not change the underlying tiered-rate structure.
The parties agree that the District complied with the procedural
requirements of section 6, subdivision (a), in imposing these
increases and that Walker did not attend any of the public hearings
held under the statute or protest the increases in any way.

In April 2015, Walker filed a claim against the District
challenging the constitutionality of the District's tiered-rate
structure because the rates are allegedly not based on cost of
service as required by section 6, subdivision (b)(1).  The District
rejected the claim the following month, and Walker filed this class
action lawsuit in August 2015.  In it, she sought a petition for a
writ of mandate and a declaration that the District's rate
structure violates Article XIII D and that the District failed to
comply with section 6, subdivision (b).  In its answer, the
District asserted that Walker had failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies.

After the District certified the administrative record, Walker
filed a memorandum supporting her claims.  In its opposition, the
District argued that Walker had failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies and that her action therefore was barred.
The trial court agreed with the District, denied the petition for a
writ of mandate, and entered judgment in the District's favor on
April 21, 2017.

Walker filed a motion for a new trial.  While the motion was
pending, Division One of the Fourth Appellate District filed
Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist., which held that
ratepayers challenging the method of calculating wastewater service
fees (as opposed to the amount of fees) were not required to
exhaust administrative remedies under section 6 before filing suit.
Following Plantier, the trial court granted Walker's motion for a
new trial.  The District appealed, and Walker filed a protective
cross-appeal from the original judgment.

The Supreme Court granted review in Plantier on Sept. 13, 2017.
The District filed a motion in the Court requesting a stay until
Plantier was decided, the Court denied the request, and briefing
proceeded.

Judge Humes finds that the sole question he must decide is whether
the action is barred because Walker failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies, a question he reviews de novo.  He agrees
with Plantier that a challenge to the method of calculating rates
is not barred by a failure to exhaust administrative remedies under
section 6.

The Judge finds that the water district in Plantier relied on
Wallich's Ranch Co. v. Kern County Citrus Pest Control Dist., as
the District relies on it in the instant case, to argue that the
plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies.  But Plantier
found this reliance to be misplaced for four reasons: (1) Wallich's
Ranch did not impose an exhaustion requirement under Proposition
218, (2) the pest control law was a comprehensive legislative
scheme distinguishable from Proposition 218, (3) the pest control
law expressly required a district to hold an annual budget hearing
to institute a budget hearing, as opposed to section 6, which does
not require such an annual meeting, and (4) Wallich's Ranch
involved a challenge to the amount assessed, as opposed to a
substantive challenge to the method of calculating the assessment.
The District argues at length that the Court should follow
Wallich's Ranch, but the Court finds it inapposite for the same
reasons set forth in Plantier.

The District also argues that Plantier was incorrectly decided, a
question that the state Supreme Court will soon decide.  The Judge
elects to follow the case, and he therefore affirms the trial
court's decision that Walker's lawsuit is not barred by a failure
to exhaust administrative remedies.

Accordingly, Judge Humes affirmed te trial court's order granting a
new trial.  In light of this decision, he dismissed Walker's
cross-appeal as moot.  Walker will recover her costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/htMPRP from Leagle.com.


MARKEL CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Markel Corporation
(NYSE:MKL) securities during the period between July 26, 2017 and
December 6, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Cohen v. Markel
Corporation, et al., No. 19-cv-2133.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Markel securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf
of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
January 11, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller
at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed
at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/markel-corporation/.

The complaint charges Markel and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Markel is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries, markets
and underwrites specialty insurance products and programs.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked effective reporting
controls and was not reporting its financial results in compliance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (ii) the Company's
Markel CATCo Investment Management Ltd. ("MCIM") subsidiary was not
appropriately recording loss reserves; (iii) MCIM's loss reserves
would need to be adjusted and/or restated; and (iv) as a
consequence, the Company would be subjected to increased regulatory
scrutiny. As a result of this information being withheld from the
market, Markel securities traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, with the price of the Company's stock
reaching a high of more than $1,200 per share.

On December 6, 2018, Markel disclosed that it had been contacted by
the U.S. and Bermuda authorities on November 30, 2018 regarding
"loss reserves recorded in late 2017 and early 2018" at MCIM and
its subsidiaries. On this news, the Company's share price fell
$99.70 per share, or more than 8%, to close at $1,048.23 per share
on December 7, 2018.

Thereafter, on January 18, 2019, Markel disclosed that it had
terminated the employment of its two top executives at MCIM, and on
February 5, 2019, Markel disclosed that it was writing off 100% of
-- and taking an impairment charge on the entire $179 million being
carried on its books for -- the "goodwill and intangible assets of
the [MCIM] reporting unit," reducing their carrying value to
"zero."

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Markel securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

         Contact:
         Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800-449-4900
         Website: http://www.rgrdlaw.com
         Email: mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


MATTEL INC: 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 Central District
of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Mattel, Inc. (NASAQ: MAT) securities between
February 7, 2019 and February 15, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 6, 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 materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
demand for the company's products, including Barbie and Hot Wheels,
was declining; (2) that the company had an excess of product
supply; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants
positive statements about the company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased Mattel 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;

         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]


MDL 2741: Mosley vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BARBARA MOSLEY, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00006 (Filed
Feb. 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on March 29, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01618-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Eugene C. Brooks, Esq.
          BROOKS LAW FIRM
          313 West York Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: 912-233-9696
          E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Martin C Calhoun, Esq.
          HOLLINGSWORTH LLP
          1350 I Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 898-5867
          Facsimile: (202) 682-1639
          E-mail: mcalhoun@hollingsworthllp.com

MEDLEY CAPITAL: Altman Balks at Merger Deal with Sierra Income
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEPHEN ALTMAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROOK TAUBE, SETH TAUBE, JEFF
TONKEL, ARTHUR S. AINSBERG, KARIN HIRTLER-GARVEY, MARK LERDAL and
JOHN E. MACK, the Defendants, Case No. 2019-0219 (Del. Ch., March
20, 2019), alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by issuing materially misleading and incomplete disclosures
concerning, and repeatedly adjourning, the stockholder vote on the
merger of Medley Capital Corporation (MCC) into Sierra Income
Corporation with SIC continuing as the surviving entity, and the
acquisition of Medley Management Inc.

According to the complaint, the action arises from the Board's
failure to disclose all material information concerning the
Proposed Transactions and its manipulation of the MCC stockholder
vote through repeated adjournments of the MCC stockholder meeting
in order to avoid admitting that MCC's stockholders have rejected
the MCC Merger. Moreover, MCC has instituted litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
stockholders prosecuting the FrontFour Action and other
stockholders that publicly opposed the Proposed Transactions.

The Defendants are delaying the vote on the Proposed Transactions
through adjournments while they attempt to have the S.D.N.Y. court
sterilize the approximately 6.6% of MCC's shares that have
committed to voting against the Proposed Transactions and while
they seek to discourage and punish stockholder opposition to the
Proposed Transactions.

To the extent Defendants have continued to solicit proxies in favor
of the Proposed Transactions while repeatedly adjourning the
meeting to avoid an adverse vote, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory
and equitable relief invalidating any purported stockholder
approval of the Proposed Transactions after the manipulative
adjournments due to Defendants' materially misleading and
incomplete disclosures, the lawsuit says.

According to the lawsuit, the allegations are based on the
knowledge of Plaintiff as to himself, findings in the Court of
Chancery's March 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion in FrontFour Capital
Group LLC v. Taube, C.A. No. 2019-0100-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the
FrontFour Action), a review of books and records of MCC produced to
Plaintiff pursuant to a demand under 8 Del. C. section 220, a
review of public filings, press releases and reports, and an
investigation undertaken by Plaintiff's counsel.

Brook Taube is MCC's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment
Officer, and Chairman of the Board. Brook Taube co-founded MDLY
with his brother, Defendant Seth Taube, and they serve as Co-CEOs
and Co-Chairmen of MDLY's board of directors (MDLY Board).
Ainsberg, Hirtler-Garvey, Lerdal and Mack have been members of the
MCC Board.[BN]

Counsel for Stephen Altman:

          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
          Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          John G. Day, Esq.
          1310 N. King Street, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-6500

               - and -

          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          Christopher M. Windover, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
          & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: MU) and certain of its officers and directors.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, and indexed under 19-cv-02136, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Micron
securities between September 26, 2017 and November 19, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Micron securities during the
class period, you have until March 25, 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.

Micron purports to sell high-performance memory and storage
technologies, including dynamic random access memory or "DRAM".

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (1) the Company engaged in
anti-competitive behavior, including artificially restricting
supply growth of DRAM; (2) these anti-competitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; (3) the Company's
anti-competitive efforts artificially boosted its operating
metrics; (4) as a result, the Company's financial performance,
including revenue, was overstated; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or  lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 19, 2018, Financial Times reported that Chinese
investigators said they had found "'massive evidence' of
anti-competitive behavior" by Micron and two other companies.  On
this news, the Company's share price fell $2.61 per share, nearly
7%, to close at $36.83 per share on November 19, 2018, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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


MID VALLEY ENTERPRISES: Underpays Courtesans, Sears et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE SEARS and VIRGINIA SEGANOS, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MID VALLEY
ENTERPRISES, LLC and PAHRUMP ICS LLC, doing business as "SHERI'S
RANCH", the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00532-APG-CWH (D. Nev.,
March 29, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, and tips unlawfully kept by the Defendants, as well as
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a
result of Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants jointly operate "Sheri's Ranch," a legal brothel located
in Pahrump, Nevada. According to its website, Sheri's Ranch is
Nevada's "first and only full-service legal sex resort," and
includes a hotel, restaurant, bungalows, and a variety of themed
specialty rooms, as well as tennis courts, a spa, a massage room,
and a swimming pool.

The main attraction advertised on Sheri's Ranch's website is its
"Weekly LineUp" of women titled "Courtesans," who work for
Defendants as legal prostitutes, licensed by Nye County and the
State of Nevada. The Plaintiffs both formerly worked as Courtesans
for Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants classify their
Courtesans as independent contractors. However, Courtesans qualify
as "employees" of Defendants under the FLSA and NRS Chapter 608.
The Defendants maintain a "lockdown" policy under which Courtesans
are required to remain on the Ranch premises for periods ranging
from 1-3 weeks at a time (with at least one week between such
periods) and work daily shifts of either 12 or 24 hours, during
which they are listed as "currently available" on Defendants'
website and must remain available to greet and/or line up for
Defendants' patrons upon request.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
          Las Vegas, NE 89120
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Maclay Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Michael Maclay, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 16-2019-CA-001502, was transferred
from the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, to
the  U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville) on March 29, 2019. The Middle District of Florida
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00364-BJD-MCR to the
proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. The suit is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian J.
Davis.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various education
and payment.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Justin Seth Drach, Esq.
          Thoele Drach, Esq.
          Amanda Thoele, Esq.
          2120 Corporate Square Blvd., Suite 17
          Jacksonville, FL 32216
          Telephone: (904) 233-1555
          Facsimile: (904) 306-1355
          E-mail: justindrach@drachlaw.com
                  amandathoele@drachlaw.com

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.:

          John Michael Marees, II, Esq.
          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          12276 San Jose Blvd Ste 720
          Jacksonville, FL 32223-8674
          Telephone: (904) 527-1172
          E-mail: jmarees@messerstrickler.com
                  lburnette@messerstrickler.com

MOLSON COORS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Molson Coors Brewing Company (NYSE: TAP) from
February 14, 2017 through February 11, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Molson Coors
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Molson Coors class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1505.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) Molson Coors failed
to properly reconcile the outside basis deferred income tax
liability for Molson Coors' investment in its MillerCoors, LLC
partnership; (2) consequently, Molson Coors misreported net income
in its consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years
ending December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, resulting in an
overall downward revision to net income; (3) Molson Coors lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Molson Coors' business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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 16,
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-1505.html

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bauman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT R. BAUMAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00682 (E.D. Mo., March 28, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bernt Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS C. BERNT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00683 (E.D. Mo., March 28, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Carollo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH P. CAROLLO, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00685-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., March 28, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ROBERT COHEN, an individual,, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00459 (W.D. Wash., March
28, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM, PLLC
          705 Second Avenue, #1300
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Telephone: 206 787 1915
          Facsimile: 206 299 9725
          E-mail: Corrie@cjylaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Drexler Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
LILLIAN DREXLER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00691 (E.D. Mo., March 28, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Everett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE M. EVERETT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01571-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Furnas Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID W. FURNAS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01577-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 21, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hawkins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD H. HAWKINS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00742-JAR (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Howard Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN W. HOWARD, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01575-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: McDade Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MARSHALL C. MCDADE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00783-PLC (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Nightingale Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT E. NIGHTINGALE III, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00784 (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

N.A.R. INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Page FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DWAYNE PAGE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. N.A.R. INC., Defendant, Civil No.
18-cv-2200 (KSH) (CLW) (D. N.J.), Judge Katherine S. Hayden of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied NAR's
motion to stay the action and to compel arbitration on an
individual basis.

In the putative class action, Page asserts that NAR, a debt
collector, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") by sending him a collection letter with an amount due and
stating that because of "interest or other charges that may vary
from day to day," the amount due could be higher on the date of
payment.  Page asserts that the statement was false because no
interest or other charges were or could be added to his debt.

At some point before June 1, 2016, Page incurred a debt to Crest
Financial Services, LLC for a furniture lease.  Page fell behind on
repaying the debt, which was past due and in default when it was
placed with NAR for collection.  On Feb. 16, 2017, NAR mailed Page
a letter that listed Crest as the creditor.

But neither Crest nor NAR ever added interest or other charges onto
the balance after Crest placed the debt with NAR for collection,
and according to the complaint, they could not have legally or
contractually done so.  Page alleges that NAR's letter is a
computer-generated form that NAR had sent to hundreds of New Jersey
consumers over the previous year, and that it is NAR's policy and
practice to send letters in that form to collect consumer debts
which falsely threaten consumers that interest and other charges
may be added to the balance due on their debt.

On Feb. 15, 2018, Page filed a putative class action complaint on
behalf of himself and all other individuals with a New Jersey
address who were sent a letter from NAR between Feb. 15, 2017 and
March 7, 2018, that was materially identical or substantially
similar to what he received.

The complaint asserts one count for violation of the FDCPA.  Page
alleges NAR's statement in the Feb. 16, 2017 letter that interest
or other charges may increase the balance of the debt was false,
deceptive, and misleading under the "least sophisticated consumer"
standard.

In response, NAR has moved to stay the case and compel arbitration
of Page's claims on an individual basis under the Federal
Arbitration Act, and to strike Page's class action claims with
prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).  It argues that Page signed
a lease agreement regarding his Crest account that (1) requires all
claims related to that account to be submitted to binding
arbitration, and (2) waives his right to bring class action
claims.

In opposition, Page does not dispute that he signed the agreement
or challenge its authenticity, but contends that its plain language
does not allow NAR, a non-party to the agreement and one that does
not meet the definition of a "Related Party," to compel
arbitration.  Page further contends that the dispute between Page
and NAR is outside the scope of the arbitration provision in the
agreement between Page and Crest, and that the class waiver
language in the agreement cannot be enforced by NAR.

Then, with its reply brief, NAR produced an assignment agreement
between it and Crest, and now argues that it is entitled to enforce
the arbitration provision and class waiver in the lease agreement
because Crest assigned its rights to Page's account to NAR.  In
response, Page has sought leave to file a sur-reply, and attached a
proposed brief in which he objects to the newly-introduced
assignment and requests that the Court either disregard it or order
discovery.

Judge Hayden is satisfied that the Rule 56 standard applies, and
Page must be given the opportunity to conduct limited discovery
into whether Crest validly assigned its rights to NAR and thereby
enabled NAR to invoke the arbitration provision.  Although the
complaint relies on the lease agreement insofar as it is the source
of the debt upon which NAR is collecting, that agreement is not the
source of NAR's claim of standing to invoke arbitration.

For the first time on reply, NAR has clearly articulated that the
purported assignment from Crest is the basis upon which it claims
authority to enforce the arbitration provision against Page.  The
assignment appears nowhere in the complaint, attached to it, or
anywhere else within the universe of documents a court may consider
on a motion to dismiss.  Instead, it was attached to NAR's reply,
and Page has had no opportunity for discovery into the assignment
or the declaration introducing it.  Third Circuit precedent
requires that opportunity, and, following conclusion of targeted
discovery on the issue of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate
has been formed between Page and NAR, NAR may file a renewed
motion. That motion will be evaluated under the Rule 56 standard.

Resolution of the remaining issues, including whether Page's
asserted claim is within the scope of the arbitration provision and
whether he must pursue that claim on an individual basis, cannot be
resolved absent an adequate record sufficient for the Court to
conclude that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between Page
and NAR.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Hayden denied without prejudice
NAR's motion.  The parties are directed to proceed promptly to
limited discovery under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Waldor
to resolve the threshold issue of whether a valid agreement to
arbitrate exists.  An appropriate order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/91fY3l from Leagle.com.

DWAYNE PAGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by RYAN LEYLAND GENTILE --
rlg@lawgmf.com -- LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC.

N.A.R., INC., Defendant, represented by MONICA M. LITTMAN --
mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC &
RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN &
HARRIS, PC.


NCAA: Former ASU Player Joins Class Action Concussion Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Lerner, writing for ABC15 Arizona, reports that
concussion concerns are a big issue both on and off the gridiron
and now hundreds of former college football players from across the
country are suing the NCAA, claiming the organization knew the
risks, but did nothing.

Nathan Kimbrough was a wide receiver and punt returner for the Sun
Devils from 2004-2009. He says he will always be grateful for his
time at ASU and his brief stint in the Canadian Football League,
but admits he would have done things differently had he known what
life would be like now.

"I instantly fell in love with it," said Kimbrough. "I wanted to
play it every day."

That love started when Kimbrough played Pop Warner football at just
10 years old. Over the years his passion only intensified and so
did the hits.

"There's a lot of times where I would get hit and then I would see
like a light, like a flashlight," he said. "There's been times
where they would tell me I had a concussion and I would still play
the game."

He says adrenaline and drive masked the symptoms of a brain injury.
Issues such as memory loss, anxiety, anger issues, headaches and
insomnia are now all daily struggles for both Kimbrough and his
wife, Brittany.

"I've had to record him when he's upset so I can be like, 'Look,
this is what you're saying and this is what you're doing when
you're mad,'" Brittany Kimbrough said.

In January, Kimbrough filed a class-action lawsuit against the
NCAA. He is the named plaintiff in the case, suing on behalf of
other former ASU football players who are suffering similar
symptoms. A former player for the University of Arizona and another
from Northern Arizona University have also filed their own
lawsuits.

All three of the class-action lawsuits from Arizona are now part of
a consolidated, multi-district litigation, comprised of more than
300 lawsuits. It is set to go before a federal judge in Illinois
with a status conference scheduled for April 4.

"The NCAA is directly responsible for the injuries that these
athletes have sustained over the years," said Lead Counsel Rafey
Balabanian, Esq. -- rbalabanian@edelson.com  "The lack of care
they've been given, it certainly falls at their doorstep."

Balabanian says the total amount of damages reaches into the
billions. The suit itself claims that up until 2010, the NCAA "kept
players and the public in the dark about an epidemic that was
slowly killing college athletes." It says the NCAA prioritized
profits over students' health and safety as players suffered the
equivalent force of "repeated car accidents" on the field for
years.

"They should have kept me out at least 2-3 weeks," said Kimbrough.
"I would've sat out if someone would have told me. Younger kids,
they need to know that if you're playing around in this sport, this
is what you basically might have to deal with."

ABC15 reached out to ASU for comment and a spokesman said, "Arizona
State University is not named as a party in this lawsuit and is
therefore not in a position to comment."

ABC15 also reached out to the NCAA several times, in several ways,
including the organization's media contact forms online, email and
social media. So far we have not heard back. [GN]


NELLIE'S EGGS: Proposed Lawsuit Filed Over 'Free Range' Label
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Katersky, writing for ABC News, reports that when Michelle
Lugones and her husband, Marcus Siezing, shopped for eggs at their
local Whole Foods in TriBeCa, New York, they say they sought a
product consistent with their values about the humane treatment of
animals and were drawn to the images of happy hens luxuriating in
green fields seen on cartons of Nellie's Free Range Eggs.

Encouraged by the packaging, Lugones and Siezing say they thought
they bought eggs sourced from small farms providing all hens with
space to move around both indoors and outdoors.

Now, in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in New York, the couple, along with fellow plaintiffs Tricia
Rizzi and Claudia Vassallo, say "nothing could be further from the
truth."

Their lawsuit, backed by People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, accused Nellie's and parent company Pete and Gerry's
Organics LLC of violating consumer trust and cruel treatment of
laying hens.

"The harsh reality is that Nellie's crams and stuffs hens --
sensitive, intelligent animals, who feel pain acutely and who in
natural environments will form complex social bonds -- into sheds
up to 20,000 at a time," the lawsuit claims. "This overcrowding
prevents them from extending their wings, foraging, or making their
way to the outdoor space Nellie's advertises so prominently."

Nellie's pushed back, insisting the company goes "far beyond" best
practices where it concerns animal welfare.

"The Nellie's brand was named after a pet hen I had when I was four
years old," CEO Jesse Laflamme told ABC News by phone from New
Hampshire, where he is based. "There's 300 million egg laying hens
in terrible conditions nationally, and we're one of the few
companies that does not keep a single hen in a cage."

The lawsuit seeks damages and a court order to stop the practices
alleged in the lawsuit, including providing hens "cramped,
stressful environments, lacking meaningful access to the outdoors
or to sunlight."

Laflamme denies it.

"Our hens are raised on family farms. The hens get outside when the
weather is nice. They have plenty of space to roam. We work with
certified humane farm animal care to make sure we're doing what we
say we're doing," he said.

Laflamme also accused PETA of backing the lawsuit as a publicity
stunt.

"What's particularly insulting from a common sense standpoint is
that PETA has chosen to attack a family business that is doing
things right," Laflamme said. "They're apparently deciding to
ignore the larger egg industry. What's happening on those factory
farms is so egregious. For them to ignore the caged egg industry
and come after us is mind-blowing to me."

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for their lawsuit.

"Consumers pay a premium for eggs they believe come from laying
hens subjected to humane treatment with labels such as 'free-range'
and 'cage-free,'" plaintiff's attorney Jeanne Christensen, Esq. --
jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- of Wigdor LLP said. "This proposed
class action lawsuit is against the largest producers of advertised
'free-range' eggs in the country -- Pete and Gerry's Organics and
Nellie's Free Range Eggs -- that advertise that their laying hens
are treated humanely. As the allegations show, consumers are buying
eggs from an egg producer that subjects its laying hens to horrific
conditions."[GN]


NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Waters Files Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New England Motor
Freight, Inc. The case is styled as Alice Waters, Rich Richardson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. New England Motor Freight, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01508 (D. N.J., Apr. 9, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as recovery of money/property.

New England Motor Freight, Inc. is one of the largest less than
truckload carriers in the Northeast U.S., based in Elizabeth, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gail Lin Chung, Esq.
     Outten & Golden LLP
     685 Third Avenue
     25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2073
     Email: GL@outtengolden.com


NEXMO INC: Accused by Giannini of Not Paying Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC GIANNINI as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. NEXMO INC., a Delaware Corporation; VONAGE
HOLDINGS CORP a New Jersey Corporation; and DOES 1- 50, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC-19-574951 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 2,
2019), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime
wages and minimum wages, among other things, in violation of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

Nexmo Inc. is a Delaware Corporation.  Vonage Holdings Corp is a
New Jersey Corporation and a corporation authorized to do business
in the state of California.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.  The Defendants have
offices and facilities and conduct business in the County of San
Francisco, state of California.

Nexmo develops and markets communication APIs to enable developers
and businesses to communicate with their customers.  Nexmo's
products include Voice, VideoNEW, SMS, SIP Trunking, MessagesNEW,
and Number Insight.  Nexmo operates as a subsidiary of Vonage.

Vonage Holdings Corporation provides telecommunications services.
Vonage offers technology that uses customers' existing high-speed
internet connection to make and receive phone calls worldwide with
a touch-tone telephone.  Vonage Holdings serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Lo, Esq.
          WORK LAWYERS PC
          22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (424) 355-8335
          E-mail: justin@worklawyers.com


NFL: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports that the City of
Oakland has responded to the looming relocation of one of the most
litigious franchises in sports with, drum roll, litigation. And now
the Raiders and the NFL are trying to get the antitrust lawsuit
filed over the coming move to Las Vegas thrown out of court.

It's a very common maneuver whenever any lawsuit presents an
aggressive and creative legal theory. Before spending tens if not
hundreds of thousands of dollars defending the case on the merits,
the defendants try to knock it out with a device known as the
motion to dismiss, for failure to state a claim. Basically, the
argument goes this like this: "Even if everything they're saying is
true (and we reserve the right to later argue that it's not), they
can't win."

Via the Bay Area News Group, the Raiders and the NFL filed their
motion to dismiss on March 1, calling the lawsuit a "striking
perversion of antitrust law" and claiming that Oakland is trying to
"turn antitrust on its head."

"The Raiders want to move to Las Vegas," the team and the league
wrote in the memorandum of law supporting the motion to dismiss.
"Las Vegas wants to host the Raiders. The Las Vegas opportunity is
more attractive, so much so that the Raiders are willing to pay a
relocation fee over $300 million in order to move."

Oakland's antitrust argument has been confusing from the get-go. If
anything, an antitrust violation would arise if the league tried to
keep the Raiders -- like all teams an independent business -- from
moving. Which is precisely what happened in the early '80s, leading
to a lawsuit that the Raiders won, and a the beefing up of the
league's relocation policy. Now, Oakland is separately claiming
that the league has violated its own relocation policy, to the
detriment of the city that will be losing the Raiders.

The Raiders and the NFL argue that the relocation policy doesn't
rise to the level of a "contract" or any other binding obligation
to the cities where teams currently play. "The policy provides that
clubs will attempt to develop 'suitable stadium facilities in their
home territories' through good faith negotiations, but recognizes
that this may not always be possible," the defendants argue in the
written submission to the court.

In April, Oakland will respond to the motion to dismiss in writing,
a hearing date likely will be set (if it hasn't already been), and
the Raiders and the league will submit the final written paperwork
on the matter before the presiding judge decides, apparently by
June, whether to throw the case out or let it proceed. If it moves
forward, a trial tentatively has been scheduled to begin in August
2021. [GN]


NUTANIX INC: Scheller Sues over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RYAN SCHELLER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NUTANIX, INC., DHEERAJ
PANDEY, and DUSTON M. WILLIAMS, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01651-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2019), is a federal
securities fraud class action on behalf of a "Class" consisting of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Nutanix Class A
common stock on the open market on a U.S. stock exchange during
March 2, 2018 through February 28, 9 2019, both dates inclusive.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors
of the Company during the Class Period, members of Defendants' and
the Excluded D&Os' immediate families, legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants’
or the Excluded D&Os have or had a controlling interest.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made repeated statements
that Nutanix was investing heavily in growth and was increasing
sales and marketing activities while maintaining high profit
margins. Contrary to these statements, and as revealed by the
Defendants on February 28, 18 2019, starting with the fourth fiscal
quarter of 2017 through the third fiscal quarter of 2018 (ending
April 30, 2018), Defendants did not increase Nutanix's lead
generation spending, but rather held lead generation spending, an
admitted "key component to building pipeline," flat. Further,
starting with the fourth fiscal quarter of 2018 (beginning May 1,
22 2018) through the second fiscal quarter of 2019 (ending January
31, 2019), rather than either 23 increasing lead generation
spending or holding that spending flat, Defendants actually
decreased Nutanix's lead generation spending.

By misrepresenting the magnitude of Nutanix's marketing spending,
and failing to disclose Nutanix was pulling back on lead generation
spending, Defendants were able to misrepresent that Nutanix had
improved its profit margins through business acumen, rather than
the truth -- that Nutanix was skimping on important drivers of
revenue growth. As a result of Nutanix's lower lead generation
spending, Nutanix’s pipeline of new business was severely
negatively impacted, resulting in significantly lower forecasted
earnings starting in the third fiscal quarter of 2019 (ending April
30, 2019).

Once Defendants revealed the truth on February 28, 2019, the price
of Nutanix common stock plummeted $16.39 per share, or more than
32%, from its closing price of $50.09 per share on February 28,
2019, to close at $33.70 per share on March 1, 2019, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
          A. Chowning Poppler, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
                  cpoppler@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 459-2093
          E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

O'REILLY AUTO: Removes Vvanti Case to Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC removes case SAMANTHA VVANTI, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No.19STCV00091 (Filed Jan. 4, 2019), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on March 29, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02407 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay lawful wages,
failed to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu,
failed to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu, and
failed to reimburse employee expenses, failed to timely pay
wages.[BN]

Attorneys for O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC:

          James M. Peterson, Esq.
          Jason C. Ross, Esq.
          Edwin M. Boniske, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-7913
          Telephone: 619 236-1551
          Facsimile: 619 696-1410
          E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com
                  rossj@higgslaw.com
                  boniske@higgslaw.com

OLIN CORP: Main Pool Alleges Prices Fixing of Caustic Soda
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief arising
out of alleged collusive and concerted restraint of trade in sodium
hydroxide, commonly known as Caustic Soda, by manufacturers -- all
of whom are direct competitors and leading manufacturers of Caustic
Soda in the United States -- during a period spanning from at least
October 1, 2015, to the present.  But for Defendants' and their
co-conspirators' alleged collusive conduct, the Plaintiff and
members of the class Plaintiff seeks to represent would not have
paid -- and would not continue to pay -- artificially inflated
prices for Caustic Soda, the lawsuit says.

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

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

The alleged conspiracy was facilitated by secret co-producer supply
agreements; by exchanges of nonpublic, commercially sensitive
information between and among Defendants and their agents, both
directly with each other, and indirectly through third parties; by
manipulation of a price index; and by the characteristics of the
industry: high market concentration, high barriers to entry,
interchangeability of Defendants' products, inelastic demand, weak
demand, a larger number of purchasers with limited buying power,
and relatively easy information exchanges among the Defendants.

The case is caprtioned as MAIN POOL and CHEMICAL CO., INC., On
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. OLIN CORPORATION; K.A. STEEL CHEMICALS, INC.; OCCIDENTAL
PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION (D/B/A
OXYCHEM); WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO.
LTD.; SHINTECH INCORPORATED; FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION; FORMOSA
PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02667-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Main Pool and Chemical Co., Inc.:

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

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: 215-867-2399
          Facsimile: 267-685-0676
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com

               - and -

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Mallory Biblo, Esq.
          Amanda Klevorn, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: 469.904.4550
          Facsimile: 469.444.5002
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  mbiblo@burnscharest.com
                  aklevorn@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq.
          Shawn P. Quinnan, Esq.
          CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C.
          730 Main Street
          Moosic, PA 18507
          Telephone: 570-342-9999
          Facsimile: 570-457-1533
          E-mail: jmariotti@caputomariotti.com
          squinnan@caputomariotti.com

OLSON LEGAL: Walls et al. Sue over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARY K. WALLS and KATIE GEIS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. OLSON LEGAL
GROUP LLC, the Defendant Case No. 1:19-cv-00401 (E.D. Wisc., March
19, 2019), targets the Defendant's illegal practices when
attempting to collect an alleged debt in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. Those practices include attempting to
collect consumer debts by engaging in conduct prohibited by, or
failing to engage in conduct required by, the FDCPA.

Olson regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer
debts. It uses the mails, telephone, the internet, and other
instruments of interstate commerce.

Olson mailed or caused to be mailed a letter dated April 9, 2018,
to Walls.  The Walls Letter alleged Walls had incurred and
defaulted on financial obligations owed to a medical provider. The
alleged Walls Debt arose out of one or more transactions in which
the services that were the subject of the transactions were
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.  The Letter
was Olson's first written communication to Walls in an attempt to
collect the Debt. The Letter stated the "Balance" was $889.86. The
Letter did not contain any statement or otherwise give notice that
the Debt had, or soon would be, increasing due to accruing
interest.

The failure to disclose interest was accruing is misleading to an
unsophisticated consumer, who would otherwise believe that that
payment of the amount stated would satisfy the debt.  The Letter
fails to state when, in what amount, or in what manner interest
will be added to the Debt.   The Letter's failure to give notice
that the amount owed was increasing periodically due to accruing
interest is materially false, deceptive, and misleading to an
unsophisticated consumer.  The unsophisticated consumer, who often
has more debts to pay than money to pay them, would consider the
accrual of interest as a relevant factor when choosing which debt
to pay, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com

OMEGA RMS: Markistic Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Aida Markistic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Omega RMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 7:19-cv-02841-CS (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2019), seeks to recover
damages resulting from Defendant's violation of the the Fair Debt
Collection Practices. The Plaintiff brings this action individually
and as a class action on behalf of all persons similarly situated
in the State of New York from whom Defendant attempted to collect
an interest- and fee bearing consumer debt using a collection
letter that fails to disclose that the debt may increase due to
interest and fees, from one year before the date of this Complaint
to the present.

The Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt. The Debt was primarily
for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a
"debt". Sometime after the incurrence of the Debt, Plaintiff fell
behind on payments. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to
Defendant, the Debt was assigned or owed. The Debt was accruing
fees at the time of Defendant's letter. The Letter fails to
disclose whether the debt may increase due to interest and fees,
fails to include any "safe harbor" language concerning the accrual
of interest and fees, and fails to indicate the minimum amount
Plaintiff owed, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Salley Balks at Smith & Nephew Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
TODD SALLEY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS, INC., PETER
FRIEDLI, THOMAS KNAPP, WILLI MIESCH, and CHARLES A. REINHART, III,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02822 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2019),
is a class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. against Osiris and the members of its
Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Osiris will be acquired by
Smith & Nephew plc through its subsidiaries Smith & Nephew
Consolidated, Inc. and Papyrus Acquisition Corp.  Plaintiff
contends that the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
Osiris' public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets
without fully disclosing all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders.  

On March 12, 2019, Osiris issued a press release announcing that
Osiris and Smith & Nephew had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated March 12, 2019 to sell Osiris to Smith & Nephew.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, on March 20, 2019,
Purchaser commenced the Tender Offer to purchase all outstanding
shares of Osiris for $19.00 in cash per share of Osiris common
stock, for a total of approximately $660.5 million in cash. The
Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time, on
April 17, 2019.

On March 20, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the
SEC. The Recommendation Statement, which recommends that Osiris
stockholders tender their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's financial
projections, relied upon by Osiris' financial advisor Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co. in its financial analyses; (ii) the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by Cantor Fitzgerald; and (iii) the
background process leading to the Proposed Transaction. The failure
to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as
Osiris stockholders need such information in order to make a fully
informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the
Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Richard A Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in EIP Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, T.R., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-4782 (E.D. Pa.),
students and parents in the School District of Philadelphia have
filed this putative class action lawsuit under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, 22 Pa. Code
Sections 14-15, the Equal Education Opportunities Act, and Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Plaintiffs allege that Philadelphia's School District provision
of translation and interpretation services to limited English
proficient parents deprives parents and their children of the
ability to meaningfully participate in the special education
process and the development of individualized education programs
("IEP").

The Plaintiffs have filed Motion for Class Certification, which the
Court denied.

The Amended Complaint seeks to bring these causes of action on
behalf of two proposed classes:

     A. All parents as defined by 34 C.F.R. Section 300.30(a) with
limited English proficiency and whose children now or in the future
are enrolled in the School District of Philadelphia and identified
or eligible to be identified as children with a disability within
the meaning of the IDEA and/or Section 504 and related state laws
(Parent Class); and

     B. All students who now or in the future are enrolled in the
School District of Philadelphia in grades kindergarten through the
age of legal entitlement who are identified or eligible to be
identified as children with a disability within the meaning of the
IDEA and/or Section 504 and related state laws, whether or not they
are classified as English language learners and whose parents as
defined by 34 C.F.R. Section 300.30(a) are persons with limited
English proficiency (Student Class).

Having engaged in the requisite "rigorous" analysis required for
motions seeking class certification, District Judge Mitchell S.
Goldberg does not find that the Plaintiffs have established all of
the elements under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2).  Although the
Plaintiffs have proven both typicality and adequacy of
representation, they have failed to demonstrate either that the
numerosity element is satisfied or that there are questions of law
or fact that are common to the class. Moreover, the IDEA's
highly-individualized concept of "meaningful participation" strips
the case of the cohesion necessary for ensuring that a single
injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each
member of the putative class.

With respect to numerosity, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs'
evidence suffers from the same speculative deficiencies identified
in Mielo v. Steak'n Shake Operations, Inc., 897 F.3d 467, 484 (3d
Cir. 2018), Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 355 (3d
Cir. 2013), and Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 596 (3d
Cir. 2012).  While the Plaintiffs' evidence may prove the existence
of a larger pool of individuals, it fails to focus on whether
parents of children with disabilities have limited proficiency with
the English language, Judge Goldberg holds.

The Court also finds that it is undisputed that a substantial
number of students in the Philadelphia School District with limited
English proficiency are also identified as children with a
disability within the meaning of IDEA and/or Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.  Focusing on both the Parent Class and Student
Class, the inquiry here is whether these children also have parents
who have limited English proficiency.
The Plaintiffs' reliance on the number of special education
students with a home language other than English is problematic
because it relies on the unsupported assumption that a different
primary language equates with and proves a lack of English language
proficiency.

The Court also held that the Plaintiffs argue -- without reference
to any proof -- that it would be impracticable to join all class
members here because, by definition, both classes require the
involvement of individuals who are limited English proficient and
have limited resources.  The Plaintiffs, however, have not provided
any analysis of the combined considerations on the factors of
judicial economy, the claimants' ability and motivation to litigate
as joined plaintiffs, an accurate measure of financial resources,
or geographic dispersion, several of which appear to weigh against
certification. Moreover, as the Third Circuit has emphasized, the
mere fact that the Plaintiffs here seek injunctive relief does not
ease their burden in satisfying Rule 23(a)(1). Mielo, 897 F.3d at
487. Absent further evidence or argument, Judge Goldberg cannot
find that the Plaintiffs have established this element by a
preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds that
the Plaintiffs have failed to prove numerosity under the rigorous
standards within this Circuit.

Judge Goldberg clarifies that his conclusions do not touch on the
merits of the Plaintiffs' individual claims or the ultimate issue
of whether School District denied the Plaintiffs the opportunity of
meaningful parental participation in the special education process.
The sole question before me is whether the Plaintiffs have met
their burden to establish that this case may proceed as a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court finds he
has not, and that this case is best pursued in more individualized
fashion. Indeed, as aptly noted by the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, "IDEA's singular focus on an
individualized, cooperative educational approach providing
customized remedies makes Congress's neglect of broad-based actions
understandable and renders IDEA actions ill-suited to class-wide
relief." Blackman v. District of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1088, 1094
(D.D.C. 2011). Accordingly, the Court must deny the Motion for
Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated April 18, 2019, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y58q636r from Leagle.com.

A.G., A MINOR, INDIVIDUALLY, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, MARGARITA
PERALTA, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED & MARGARITA
PERALTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by MAURA I. MCINERNEY, EDUCATION
LAW CENTER, PAUL H. SAINT-ANTOINE, Esq. --
paul.saint-antoine@dbr.com -- DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH LLP, CAROL
FRANCES TREVEY, Esq. -- carol.trevey@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, CHANDA A. MILLER, Esq. -- chanda.miller@dbr.com --
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, DANIEL UREVICK-ACKELSBERG, Public
Interest Law Center, LUCAS B. MICHELEN, Esq. --
lucas.michelen@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, MICHAEL
CHURCHILL, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CTR OF PHILADELPHIA & VICTORIA LEIGH
ANDREWS, Esq. -- Victoria.Andrews@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE &
REATH.

L.R., A MINOR, INDIVIDUALLY, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, MADELINE
PEREZ, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, D.R., A
MINOR, INDIVIDUALLY, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENT, MADELINE PEREZ, AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, J.R., A MINOR,
INDIVIDUALLY, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, MADELINE PEREZ, AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MADELINE PEREZ,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, R.H.,
A MINOR, INDIVIDUALLY, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, MANQING LIN, AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED & MANQING LIN,
NDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, represented by PAUL H. SAINT-ANTOINE, DRINKER, BIDDLE &
REATH LLP & VICTORIA LEIGH ANDREWS, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by
DANIELLE GOEBEL, Esq. -- dgoebel@dilworthlaw.com -- DILWORTH PAXSON
LLP, MARJORIE M. OBOD, Esq. -- mobod@dilworthlaw.com -- Dilworth
Paxson LLP & MARIE-THERES DIFILLIPPO, Esq. --
mdifillippo@dilworthlaw.com -- DILWORTH PAXSON LLP.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Interested Party, represented by NAVIN
PANT, U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Counter Claimant, represented
by DANIELLE GOEBEL, DILWORTH PAXSON LLP, MARJORIE M. OBOD, Dilworth
Paxson LLP & MARIE-THERES DIFILLIPPO, DILWORTH PAXSON LLP.

A.G., A MINOR, INDIVIDUALLY, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, MARGARITA
PERALTA, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED & MARGARITA
PERALTA, INDIVIDUALLYC AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Counter Defendants, represented by MAURA I. MCINERNEY,
EDUCATION LAW CENTER, PAUL H. SAINT-ANTOINE, DRINKER, BIDDLE &
REATH LLP, CHANDA A. MILLER, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, DANIEL
UREVICK-ACKELSBERG, Public Interest Law Center, LUCAS B. MICHELEN,
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, MICHAEL CHURCHILL, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CTR
OF PHILADELPHIA & CAROL FRANCES TREVEY, Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP.


PINNACLE RECOVERY: Mason Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Tanesha Mason, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Pinnacle Recovery, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01823-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y., March 29,
2019), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices.

According to complaint, the Defendant is regularly engaged, for
profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The
Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section
1692a(6).

Sometime after the incurrence of the Debt, the Plaintiff fell
behind on payments. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to
Defendant, the Debt was assigned or owed, otherwise transferred to
Defendant for collection.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action
on behalf of all persons similarly situated in the State of New
York from whom Defendant attempted to charge a convenience fee,
from one year before the date of this Complaint to the present. The
Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendant
attempted to charge a convenience fee, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

PLAYHOUSE LOUNGE: Former Dancer Files Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that a
strip club here describes itself as a juice bar, but a former
dancer says it puts a financial squeeze on performers.

Heather Robbins of Evesham has filed a proposed class action
lawsuit against the Playhouse Lounge, claiming the Route 130
business violates state and federal wage laws and improperly
withholds its performers' earnings.

The lawsuit also alleges the club's distinctive pink-and-black
building is a hostile work environment where entertainers "are
expected to engage in sexual relations with patrons."

The club rejected Robbins' claims.

"We adamantly deny the allegations and look forward to litigating
this matter in court," it said in a statement. "We will zealously
defend the case."

The lounge's website describes it as "a juice bar where you can
bring your own beer, malt beverages wine and champagne."

"We feature some of the best private entertainment in the
business," it adds.

Robbins' suit, filed in federal court in Camden, alleges the
Playhouse "erroneously" classifies its entertainers as independent
contractors who work for tips, rather than employees who should be
paid wages and overtime.

It also claims the lounge's management "unlawfully deducted and
withheld" portions of Robbins' tips, in part to cover business
expenses. As a result, Robbins and other performers worked for less
than the minimum hourly wage, the suit contends.

The suit says performers must pay multiple charges per shift,
including a $12 "house fee" and $10 each for security and a manager
known as the "house mom."

The lawsuit also says Robbins paid a fee of $10 per dance and that
the lounge collected fines from performers, including a $15 penalty
for lateness.

It says dancers are also required to cover the costs of costumes
"and other tools of the trade," including makeup and props.

Robbins was a Playhouse Lounge dancer from December 2017 to August
2018, working about 50 to 60 hours per week, according to the
suit.

It says she "had no choice but to resign" after being pressured
repeatedly to engage in "sexually illicit activities" in private
"champagne rooms."

The suit says Robbins refused to engage in those activities, which
it described as sexual harassment.

The lawsuit, filed by Cherry Hill attorney Joshua Boyette, seeks to
represent all entertainers who worked at the club within the past
three years and were classified as independent contractors. [GN]


PORCELANA CORONA: Faces Fessler Suit Over Defective Toilet Tanks
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK AND AMBER FESSLER, ANDREW HOCKER, KEVIN RUESS, MATTHEW
CARRERAS, CHARLES AND MICHELLE HANDLY, AARON AND STACEY STONE, and
DANIEL AND SHARON SOUSA, on Behalf of Themselves and Those
Similarly Situated v. PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V f/k/a
SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V.a/k/a Vortens, Case No.
4:19-cv-00248-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., April 2, 2019), is filed as a
second amended complaint and class action seeking damages against
the Defendant arising from the manufacturing and/or marketing
defects of certain designated ceramic toilet tanks distributed,
sold, and installed in the residences of the general public
throughout the state of Texas and the United States.

The lawsuit was originally filed by Steven and Joanna Cone as
citizens of the state of Texas.  The parties recently filed a Joint
Motion for Partial Dismissal along with the appropriate Stipulation
regarding resolution by agreement as to the Cones and Michael and
Kimberly Aftosmes.

The Plaintiffs allege that manufacturing defects affecting multiple
models of toilet tanks designed, manufactured, marketed and
distributed by Porcelana causes such tanks to spontaneously crack,
causing extensive damage both to real and personal property.

Porcelana Corona de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., is a foreign for-profit
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Monterrey, N.L., Mexico.  The Defendant has responded to this
litigation that the appropriate corporate identification for the
alleged Defendant in this cause is Porcelana Corona de Mexico, S.A.
de C.V. formerly known as Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. de C.V. also known
as Vortens.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
          Rebecca E. Bell-Stanton, Esq.
          CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C.
          2701 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 570
          Plano, TX 75093
          Telephone: (972) 403-1133
          Facsimile: (972) 403-0311
          E-mail: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com
                  rstanton@cstriallaw.com


RE FLORIDA HOMES: Gonzalez Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against RE Florida Homes,
LLC (REFH) for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The case is captioned MANUEL GONZALEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RE FLORIDA
HOMES, LLC, a Florida company, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-60950-WPD (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2019). Plaintiff Manuel
Gonzalez brings this class action to stop REFH's practice of
sending unauthorized and unwanted text messages promoting its
realty brokerage to prospective realtors. REFH's unsolicited texts
have violated the TCPA and have caused Plaintiff and putative
members of the Class to suffer actual harm, including the
aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy that
result from the receipt of such text messages, lost value of
cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of
their phones, including wear and tear to their phones' data,
memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other
harms. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring REFH to
cease sending unsolicited text messages to consumers, as well as an
award of actual and/or statutory damages and costs.

REFH is a Florida limited liability company based in Hollywood
Florida. The company is engaged in real estate brokerage. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RH INC: June 18 Hearing on Securities Suit Deal Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE RH, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
4:17-cv-00554-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Division, has issued an order on class settlement
preliminary approval schedule.

On March 1, 2019, the Parties participated in an all-day mediation
before the former U.S. District Judge Layn R. Phillips and
thereafter engaged in further settlement negotiations culminating
in an agreement in principle to a class-wide settlement, the basic
terms of which are set forth in a fully executed Memorandum of
Understanding dated March 21, 2019.  The proposed settlement, if
approved by the Court, will fully resolve all pending claims in the
action.

The Parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Rogers approved, that
(i) all pending deadlines will be vacated; (ii) the Lead Plaintiffs
will file a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement by May 6, 2019; (iii) any opposition to the motion for
preliminary approval will be filed by May 20, 2019; (iv) the Lead
Plaintiffs' reply in support of preliminary approval will be filed
by May 27, 2019; and (v) the Lead Plaintiffs will notice the
hearing on their motion for preliminary approval for June 18, 2019
at 2:00 p.m.

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

City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David Ronald Stickney --
davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann.

Public School Teachers Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago &
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Plaintiffs, represented by
Brandon Marsh -- brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman, David Ronald Stickney, Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger &
Grossmann, Jenny E. Barbosa -- jenny.barbosa@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann & Jonathan Daniel Uslaner
-- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz et al.

David Magnani, Plaintiff, represented by Phong L. Tran --
PhongT@johnsonfistel.com -- Johnson Fistel, LLP.

Peter J. Errichiello, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood,
II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz, LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice.

RH, Inc., Gary Friedman & Karen Boone, Defendants, represented by
Erik J. Olson -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Amanda Treleaven --
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Amanda Treleaven -- atreleaven@mofo.com --
Morrison Foerster LLP, Jordan Eth -- JEth@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Mark R.S. Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Su-Han Wang -- SWang@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster LLP.

Kalpesh Patel, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky, LLP.

Steven Hulaj, Henrietta Hulaj, Blair Hulaj & Kristen Hulaj,
Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust, Movant,
represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia Lynn McCormick --
TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


RIPPLE: Prominent Crypto Lawyer Comments on XRP Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
AnTy, writing for Bitcoin Exchange Guide, reports that Jake
Chervinsky, a lawyer at global law firm Kobre & Kim that focuses on
litigation involving securities, released a tweet storm talking
about the class-action lawsuit against Ripple that he says will
take over a year to understand if XRP is a securities asset or
not.

The plaintiffs in the case have alleged that XRP is unregistered
security and that every XRP purchaser is entitled to a refund plus
compensatory damages because Ripple broke the law by issuing and
selling it to the public.

Given the fact that the case was tied up for about nine months just
to make a decision regarding if it should be in state or federal
country, Ripple won't have to file a "substantive response" yet but
if they do they will 'vigorously' deny these allegations.

The Federal court has denied plaintiff's motions to return the case
to the state, in February which has been called a minor but
meaningful victory for Ripple. But it's not all, Ripple has three
phases of litigation coming up in the form of appointing lead
plaintiff and lead counsel, re-filing a consolidated complaint, and
responding to the complaint, as set by the court.

Glacial Pace Of Class Actions
The court has ordered for a public notice of the case that the
plaintiff did on March 20 and further gives potential class members
-- the XRP purchasers -- 60 days that is until May 20 to file
motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their
lead counsel selection. The court would need time to make a
decision and before this Chervinsky says "nothing else will
happen."

From here, the consolidated complaint of legal violation committed
by Ripple will be due in July, the very earliest. After the
complaint is filed, Ripple will have to submit a substantive
response in 45 days which, "will be a motion to dismiss, arguing
that the allegations in the complaint -- even if true -- don't add
up to a violation of the securities laws."

Before September Ripple won't have to say anything. And if Ripple
files a motion to dismiss, another 45 days will be given to the
lead plaintiff to file an opposition brief. Then, the court would
give 30 more days to Ripple to file a reply so "the court might not
even consider the motion until November."

When XRP Is Security Or Not?
"I won't be surprised if there's a motion to dismiss still pending
before the court one year from March 23," says Chervinsky as class
actions move at a 'glacial pace.'

However, in the meantime, both the sides will be gathering evidence
such as documents, depositions, and interrogatories. Unless Ripple
wins the motion to dismiss, this will go on for a long time.

The settlement won't be happening at any moment, as usual, it
happens after the class certification stage. As for when will we
know if XRP is a security or not,

"Probably not in 2019 unless Ripple decides to change course and
voluntarily treat XRP as a security (which I sincerely doubt).
Class actions are good for many things, but quickly resolving
complex securities issues isn't one of them."

Chervinsky further explains that SEC has nothing do with this case
and their enforcement lawyers are probably following along.

Talking about the plaintiff spending, he says, many law firms take
class actions on contingency meaning, no win no fee so they won't
be paying anything. As for "a shady cabal of conspiratorial enemies
trying to take down Ripple," that comes under third-party
litigation funding that is generally a "calculated investment, not
a malicious attack." [GN]


ROTHMANS BENSON: Files for CCAA Amid $13.6BB Quebec Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Zivitz writing for BNN Bloomberg, reports that Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges has filed for CCAA, joining Imperial Tobacco and
JTI-Macdonald in seeking protection from creditors in the wake of
the $13.6-billion Quebec class action case. RBH says it "disputes
liability" and is hoping for "an arrangement that could resolve all
pending litigation." [GN]


SALDUTTI LLC: Rankin Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SALDUTTI, LLC. The
case is styled as DAVID RANKIN, DINA RANKIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. SALDUTTI,
LLC also known as: SALDUTTI LAW, LLC also known as: SALDUTTI LAW
GROUP, WILLIAM F. SALDUTTI, III, ROBERT L. SALDUTTI, CUSTOMERS
BANK, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01508-JHS (E.D. Pa., April 9,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit Other Statutes.

Saldutti Law is a creditor's rights attorney specializing in
collections law in South Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     JONATHAN SHUB, ESQ.
     KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
     1600 MARKET ST, SUITE 2500
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 238-1700
     Fax: (215) 238-1968
     Email: jshub@kohnswift.com


SANTA CRUZ, CA: Quintero Files Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the city of Santa
Cruz. The case is styled as Desieire Quintero, Santos Mendez,
Michael Sweatt, Sunny Lopez, Rafael Saldana, Crystal Olsson,
Vanessa Montoya, Juan Macedo, Mark Hemerbach, Shannon Vudmuska, and
All Others Similarly Situated Residents of The Ross Homeless
Encampment, Plaintiffs v. City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz City
Council, Martin Bernal Santa Cruz City Manager, Susie O'Hara Santa
Cruz Management Analyst, Tina Shull Santa Cruz City Manager, Andrew
Mills Santa Cruz Chief of Police, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-01898-NC (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Santa Cruz is a city on central California's coast. Its long wharf,
with eateries and shops, stretches into Monterey Bay. Nearby, the
Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk's vintage rides include the 1911 Looff
Carousel and the Giant Dipper roller coaster.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: O'Connor Suit Moved to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
Schwan's Consumer Brands, Inc. removed the case, AMANDA O'CONNOR,
as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. SCHWAN'S CONSUMER BRANDS, INC., a Georgia
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 34-2019-00250574 (Filed Feb., 2019), from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
March 29, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00245 to the proceeding.

The complaint seeks recovery of unpaid wages and civil penalties
under the California Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for Schwan's Consumer Brands, Inc.

          Roger M. Mansukhani, Esq.
          Joan C. Woodard, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 565-2900
          Facsimile: (916) 920-4402
          E-mail: rmansukhani@grsm.com
                  jwoodard@grsm.com

SHAMROCK FOODS: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Periods, Arreola Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN A. ARREOLA, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY; and
DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 19STCV09541 (Cal.
Sup., March 21, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide
meal and rest periods pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent
policy of failing to inform employees of their right to take meal
periods and requiring employees, including the Plaintiff, to work
at least five hours without a meal period and failing to pay such
employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of
compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided
or provided after five hours, the lawsuit says.

Shamrock Foods distributes fresh and frozen foods, specialty items
and gourmet foods to food service customers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff  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

SOUTH BEACH DIET: Fischer Sues over Website Design
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against South Beach Diet
for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law against
Defendant. The case is captioned BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SBD ENTERPRISES INC, d/b/a South Beach Diet, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02105-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019). Plaintiff Brian
Fischler asserts that South Beach Diet failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website, www.southbeachdiet.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or
visually-impaired people. Thus, Defendant denies full and equal
access to its Website. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

South Beach Diet is domestic business corporation organized under
New York law and authorized to do business in the State of New
York. It operates a Website that provides information about optimal
nutrition for healthy living. The Website also sells nutritious
food for breakfast, for lunch, diner, and snacks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
     Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
     LIPSKY LOWE LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Telephone: 212.392.4772
     E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
             doug@lipskylowe.com


SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HOSPITAL: Peck Suit Removed to Illinois Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RICHARD PECK, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
HOSPITAL SERVICES and CLAIMASSIST, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2019-MR-23 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on April 5, 2019, and assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00383.

Plaintiff claims that SIH filed healthcare liens against Plaintiff
and others pursuant to the Illinois Healthcare Lien Act despite
plaintiff and others being Medicare beneficiaries, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     G. Patrick Murphy, Esq.
     3415 Office Park Drive, Suite D
     Marion, IL 62959
     Phone: 618.248.3236

          - and -

     John R. Patchett, Esq.
     612 N. Market Street
     Marion, IL 62959
     Phone: 618.993.2601

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jeffrey L. Schultz, Esq.
     Donald M. Flack, Esq.
     7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Phone: 314.621.5070
     Facsimile: 314.621.5065
     Email: jschultz@armstrongteasdale.com
            dflack@armstrongteasdale.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Hughes Suit Over Breach of Contract Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case, BRIAN HUGHES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST
AIRLINES CO., Defendant, Case No. 18 C 5315 (N.D. Ill.).

After running out of de-icer fluid, the Defendant cancelled a
number of flights in and out of Midway airport in Chicago, Illinois
on Feb. 11, 2018, including Plaintiff Hughes' flight from Phoenix
to Midway.  Hughes then brought the class action lawsuit against
Southwest for breach of contract and negligence for its failure to
keep sufficient amounts of de-icer on hand on that date, as well as
on Dec. 8, 24, and 28, 2017, and Jan. 12 and 15, 2018.

Southwest moves to dismiss on the basis that both the Airline
Deregulation Act ("ADA"), and Federal Aviation Act ("FAA"), preempt
Hughes' claims, and on the basis that Hughes has failed to state a
claim for breach of contract or negligence.

Southwest argues that Hughes' breach of contract claim fails
because he does not cite the specific portion of the contract that
he alleges Southwest violated and Southwest was permitted under the
contract to cancel flights under the circumstances alleged (and
thus Hughes does not successfully plead a breach).  Hughes responds
that he has satisfied his pleading burden under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Ellis finds that Hughes has not provided sufficient detail in
his complaint to put Southwest or the Court on notice of the
contractual duty that it breached.  Looking to the contract, it
specifically provides the actions that Southwest must take if it
cancels a flight—at the passenger's request, it will either
provide the passenger with a refund or transport the passenger on
the next available flight.  Hughes does not allege that Southwest
failed to provide a refund or transport him on the next available
flight, and so it is not clear what contractual duty Southwest
breached when it cancelled his flight due to insufficient amounts
of de-icer.

Rather than seeking to enforce the contract, Hughes' complaint
seeks reimbursement for the inconvenience and additional expenses
caused by the cancellation, obligations that the contract of
carriage does not appear to contain.  The specific portions of the
contract that Hughes points to in his response do not save him --
in Section 4(a)(1), the contract of carriage provides that Hughes'
ticket entitles him to transportation, subject to the contract's
other provisions.  However, the contract is clear regarding what
would happen if Southwest cancelled a flight, and Hughes does not
allege that the airline breached those obligations.  The Judge
grants Southwest's motion to dismiss Hughes' breach of contract
claim.

Hughes concedes that Texas' economic loss rule bars his negligence
claim.  Accordingly, the Judge dismisses this claim.

Southwest also argues that the ADA preempts Hughes' claims.  The
ADA contains an explicit preemption clause to ensure that the
States would not undo federal deregulation with regulation of their
own.  The Judge finds that Hughes' failure to sufficiently identify
the contractual obligation that Southwest breached not only fails
to state a claim for breach of contract but also precludes the
Court from finding that Hughes identified a self-imposed
undertaking that would bring this breach of contract claim within
the Wolens exception to ADA preemption.  However, she does not rule
out that Hughes could amend his complaint to sufficiently identify
such a contractual obligation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ellius granted Southwest's motion
to dismiss.  She dismissed Hughes' breach of contract claim without
prejudice and dismissed his negligence claim with prejudice.  She
ordered the Clerk to change the caption to reflect Southwest's
proper name, Southwest Airlines Co.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/KWWVYL from Leagle.com.

Brian Hughes, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas F. Burke --
tburke104@att.net -- Attorney at Law, Kent A. Heitzinger, Kent A.
Heitzinger & Associates & Terrence Buehler -- info@touhylaw.com --
The Law Office of Terrence Buehler.

Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Leonard A. Gail
-- lgail@masseygail.com -- Massey & Gail & Eli Johnson Kay-Oliphant
-- ekay-oliphant@masseygail.com -- Massey & Gail LLP.


SPAR GROUP: Memorandum of Settlement Agreement Reached in Hogan
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPAR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has reached a
settlement and entered into a memorandum of settlement agreement in
the class action initiated by Paradise Hogan.

Paradise Hogan was engaged by and provided services to SPAR
Business Services, Inc. (SBS) as an independent contractor pursuant
to the terms of an "Independent Contractor Master Agreement" with
SBS (prepared solely by SBS) acknowledging his engagement as an
independent contractor.

On January 6, 2017, Hogan filed suit against SBS and SPAR Group,
Inc. (SGRP) (and part of the Company), styled Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-10024-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for District of
Massachusetts. Hogan initially asserted claims on behalf of himself
and an alleged nationwide class of similarly situated individuals
who provided services to SBS and SGRP as independent contractors.


Hogan alleged that he and other alleged class members were
misclassified as independent contractors, and as a result of this
purported misclassification, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of
himself and the alleged Massachusetts class members under the
Massachusetts Wage Act and Minimum Wage Law for failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages, as well as state law claims for breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  

In addition, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and the
nationwide class for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's
overtime and minimum wage provisions.  On March 28, 2017, the
Company moved to refer Hogan's claim to arbitration pursuant to his
agreement, to dismiss or stay Hogan's case pending arbitration, and
to dismiss Hogan's case for failure to state a specific claim upon
which relief could be granted.

On March 12, 2018, the Court denied both defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim, denied the Motion to Compel
Arbitration as to SGRP (because as drafted by SBS, the arbitration
clause did not reference or protect SGRP), denied the Motion to
Stay as to SGRP, and allowed the Motion to Stay as to SBS pending
the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in in Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis.

In May 2018, the Supreme Court decided arbitration clauses that
include an express waiver of a worker's right to bring or
participate in a class action did not violate the National Labor
Relations Act, which resulted in all SBS disputes (but not any SGRP
disputes) being sent to arbitration. On April 24, 2018, SGRP filed
a notice of appeal with the First Circuit of the District Court's
decision that the arbitration clause (as written by SBS) did not
protect SGRP.  

SGRP and Hogan agreed to stay the District Court litigation pending
the First Circuit's decision on SGRP's appeal. Briefing on SGRP's
appeal closed on August 8, 2018 and the appeal hearing was heard by
the First Circuit on September 11, 2018.  

On January 25, 2019, the First Circuit issued a judgment affirming
the District Court's decision that the arbitration clause (as
written by SBS) did not protect SGRP and remanding the case back to
the District Court for further proceedings. As a result, SGRP would
have been required to go to trial without SBS.

Facing lengthy and costly litigation and significant potential
damages in the Hogan Case, on March 27, 2019, SGRP entered into
mediation with the plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel in the Hogan
Case to try to settle any potential future liability for any
possible judgment against SGRP in that case.  

SBS and its stockholders were no longer involved in that case and
so were not involved in that mediation. After extensive
discussions, SGRP reached a settlement and entered into a
memorandum of settlement agreement, which is subject to court
approval and not likely to become final until later in 2019 if and
when the settlement is approved by the court.

SPAR Group said, "If approved, SGRP will pay a maximum settlement
amount of $250,000 (in three installments) one hundred eighty (180)
days after the settlement becomes final, and the Company will be
released by plaintiff and the settlement class from all other
liability under the Hogan Case (the "Hogan Settlement"). The
Company has recorded $250,000 liability as a result."

SPAR Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
merchandising and marketing services worldwide. The company serves
mass merchandisers; pharmacies; drug, grocery, office supply,
dollar, convenience, specialty, electronic, and home improvement
stores; and other retail outlets, including discount stores,
in-home and in-office, etc. SPAR Group, Inc. was founded in 1967
and is headquartered in White Plains, New York.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Khona Sues Over Defective Windshields
--------------------------------------------------------
Bhupendra Khona, Jennifer Ludgate, Brian Mann, and Lucia Luong,
individually and On Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru of America Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09323 (D. N.J., April 5, 2019) is an action against
Defendant for violation of the New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act;
Breach of Express Warranty; Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability; New York's General Business Law for Deceptive Acts
or Practices; The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; The
California Unfair Competition Law; the California Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act; Breach of Express Warranty, Common law
fraudulent omission; Breach of Written Warranty Under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Breach of Implied Warranty Under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated.

Plaintiffs purchased or leased from 2015 through 2016 Subaru
Outback or Legacy vehicles nationwide ("Class Vehicles") that were
designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold and leased by
Defendant.

Beginning in 2014, if not before, Defendant knew that the Class
Vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing defects
that can cause the windshield to crack, chip and/or fracture.
Numerous Class Vehicle owners have reported that their windshields
failed for no reason at all; others have reported windshield
failure as a result of circumstances that would not cause a
non-defective windshield to fail, such as a very slight impact.
Replacement windshields provided by Defendant suffer from the same
Defect, forcing some Class Vehicle owners to replace their
windshields multiple times. On information and belief, in an
egregious breach of its duties under the law, Defendant has caused
its dealers to systematically deny valid warranty claims, often
times claiming that failure caused by the Defect is instead the
result of some external factor not covered under warranty.

In October 2015, Defendant admitted the existence of a defect.
However, rather than offer to fix the Class Vehicles free of
charge, Defendant instead fraudulently misrepresented the nature
and scope of the defect, consistently denied valid warranty claims,
and merely replaced defective windshields with other similarly
defective windshields. The goal of this litigation is to remedy
this fraudulent conduct.

Plaintiffs asserts that Defendant has actively concealed the true
nature and extent of the Windshield Defect from Plaintiffs and the
other Class Members, and failed to disclose it to them, at the time
of purchase or lease and thereafter. Had Plaintiffs and prospective
Class Members known about the Windshield Defect, they would not
have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them,
says the complaint.

Defendant is responsible for the design, manufacture, distribution,
marketing, sale and lease of the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lee Albert, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
     Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Marc L. Godino, Esq.
     Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
     Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
     GREENSTONE LAW PC
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     Email: info@glancylaw.com
            mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com


SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of investors in Synergy Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Synergy"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SGYP) against certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York, and indexed under 19-cv-01352, 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 Synergy between September 5, 2017, and October
25, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), brought
against Troy Hamilton ("Hamilton"), Gary G. Gemignani
("Gemignani"), and Gary S. Jacob ("Jacob") (collectively,
"Defendants") for the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements and omissions and concealment of material
adverse facts in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Synergy 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.

On September 5, 2017, Synergy entered into a $300 million senior
secured loan from CRG Partners III L.P. ("CRG" and the "CRG Loan"),
which in its initial incarnation provided an immediate cash
infusion of $100 million with a second $100 million tranche of
financing less than six months later, on or before February 28,
2018, and a third tranche of up to $100 million in the following
thirteen months.

On September 7, 2017, on a Business Update call, the Company touted
the potential for its lead product—TRULANCE—and the purportedly
positive indicators in its launch to the marketplace.  TRULANCE is
a drug for the once-daily treatment of chronic idiopathic
constipation ("CIC").  The Company described TRULANCE as a "high
value asset" backed by the "right strategy and the right team."
Defendants also portrayed the CRG Loan as a coup, providing the
Company "with access to additional capital if and when" Synergy
would need it.

As disappointing results trickled in and the Company struggled to
meet the covenants of the CRG Loan, Defendants continued to assure
the market that:  (i) the Company was well-positioned for a revenue
windfall from TRULANCE; (ii) Synergy could comply with the terms of
the CRG Loan and would be able to gain access to needed capital;
and (iii) if the Company was threatened with noncompliance, the
Company's partnership and relationship with CRG was both strong and
flexible enough to yield a favorable compromise.

Indeed, Defendants were so steadfast in their representations
regarding TRULANCE's potential and the Company's future outlook
that they initiated a strategic review because the marketplace was
vastly undervaluing Synergy.  However, in reality, Defendants were
hoping for a white knight acquirer or a financing partner to save
the Company from noncompliance with the covenants of the CRG Loan
because of TRULANCE's disappointing results and the Company's
failure to cash-in on the product's potential.  All the while,
Defendants either misleadingly affirmed that the Company was
expected to meet or exceed the covenants' requirements, or failed
to disclose to the market the reality:  TRULANCE had underachieved
and the Company was burdened with covenants that it could not
satisfy.

Finally, on October 25, 2018, the Company shocked its investors and
the market by revealing that:  (i) TRULANCE had substantially
disappointed and that its launch and integration into the
marketplace was not as successful as represented; (ii) as a result,
the Company faced substantial risk that it would not be able to
satisfy the minimum revenue, market capitalization and liquidity
requirements in the CRG Loan; (iii) Synergy's efforts to
renegotiate the terms of the CRG Loan had proven unsuccessful; and
(iv) the strategic review process had failed to yield a "white
knight" or financing alternative and was unlikely to do so prior to
default on the Company's covenants to CRG.

On this news, the price of Synergy common stock declined fell $0.97
per share, or approximately 69%, to close at $0.43 per share on
October 26, 2018, damaging the Company's investors.

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


TCF FINANCIAL: Parshall Balks at Merger Transaction
---------------------------------------------------
A securities class action complaint has been filed against TCF
Financial Corporation (TCF) and its board of directors for alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with falsified and misleading
Registration Statement related to a merger transaction. The case is
captioned PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TCF FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CRAIG
R. DAHL, PETER BELL, WILLIAM F. BIEBER, THEODORE J. BIGOS, KAREN L.
GRANDSTAND, GEORGE G. JOHNSON, RICHARD H. KING, VANCE K. OPPERMAN,
ROBERT J. SIT, JULIE H. SULLIVAN, BARRY N. WINSLOW, and THERESA M.
H. WISE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00663-UNA (D. Del., April 10,
2019). The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
Jan. 28, 2019, pursuant to which TCF will be acquired by Chemical
Financial Corporation. On Jan. 27, 2019, TCF's Board of Directors
caused TCF to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Chemical Financial Corporation.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of TCF will receive 0.5081 shares of
Chemical common stock for each share of TCF common stock they own.
On March 29, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading. It omits the information regarding the TCF's and
Chemical's financial projections for years 2021 through 2024. It
also failed to disclose the analyses performed by the TCF's
financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Transaction, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC.

TCF is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
offices at 200 Lake Street East, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391. TCF's
common stock is traded on New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
symbol TCF. TCF is a party to the Merger Agreement. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOLL GLOBAL: Marquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CARLOS MARQUEZ, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOLL GLOBAL
FORWARDING (USA) INC., a New York corporation; TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP
HOLDCO INC., a Delaware corporation; INSPERITY EXPENSE MANAGEMENT,
INC., a California corporation; and EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, an individual;
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC693823 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on April 8, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-02667.

Plaintiff asserts: (1) Violation of Cal. Labor Code (Recovery of
Unpaid Minimum Wage and Overtime); (2) Violation of Cal. Labor Code
(Meal Period Violations); (3) Violation of Cal. Labor Code (Rest
Period Violations); (4) Violation of Cal. Labor Code (Failure to
Pay Wages Due at Separation of Employment); (5) Violation of Cal.
Labor Code (Failure to Issue  Accurate Itemized Wage Statements);
(6) Violation of Labor Code (Failure to Reimburse Expenses); and
(7) Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code (Unfair Business
Practices).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     William J. Dritsas, Esq.
     Eric E. Hill, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 397-2823
     Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
     Email: wdritsas@seyfarth.com
            ehill@seyfarth.com


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Moskowitz Files Class Action Under FACTA
------------------------------------------------------------------
LANA MOSKOWITZ and CRAIG MOSKOWITZ individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Travelcenters of America
LLC, TA Operating LLC, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
CV-19-913602 filed in Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas on April 5,
2019, is an action arising from Defendants' violation of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") amendment to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), which requires persons that
accept debt cards or credit cards for the transaction of business
to truncate certain card number information on printed receipts
provided to consumers.

Despite the clear language of the statute, Defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to comply with FCRA by printing 10 digits of
their customers' credit card and/or debit card numbers on their
transaction receipts, asserts the complaint.

As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and others
who conducted business with Defendants during the time frame
relevant to this complaint have suffered a violation of their
substantive rights, an invasion of their privacy, breach of their
confidence in the safe handling of their account information,
exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft, and being burdened
with the need to keep or destroy the receipt, to prevent further
disclosure of their account information, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs used their personal Visa debit cards to perform a retail
transaction on August 6, 2017.

Defendant TA Operating LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
who own and operate the largest full-service travel center company
in the United States, serving professional drivers and motorists
alike in 43 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
     Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP
     1114 Dublin Road
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: 614-488-0400
     Fax: 614-488-0401
     Email: murphy@mmmb.com

          - and -

     Andrew Shamis, Esq.
     Shamis & Gentile, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2279
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Edelsberg Law, P.A.
     19495 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 607
     Aventura, FL 33607
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Scott D. Owens, Esq.
     Scott D. Owens, P.A.
     3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
     Hollywood, FL 33019
     Phone: 954-589-0588
     Email: scott@scottdowens.com


TRINITY SERVICES: Parra Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MARK ANTHONY PARRA, an individual, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY
SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19CECG00765 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Fresno, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 5,
2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00447-DAD-EPG.

Plaintiff seeks to represent persons who are employed or have been
employed as an hourly employee by Defendant in the State of
California at any time from four years immediately preceding the
filing of the lawsuit to the present. The Complaint alleges four
causes of action which Plaintiff pursues on a class action basis:
failure to provide meal breaks; failure to provide rest breaks;
penalties pursuant to California Labor Code and Violation of
California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
     Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
     Lyubov Lerner, Esq.
     Kingsley & Kingsley, APC
     16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: (818) 990-8300
     Fax: (818) 990-2903
     Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
            liane@kingsleykingsley.com
            luba@kingsleykingsley.com

          - and -

     Emil Davtyan, Esq.
     Davtyan Professional Law Corp.
     5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Ste. 130
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (818) 875-2008
     Fax: (818) 722-3974
     Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
     David L. Cheng, Esq.
     FORD & HARRISON, LLP
     350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 237-2400
     Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
     Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com
            dchengQfordharrison.com


TUI: Holidaymakers File Class Action Over Mexico Sickness Bug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Davies, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that Tui faces
legal action from more than 400 holidaymakers after suffering from
"crippling sickness" in Mexico.

The operator is reportedly being accused of failing to pass on
public health warnings to travellers about cyclospora -- a bug that
causes severe vomiting and diarrhoea.

Holidaymakers blamed the sickness bug for ruining their trips,
which included honeymoons.

The Sunday Times reported that at one hotel, the Grand Sirenis
Resort and Spa south of Cancun, almost 200 Tui customers became
extremely sick in 2016 with symptoms similar to cyclospora.

Many other hotels were affected, including the Sensatori Resort in
Riviera Maya with 95 victims.

Operators were reported to have been told by Abta in July and
August 2016 that people should be notified before travelling to
Mexico about the outbreak of cyclospora.

However, Simpson Millar, a law firm representing the tourists,
claimed that none of its clients were told about the dangerous
parasite in advance of travel.

Other holidaymakers claimed they were handed a warning letter only
after they arrived in Mexico.

Nick Harris, head of travel law at Simpson Millar, who is taking
the class action through Manchester county court, said the failure
to alert tourists to the health warning was wrong.

"This would have given customers an opportunity to cancel and get a
refund, or book a different holiday," he said. "Many of my clients
were only told about this horrible infection once they arrived.

"People had no chance to get their money back and choose another
destination."

Tui said it would be inappropriate to comment on ongoing legal
proceedings, adding: "It is important to note that the number of
customers who reported any sickness during their stay make up less
than one per cent of the total customers who stayed in these
resorts during the ten-month period."

The newspaper said Abta refused to comment. [GN]


TURNKEY VACATION: Figueroa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turnkey Vacation
Rentals, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Turnkey
Vacation Rentals, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03166 (S.D.
N.Y., Apr. 9, 2019).

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

TurnKey Vacation Rentals, Inc. markets and manages vacation rental
homes in the United States. The company was founded in 2013 and is
based in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECH: Can Compel Arbitration as to Fridman, Reznik
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL FRIDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02815-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (i) granted the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration as to Fridman and Reznik,
and dismissed them from action; and (ii) denied the Defendants'
motion to stay the action and lifted the current stay.

Michael Fridman, Danny Gesel Reznik Fridman, and Jake Lechner
brought the putative class action against Defendants Uber
Technologies and its subsidiaries Rasier, LLC, and Portier, LLC,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and
California unfair competition law.

Fridman alleges that he applied to become an Uber driver and
entered into an agreement with Uber in June 2014, but that Uber
"deactivated" him as a driver in January 2018.  He asserts that on
April 12, 2018, Uber sent him an unsolicited text message that read
"Uber: Hi Michael, I'm your dedicated driver account specialist.
Are you still interested in earning with Uber? I can help! Reply
YES to chat."

Reznik alleges that he applied to become an Uber Eats driver in
July 2017, but his application was "rejected and/or denied."
However, he claims that on April 21, 2018, Uber sent him an
unsolicited text message that read "Uber: Danny, your Vehicle
Insurance expires in 30 days.  Once you get a new version of your
document you can upload it here http://t.uber.com/expiryto keep
your account active. Thanks!"

Lechner alleges that he "has never been or applied to become an
Uber driver" but that Uber sent him an unsolicited text message on
April 18, 2018 that read "Uber: Hi Jake, I'm your dedicated driver
account specialist.  Are you still interested in earning with Uber?
I can help! Reply YES to chat."

The Plaintiffs claim that these unsolicited text messages, among
others they received, entitle them and a putative class to relief
under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and,
derivatively, California unfair competition law.

Fridman agreed to a Technology Services Agreement ("TSA") with Uber
subsidiary Rasier, LLC.  The Arbitration Provision stated that it
applies to any dispute arising out of or related to the Agreement
or termination of the Agreement and survives after the Agreement
terminates.  The Arbitration Provision stated that if a JAMS
arbitrator is used, then the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules &
Procedures rules will apply.   Reznik agreed to a TSA with Uber
subsidiary Portier, LLC containing materially identical language.

The Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the
action on Sept. 14, 2018.  They moved to compel Fridman and Reznik
to resolve their claims through arbitration and to stay the action
pending resolution of the arbitrations.  The Plaintiffs opposed on
October 5, and the Defendants replied on October 19.  The Court
held a hearing on December 20, after which it took the motion under
submission.  On Feb. 11, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion to stay the action pending a decision on the motion to
compel.

Judge Gilliam finds that the delegation clauses in Fridman's and
Reznik's Technology Service Agreements are nearly identical to the
ones in Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc.  Despite the obvious
similarity, the Plaintiffs do not attempt to distinguish Mohamed or
even mention it in their briefing.  When questioned at the hearing,
they explained that Mohamed was distinguishable because they were
disputing the formation (rather than the scope) of the arbitration
agreement, invoking principles of California contract law requiring
a meeting of the minds for contract formation.  But Fridman and
Reznik admitted that they entered into the Technology Services
Agreements.  And the terms of the delegation provision clearly and
unmistakably delegate the gateway question of arbitrability to the
arbitrator, no matter what the Plaintiffs' purported subjective
understanding of the terms of the agreement may have been.  Because
the Technology Service Agreements that Fridman and Reznik admit to
entering into clearly and unmistakably delegate the issue of
arbitrability to an arbitrator, the Judge granted the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration as to Fridman and Reznik's claims.

The Defendants moved to stay the entire action.  The Plaintiffs
stated at the hearing that if the motion to compel arbitration was
granted, they would prefer that Fridman and Reznik be dismissed
from the action.

First, the Judge concludes that dismissal is warranted as to
Fridman and Reznik.  Given that the Plaintiffs have requested
dismissal (presumably to appeal the Order), and the Defendants have
not articulated any basis for why the claims should be stayed
instead, the Judge exercises his discretion to dismiss Fridman and
Reznik from the action.  Second, he finds that Lechner's claims
should not be stayed pending resolution of Fridman and Reznik's
arbitration.  Lechner apparently has not agreed to resolve his
claims through arbitration; thus, he should not be required to wait
to litigate his case until an arbitrator rules on the claims of the
other Plaintiffs who agreed to have their claims heard in that
forum.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion to
stay the action pending resolution of Fridman and Reznik's
arbitrations.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam granted the motion to
compel arbitration as to Fridman and Reznik, and dismissed them
from the action.  In addition, he denied the motion to stay the
action, and lifted the current stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/z1cBKz from Leagle.com.

Michael Fridman, Jake Lechner & Danny Gesel Reznik Fridman,
Plaintiffs, represented by Stefan Louis Coleman, Law Offices of
Stefan Coleman, LLC, pro hac vice & David S. Ratner --
david@davidratnerlawfirm.com -- David Ratner Law Firm.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC & Portier, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Lucia X. Roibal -- lroibal@mofo.com -- Morrison
Foerster LLP.


ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Faces McClintock Class Action
------------------------------------------------
The Ultimate Software Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April 15,
2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class
action suit entitled, McClintock v. The Ultimate Software Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 87274166.

On February 3, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Unite
Parent Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Unite Merger
Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation and indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the
Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary
of Parent. Parent will be owned by an investor group.

A putative class action lawsuit captioned McClintock v. The
Ultimate Software Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 87274166 (the
"McClintock action"), was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida on April 1,
2019.

The McClintock action names as defendants the Company and each
member of our board of directors. The action was brought as a
putative class action on behalf of the Company's stockholders, and
alleges, among other things, that the director defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger and that
the Definitive Proxy Statement is materially misleading and/or
incomplete.

The McClintock action also makes general allegations about the sale
process, certain deal-protection provisions in the Merger Agreement
and the vesting of certain stock grants. The McClintock action
seeks equitable relief, including among other things, to enjoin the
consummation of the merger or to direct the directors of the
Company to exercise their fiduciary duties, to recover damages,
together with costs of the action, reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees, and any other relief the court may deem just and
proper.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of the McClintock action,
nor can the Company predict the amount of time and expense that
will be required to resolve the lawsuit. The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and the Company and the director
defendants intend to vigorously defend against it.

The Ultimate Software Group, Inc. provides cloud-based human
capital management solutions to enterprise companies, mid-market
companies, and companies in the strategic market in the United
States, Canada, Europe, the Asia Pacific, and internationally. The
company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Weston,
Florida.


UMPQUA: Faces Whiting's Labor Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Umpqua Bank and Umpqua Holdings Corporation for alleged violations
of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions
Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission's Order No. 4-2001. The
case is captioned WILLIAM WHITING on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA
HOLDINGS CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CGC-19-575197 (Cal. Super., Cty. of San Francisco, April 11,
2019). Plaintiff William Whiting claims that the Defendant has
failed to provide rest and meal periods, failed to reimburse
employees for business expenses, and failed to pay earned wages
upon discharge. He also accuses the Defendant of failing to provide
accurate wage statements and engaging in unlawful, unfair and or
deceptive business practices.

Founded in 1953, Umpqua Holdings Corporation is doing business as
Umpqua Bank. It operates main segments for personal banking and
lending, business banking and lending, and wealth management. Its
current President and CEO is Cort O'Haver. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Liu, Esq.
     Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, Esq.
     THELIULAW FIRM, P.C.
     800 Menlo Avenue, Suite 102
     Menlo Park, CA 94025
     Telephone: (650) 461.9000
     Facsimile: (650) 460.6967
     E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com
             rpetersonfisher@liulawpc.com

              - and –

     Robert Ottinger, Esq.
     Daniel Galindo, Esq.
     THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
     535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Telephone: (415) 325-2088
     Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
     E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com
             danielg@ottingerlaw.com


UNIQUE WHOLESALE: Wise Seeks Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Unique Wholesale LLC for alleged violations of Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938. The case is captioned THOMAS WISE, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. UNIQUE
WHOLESALE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01644-AT (N.D. Ga.,
April 11, 2019). Plaintiff Thomas Wise alleges the Defendant has
willfully failed to pay him and similarly situated persons overtime
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. On behalf
of himself and other similarly situated persons, Wise seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Unique Wholesale LLC is Georgia corporation with its principal
place of business at 1848 Austins Point Drive, Lawrenceville,
Georgia. It operates a wholesale "smoke & vape" business. It sells
a wide variety of items but is focused on selling products related
to smoking and vaping. It also sells products online and out of its
warehouse, located in Norcross, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin M. Scott, Esq.
     SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
     246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
     Decatur, GA 30030
     Telephone: 678-780-4880
     Facsimile: 478-575-2590
     E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com


UNITED RENTALS: Candemeres Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Candemeres, individually and on behalf of those individuals
similarly situated v. United Rentals Inc., United Rentals (North
America, Inc.), Vito Italia, and Barry Davis, Case No.
2:19-cv-01382 (E.D. N.Y., March 11, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated FLSA and NYLL by
failing to supply accurate statement of wages and overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate
on or around July 6, 2015.

The Defendant United Rentals is a foreign business corporation
operating at 262 McCormick Dr., Bohemia, NY 11716.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABELL & COLLOTA, P.C.
      1 Corporate Drive Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Tel: (631) 589-7242
      Fax: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


UNITED STATES: Williams Files Class Suit in W.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------
Craig Alan Williams has brought a class action lawsuit in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The case is
styled as Craig Alan Williams, an individual on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carolyn
W. Colvin Head of Social Security Adm., Thomas T Cullen the United
States Attorney for the District, in his official capacity, Jeff
Session United States Attorney General in Washington D.C.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00292-GEC (W.D. Va., Apr. 9, 2019).

The court docket states the nature of suit as Social Security: SSID
Tit. XVI.

Carolyn W. Colvin is the Commissioner of Social Security
Administration in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Violates FDCPA, Dykes Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN DYKES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-60871-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., April 2, 2019), is brought against the Defendant on
account of its alleged misrepresentation of and non-compliance with
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and federal student loan
law.

Valentine & Kebartas, LLC, is a Massachusetts Limited Liability
Company, and is engaged in the collection of consumer debts.  The
Defendant uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce in the
collection of debts.  The Defendant regularly collects debts from
consumers located across the Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Veronica L. Robinson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF E.F. ROBINSON
          7101 W. Commercial Blvd., Suite 4A
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33319
          Telephone: (954)840-5301
          Facsimile: (954)337-9215
          E-mail: vrobinson@erobinsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas R. Breeden, Esq.
          THOMAS R. BREEDEN, P.C.
          10326 Lomond Drive
          Manassas, VA 20109
          Telephone: (703) 361-9277
          Facsimile: (703) 257-2259
          E-mail: trb@tbreedenlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
          BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          26 Broadway, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 248-7906
          Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
          E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files 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 Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Vanda" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
VNDA) between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover Vanda
shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased Vanda securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit Vanda 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) Vanda was engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which the
Company promoted the off-label use of Fanapt and Hetlioz; (2) Vanda
was fraudulently receiving drug reimbursements from the government
by abusing Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs; (3) as a
result of the scheme, Vanda faced legal action from the government;
(4) Vanda's promotional materials for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false
and misleading, garnering regulatory scrutiny from the FDA; and (5)
as a result, Defendants' statements about Vanda's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times

On February 11, 2019, Aurelius Value published a report entitled,
"Vanda: In the Land of The Blind, The One-Eyed Man in King." This
report revealed a previous unreported qui tam lawsuit which
disclosed Vanda's years of fraudulent promotion of Fanapt and
Hetlioz as well as Vanda's scheme to defraud the government with
fraudulent reimbursements.

On this news, shares of Vanda fell $0.95 per share or over 5% to
close at $18.00 per share on February 11, 2019, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 26, 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.

         Daniel Sadeh,Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         Website: www.bernlieb.com
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


VANGUARD NATURAL: Hurwitz Class Action Suit Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action
suit entitled, Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullins et al., is now
closed.

In June and July 2015, purported unitholders of LRR Energy, L.P.
("LRE") filed four lawsuits challenging Vanguard's 2015 merger with
LRE (the "LRE Merger"). These lawsuits were styled (a) Barry Miller
v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087-VCG, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware; (b) Christopher Tiberio v. Eric
Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-39864, in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, 334th Judicial District; (c) Eddie Hammond v.
Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-40154, in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District; and (d) Ronald
Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-2017,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division. These lawsuits have been voluntarily
dismissed or nonsuited.

On August 18, 2015, another purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit in connection
with the LRE Merger. This lawsuit is styled  Robert Hurwitz v. Eric
Mullins et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00711-MAK, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "LRE
Lawsuit"). On June 22, 2016, the LRE Plaintiff filed his Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended LRE Complaint") against LRE,
the members of the board of directors of the general partner of
LRE, Vanguard, Lighthouse Merger Sub, LLC, and the members of the
Board (the "LRE Lawsuit Defendants").

In the Amended LRE Complaint, the LRE Plaintiff alleges multiple
causes of action under the Securities Act and Exchange Act related
to the registration statement and proxy statement filed with the
SEC in connection with the LRE Merger (the "LRE Proxy").

In general, the LRE Plaintiff alleges that the LRE Proxy failed,
among other things, to disclose allegedly material details
concerning Vanguard's (x) debt obligations and (y) ability to
maintain distributions to unitholders. Based on these allegations,
the LRE Plaintiff sought, among other relief, to rescind the LRE
Merger, and an award of damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On January 2, 2018, the court in the LRE Lawsuit certified a class
of plaintiffs that includes all persons or entities holding LRE
common units as of August 28, 2015, through the close of the LRE
Merger on October 5, 2015, but excluding the LRE Lawsuit Defendants
and certain related persons and entities (the "LRE Class"). The
window for potential members of the LRE Class to request exclusion
from the LRE Class closed on May 29, 2018, with 22 LRE unitholders
timely requesting exclusion.

On June 27, 2018, the LRE Lawsuit Defendants and the LRE Plaintiff,
on his own behalf and on behalf of the LRE Class, entered into a
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation"). As amended on July
11, 2018, and on July 25, 2018, the Stipulation provided that the
LRE Class settle and release all claims against the LRE Lawsuit
Defendants relating to the LRE Merger, in exchange for an aggregate
settlement payment of $8.0 million. Of that settlement amount,
Vanguard was to contribute $0.7 million, with the remainder to be
paid by the insurers of the LRE Lawsuit Defendants. The LRE Lawsuit
Defendants continue to deny all allegations of liability or
wrongdoing.

On July 18, 2018, the court held a hearing to consider whether to
preliminarily approve the proposed settlement. In response to
matters raised at that hearing, on July 25, 2018, the LRE Lawsuit
Defendants and the LRE Plaintiff amended the Stipulation and
submitted to the court a revised notice of proposed settlement,
proof of claim and release form, and summary notice of proposed
settlement. On July 26, 2018, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the amended
Stipulation.

On December 14, 2018, the court held a hearing to consider whether
to finally approve the proposed settlement. Also on December 14,
2018, the court entered an order finally approving the settlement
and finding that "the settlement with its two levels of
consideration is fair, reasonable, and adequate to all members of
the Class of Plaintiffs."

On December 19, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Amend the
Judgment, asking the court to amend, in certain respects, the order
finally approving the settlement. Later that day, the court granted
the parties' Joint Motion to Amend the Judgment and entered an
Amended Judgment Order that clarifies, in certain respects, its
initial order finally approving the settlement and instructs the
clerk of court to close the case.

The case is now closed.

Vanguard Natural Resources, Inc., an independent exploration and
production company, focuses on the production and development of
oil and natural gas properties in the United States. The company
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. On
March 31, 2019, Vanguard Natural Resources, Inc. along with its
affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under
Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of Texas.


VIKING CRUISES: Class Action Among Options for Passengers
---------------------------------------------------------
Simon Calder, writing for Independent, reports that the cruise was
a two-week "In Search of the Northern Lights" voyage, starting and
ending in Tilbury in Essex.iking Cruises says "All passengers and
crew are safe" after one of its cruise ships finally docked in a
port on the coast of Norway.

Hundreds of cruise passengers, many of them elderly, experienced a
nightmare evacuation after the ship, Viking Sky, was battered by
extreme weather and its engines stopped working.

The emergency raises many serious questions.

What was the ship, and where was she sailing?

The vessel was the two-year-old Viking Sky. She was carrying 915
passengers and 458 crew, making her a relatively small cruise
ship.

The cruise was a two-week "In Search of the Northern Lights"
voyage, starting and ending in Tilbury in Essex.

This was the last cruise in the first winter for the Viking Cruises
itinerary.

When the plans were unveiled, the cruise line's chairman, Torstein
Hagen, said: "No other cruise line can show guests this part of the
world like we can. Norway's landscapes in the winter are truly
magnificent.

"I am pleased to offer this exclusive opportunity for our guests to
explore my homeland."

The basic price for the cruise was around GBP4,000, or about GBP300
per person per day, making it a relatively expensive voyage.

"Onboard, guests find serene Scandinavian spaces, where every room
is beautiful and functional, quiet and filled with light," the
company says.

When and where did things start going wrong?

Viking Sky had sailed from the "turnaround port" of Tromso in
Arctic Norway in the evening of Thursday 21 March. It is believed
she was sailing direct to Stavanger in the southwest of the
country, missing out a planned call in Bodo in northern Norway. She
was due to arrive at Tilbury on Tuesday 26 March.

The shipping forecast for the planned voyage was for gale-force
winds and very rough seas.

Mayday was declared at 2pm on Saturday afternoon, March 23. The
company says: "Viking Sky experienced a loss of engine power off
the coast of Norway near Molde."

Unable to make progress or steer, the ship was hit by extreme
waves, with passengers' belongings thrown around their cabins.

An emergency was declared. Passengers put on life jackets and went
to the muster stations. It was at one of these locations that a
huge wave smashed windows, with a large inflow of water that swept
a number of passengers off their feet and caused injuries,
including broken limbs.

What was the response?

A helicopter evacuation began, with the injured, wet and cold
passengers winched off the ship individually and taken in batches
of 15 to 20 to the nearby city of Molde.

By 10.30am, 479 passengers had been airlifted from the vessel.

The vessel finally docked under its own power in the port of Molde
at 4.30pm, local time.

Viking Cruises says: "Currently we understand 20 people suffered
injuries as a result of this incident, and they are all receiving
care at the relevant medical centres in Norway, with some already
having been discharged.

"Throughout all of this, our first priority was for the safety and
wellbeing of our passengers and our crew.

"We would like to thank the Norwegian Redningssentral and the
Norwegian emergency services for their support and skill displayed
in managing the situation in very challenging weather conditions.

"We would also like to thank the local residents who throughout the
whole process have been extremely supportive and hospitable."

British residents with concerns about passengers on board can call
07585 779 853 or 0208 780 7900.

What is happening to the passengers?

"Passengers will be flying home starting tonight," says the cruise
line.

The nearest international airport to Molde is at Alesund, about 50
miles by road. But at least two departures to Oslo on March 24
evening have been cancelled, and the cruise line is likely to
organise extra flights.

Will they get compensation?

Undoubtedly. It remains to be seen how much, and whether it will be
in cash or vouchers for future travel on Viking.

In addition, injured and/or distressed passengers may mount legal
claims, probably in a class action.

What is likely to happen to the vessel?
Viking Sky will stay in port in Molde while repairs are carried
out. Her next voyage, from Tilbury to Germany and Scandinavia, due
to depart on Wednesday, March 27, has been cancelled.

"We do not anticipate any additional cancellations at this time,"
Viking Cruises says.

Are these difficult waters?

Yes, they can be -- but many thousands of British travellers take
cruises along the Norwegian coast each year.

Most of them are aboard the Hurtigruten, the coastal ferry service
that connects coastal communities but also takes tourists.

What is the official advice for this part of the world?

The Foreign Office has specific advice for Arctic travel (though at
the time of the emergency Viking Sky was about 200 miles south of
the Arctic Circle.

It says: "The most popular way of visiting the Arctic is by ship.
As some areas of the Arctic -- specifically the more northerly and
remote regions -- can be uncharted and ice-covered, you should
check the previous operational experience of cruise and other
operators offering travel in the region

"You should also consider the on-board medical facilities of cruise
ships and talk to cruise operators as appropriate, particularly if
you have a pre-existing medical condition." [GN]


VISALUS INC: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in Wakefield TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-1857-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H.
Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied
the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.

Wakefield brings two causes of action against the Defendant.  The
first is an individual claim under the general private right of
action enforcement provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), alleging that the Defendant violated the TCPA's
implementing regulations, specifically 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(c), by initiating more than one telemarketing call within a
12-month period to her landline telephone number that had been
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30
days.  Her second claim is a class claim, alleging that Defendant
violated Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (b)(1)(B)1 of the TCPA by
improperly using an artificial or prerecorded voice in
telemarketing calls to people's residential landline or cellular
telephonesher without their prior express consent.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action lawsuit in October
2015.  The next day, her counsel sent a letter to the Defendant to
provide notice of the Defendant's instant and continuing duty to
preserve all documents, records, data, information, and other
tangible evidence

The Defendant used an automated telephone system called the
"Progressive Outreach Manager" ("POM").  The Plaintiff contends
that the POM system generated and maintained historical records of
each calling campaign and each call attempted by Defendant and
could generate "Campaign Detail" reports showing the name and
telephone number of the contact, the time the call was placed, and
the outcome of the call, including whether the call was answered by
a live person or an answering machine.  This information is all
vital to the Plaintiff's claims.

The POM system's electronically stored information about a calling
campaign, however, was programmed to be automatically deleted after
three months.  Even though the Defendant was on notice since
October 2015 that it had a duty to preserve the information
contained in the POM system, the Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant failed to suspend the automatic deletion of the call
records stored in the POM system.  

The Plaintiff points to statements made by Scott Gidley, the
Defendant's corporate representative and compliance analyst, during
his deposition on Dec. 12, 2016 as evidence that these call records
had been automatically deleted.  The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant could have programmed the POM system to maintain the call
records forever or it could have programmed the POM system to back
up the call data so that it would be preserved.

The Defendant disputes the Plaintiff's characterization of how the
POM system stored data.  It contends that, although the POM system
is capable of generating call reports if configured correctly, the
Defendant never programmed the POM system to generate and store the
call records that the Plaintiff claims existed and therefore the
Defendant never possessed the data that she claims it deleted.

For many of the calls, however, the Defendant maintained contact
information spreadsheets containing all of the information also
available in the POM system.  Thus, for many calls, the lost data
from the POM system was replaced through other sources.  The
Plaintiff contends that there are 1.7 million calls that were not
recorded on the contact information spreadsheets and were deleted
from the POM system.  She asserts that the lost call records would
have provided her with conclusive proof that 350,228 of those calls
delivered a message using an artificial or prerecorded voice to
class members.  

The Plaintiff now asks the Court to order appropriate relief to
cure the prejudice caused to her by the Defendant's destruction of
the call records, including instructing the jury that tje Defendant
deleted call records and that the lost information was unfavorable
to the Defendant.

The Defendant urges the Court to reject the Plaintiff's motion for
several reasons.  First, it argues that the Plaintiff's motion is
untimely because she first learned that the POM system
automatically deletes call records every three months in December
2016 but waited more than two years, until the eve of trial, to
bring her motion.  Second, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff
misunderstands the POM system configuration, and disputes that the
Defendant ever programmed the POM system to generate and store the
reports in question.  Third, it rejects the Plaintiff's
calculations of how many of the 1.7 million lost calls actually
played an artificial or prerecorded voice.  Fourth, it argues that
the Plaintiff failed to exercise appropriate diligence to recover
or replace the lost information from other sources during
discovery.

Judge Simon concludes that had the Plaintiff filed her motion
shortly after the close of discovery, the Court could have ordered
additional discovery, held an evidentiary hearing, made credibility
determinations, decided whether spoliation occurred, and formulated
an appropriate remedy.  Resolution of spoliation motions is often
highly fact intensive.  As other courts have concluded, there is a
particular need for spoliation motions to be filed as soon as
reasonably possible after discovery of the facts that underlie the
motion.  The wisdom of that observation is especially clear in the
pending dispute.  The Plaintiff filed her spoliation motion more
than a year after the close of discovery, more than two years after
she first learned of the alleged destruction of call records, and
less than two months before trial.  Hence, the Plaintiff's motion
is untimely.

For these reasons, he denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/c6ybre from Leagle.com.

Lori Wakefield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Eve-Lynn J. Rapp
-- erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Gregory S. Dovel
-- greg@dovel.com -- Dovel & Luner LLP, pro hac vice, J. Aaron
Lawson -- alawson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Jonas B.
Jacobson, Dovel & Luner LLP, pro hac vice, Julien A. Adams, Dovel &
Luner LLP, pro hac vice, Lily E. Hough, Edelson PC, pro hac vice,
Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Scott F. Kocher,
Forum Law Group LLC, Simon C. Franzini -- simon@dovel.com -- Dovel
& Luner LLP, pro hac vice, Stefan L. Coleman, Law Offices of Stefan
Coleman, P.A., pro hac vice & Stephen Joseph Voorhees, Forum Law
Group.

ViSalus, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Maston O'Neal ,
Quarles & Brady LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua M. Sasaki --
josh.sasaki@millernash.com -- Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Nicholas H. Pyle -- nicholas.pyle@millernash.com -- Miller Nash
Graham & Dunn LLP & Zachary S. Foster -- zachary.foster@quarles.com
-- Quarles & Brady LLP, pro hac vice.


VITACOST.COM: Faces Figueroa Suit over Denied Website Access
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Vitacost.com, Inc.
for alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The case is captioned JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VITACOST.COM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03275 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019).
Figueroa claims that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by him and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

Based in Boca Raton, Florida, the American e-commerce company
Vitacost.com, Inc. sells vitamins, supplements, health foods, and
beauty products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
     COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Telephone: (929) 575-4175
     E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003-2461
     Telephone: (212) 228-9795
     E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


WAYFAIR INC: Sells Bug-infested Mattresses, Nicholas Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEKISHA NICHOLAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAYFAIR INC. and WAYFAIR LLC
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01974 (E.D. N.Y., April 5, 2019) seeks
compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, costs
of suit, actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, and any other relief that the Court
deems just and proper arising from Defendants' unfair, unlawful,
unethical, fraudulent, unconscionable, and/or deceptive business
policies and practices related to the selling of mattresses,
bedframes, and/or headboards.

The complaint asserts that Wayfair continues to sell and ship
products that are infested by bedbugs to unaware and trusting
citizens when it knew, at all times, that the products were
infested and crawling with insects that feed exclusively on human
and animal blood, in total disregard of the health and safety of
Plaintiff and members of the Class.

Moreover, Wayfair failed to eradicate the bedbug problem and
continued to sell the infested products for at least 2 years after
it became aware of the problem and, upon information and belief,
continues to sell these products.

Plaintiff and the Class members were subjected to insects known as
Cimex Lectularius that had infested products Wayfair sold and
shipped to Plaintiff and the Class. As a result, Plaintiff and the
Class members have been damaged, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lekisha Nicholas is a citizen of the state of New York
who purchased Defendant's furniture.

Wayfair Inc. is engaged in the sale and marketing of products,
including bedroom furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     Email: scott@bursor.com
            jarisohn@bursor.com

          - and -

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
     111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1250
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312.750.1265
     Fax: 312.212.5919
     Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

          - and -

     Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
     CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
     308 Hutchinson Road
     Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
     Phone: 314-541-0317
     Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


WAYNE, MI: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Woodall Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATRINA WOODALL, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF
WAYNE, ET AL., ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD Defendants, Case No. 17-13707
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Arthur J. Tarnow of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and (ii)
denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

The putative class action is the third filed by women formerly
incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail who are challenging the
constitutionality of group strip searches.  The Plaintiffs seek
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  They allege that in the course of these searches,
both male and female correction officers taunted them, insulted
them, and humiliated them, while subjecting them to unsanitary and
degrading conditions.

Plaintiffs Katrina Woodall, Katana Johnson, Kelly Davis, Joanie
Williams, Latoya Hearts, and Cynthia Whack-Finley brought the
lawsuit against the County of Wayne, Wayne County Sheriff Benny
Napoleon in his official capacity, and Officer Terri Graham in her
individual capacity.  They were all incarcerated in the Wayne
County Jail for different periods of time between 2010 and 2014.
They allege that they were made to strip in full view of male
guards, officers, employees, and inmates.  The Plaintiffs and other
female inmates were forced to bend over and spread their vaginal
parts and anus under the pretense of searching for contraband.
Exposure to menstrual discharge heightened the unhygienic and
dehumanizing effect of these directives.  The Plaintiffs allege
that guards, including Defendant Graham, would routinely degrade
and humiliate the Plaintiffs by viciously commenting on their
appearances and sexuality.

The Defendants maintain that the two types of searches at issue are
"Registry Searches" and Safety/Sanitation Searches."  The former is
employed when inmates enter the jail from the outside, and the
latter is employed periodically, without announcement, and also
includes a search of the inmates' cells.  They deny allegations of
abusive treatment.  They also contend that both types of searches
are now conducted on an individual basis.

Previous plaintiffs have attempted to represent the class, and the
case raises similar, but by no means identical, factual and legal
questions.  The first was filed pro se by Janine Weathington on
Aug. 13, 2012 (Weathington v. City of Detroit, et al.).  Meanwhile,
Amanda Sumpter, represented by the same counsel, had filed a
similar complaint on Dec. 17, 2014 (Sumpter v. County of Wayne).
On Nov. 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs in the suit, who were putative
class members in the prior suits, filed their Complaint.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 19, 2018.  The
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify class on June 28, 2018.  These
motions are full briefed, and the Court held a hearing on March 19,
2019.

Judge Tarnow concludes that even in light of adverse Sixth Circuit
precedent in a very similar case, the Plaintiffs have pled facts
sufficient to establish grounds for relief under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  They have not established grounds for injunctive or
class-wide relief, however.

Therefore, he granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed Plaintiffs Whack-Finley and
Williams.  He dnied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.  The Plaintiffs may revive their motion for
class certification if they can show a numerosity of the class
members whose claims accrued on or after Nov. 14, 2014.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0Ea7on from Leagle.com.

Katrina Woodall, Katana Johnson, Kelly Davis & Latoya Hearst,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael R. Dezsi -- mdezsi@dezsilaw.com
-- Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC.

County of Wayne, Benny N. Napoleon, In his Official Capacity as
WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF & Officer Graham, In her Individual Capacity;
jointly and severally, Defendants, represented by Davidde A. Stella
-- dstella@waynecounty.com -- Wayne County Corporation Counsel.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Gainey McKenna Files Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Weight Watchers International, Inc. ("Weight
Watchers" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: WTW) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of Weight Watchers
between May 4, 2018 through February 26, 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 that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Weight Watchers was
experiencing diminished subscriber demand attributable to the
onslaught of new competing smartphone fitness apps, meal-delivery
services, and other tech advances that were driving down Weight
Watchers' new subscriber growth and subscriber retention rates; (2)
diminished subscriber growth, when coupled with a much larger
number of fourth quarter subscription lapses than Weight Watchers
would typically experience, made it highly unlikely that Weight
Watchers would retain four million subscribers by the end of 2018;
(3) Weight Watchers was not on track to grow its subscriber count
to five million or to drive annual revenues to more than $2 billion
by the end of 2020; (4) a decreased subscriber count would result
in decreased revenues profits; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Weight Watchers' business metrics and financial
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 3, 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;

        Contact:
        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
        Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
        Gainey McKenna & Egleston
        Telephone: (212) 983-1300
        E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action 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.

Weight Watchers International, Inc. (NASDAQ: WTW)
Class Period: May 4, 2018 - February 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2019

Allegations: Weight Watchers International, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements throughout the class period
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Weight Watchers was
experiencing diminished subscriber demand attributable due to the
onslaught of new competing smartphone fitness apps, meal-delivery
services, and other tech advances was driving down Weight Watchers'
new subscriber growth and its subscriber retention rates; (b)
diminished subscriber growth, when coupled with the much larger
number of fourth quarter subscription lapses that Weight Watchers
typically experiences, made it highly unlikely that the Company
would retain four million subscribers by the end of 2018; (c)
Weight Watchers was not on track to grow its subscriber count to
five million or to drive annual revenues to more than $2 billion by
the end-of-2020; (d) a decreased subscriber count would result in
decreased revenues and profits; and (e) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Weight Watchers' business metrics and financial
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.   

To learn more about the Weight Watchers International, Inc. class
action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

         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]


WEST VIRGINIA: Class Action Mulled Over Crumbling Roads
-------------------------------------------------------
Jake Jarvis, writing for WVNews, reports that Tom Bloom is fed up
with the state.

More specifically, the Monongalia County Commissioner is tired of
complaining and complaining about the crumbling roads in North
Central West Virginia to no avail. He's willing to do anything to
get leaders in Charleston to pay attention.

The roads have gotten so bad that Bloom said in a recent interview
he was talking with other commissioners about declaring a state of
emergency and potentially trying to launch a class action lawsuit
against the Division of Highways for not keeping the roads safe.

"I haven't seen anyone from the governor's office come up here, and
that's also something we're very angry about here," Bloom said. "We
do 20 percent of the gross domestic product of this state, and we
don't mind sending our money to Charleston. But we want to be
treated fairly, and it's clear we're not right now."

Bloom isn't alone.

The 2019 legislative session was marked by several lawmakers
spotlighting the poor state of secondary roads across the state.

Earlier in March, Gov. Jim Justice announced a plan to use part of
the money from "Roads to Prosperity" bonds and additional budget
surpluses to help fund a new effort to fix the state's secondary
roads.

The broad details of the plan were unveiled during a press
conference, which came just days after Justice fired Transportation
Secretary Tom Smith over a disagreement on how to best fix the
state's crumbling infrastructure.

"I told the people of this state that we were going to fix the damn
roads," Justice said. "That's exactly what I told them, and I
haven't changed my philosophy in any way, shape, form or fashion."

So far, the state has raised about $913 million in revenue through
the road bonds, according to Revenue Secretary Dave Hardy. Of that
amount, only $236 million has been committed to specific contracts,
leaving the rest yet to be officially allocated.

The governor was adamant that using part of the bond money -- as
much as $80 million -- to fix secondary roads would not stop any
"Roads to Prosperity" projects from moving forward.

Justice said his plan would include hiring temporary workers for
the Division of Highways, some of whom might become permanent
employees. He said the plan would also include buying the equipment
needed for local highways districts to maintain and repair roads
themselves.

"The reality is, we've had 25 positions open in Monongalia County
for two years," Bloom said. "They can't find anybody. Where does he
think these people are going to come from? Say we get this
equipment, who's to be there to work the equipment?"

To spearhead this new vision and the renewed focus on building the
Division of Highways' ability to fix the state's roads, Justice
tapped Byrd White, who currently serves as a special assistant to
the tax commissioner, to be the acting transportation secretary.

Bloom and a handful of state lawmakers in the North Central Roads
Caucus are not pleased at the prospect of using road bond money to
pay for secondary road repairs.

"We stated that on day one," Bloom said. "We believe the Monongalia
County Commissioners went out — and went to other counties to
promote this — and this is not correct. This is not what the
public voted for."

Bloom, though, is happy leaders in Charleston are finally paying
attention to the crumbling infrastructure in the north central part
of the state. He said actions speak louder than words and he's
waiting for the governor's office to start taking actions.

Days after announcing the new roads initiative, Justice called DOH
district engineers and county supervisors from all 55 counties to a
meeting in Charleston. In the meeting, which lasted less than 20
minutes, he issued a challenge to make a list of all state roads
that need repaired.

"You see, whether you buy it or don't buy it, you've never met
anybody who's (as) impatient as I am," Justice said. "I don't
believe in things taking a long time. I don't believe in just
studying something and having five more groups just studying,
studying, studying. I want stuff done."

Members of the press were invited to attend the meeting. Justice,
who is in his third year as governor and eyeing a second term, has
come under increased scrutiny for the condition of West Virginia's
crumbling infrastructure.

"I need you to tell us what you think," Justice told the crowd.

He asked the group to make a list of "every single road" in every
county that needed some sort of repair within the next 72 hours.
Then, in another 24 hours on top of that, he asked them to list in
order of what needs to be fixed first, in their opinion.

Justice also asked the group to tell him what resources they would
need to do "aggressive maintenance all the time."

After the meeting, multiple DOH workers who attended did not want
to speak on the record for a story. One group of workers, who asked
to remain anonymous, agreed that they could have saved time if the
governor asked them to make a list through an email.

Sen. Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, said he previously called for a
meeting of DOH personnel from across the state in a floor speech
during the legislative session, but he would have handled the
meeting differently.

"I'd bring them in and get them on the stage and ask questions," he
said. "I would actually break them out in subgroups by district in
order to be able to garner information on an individual basis,
rather than having them come down to listen to a talk. There was no
opportunity for that to be shared. Maybe this works, but it
wouldn't have been my style of management."

Blair thinks the state should already have a list of state roads
that need to be repaired. He said all state workers, like school
bus drivers and social workers, who travel across the state every
day should be encouraged to help report roads that are damaged.

He said there are mobile apps for smartphones that allow people to
geotag certain areas that need repaired, which could then be shared
immediately with state officials.

"Then you're not paying somebody to go find the problem," he said.
"It allows every employee of the state of West Virginia to
participate and know what's going on."

Sen. Randy Smith, R-Tucker, who has been one of the most vocal
advocates for fixing the state's secondary roads, sat in the front
row at Wednesday's press conference.

Smith said Justice's plan is really just an embrace of Senate Bill
522, which the senator helped push through the Legislature this
year.

SB 522, nicknamed "Randy's Dream" in honor of Smith, would create a
new Special Road Repair Fund intended to be used for secondary road
maintenance.

"Basically, what he described was SB 522," Smith said. [GN]


WESTPAC: Sets Aside $260MM to Pay Back Customers Amid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Daily and The Australian Associated Press report that
Westpac's remediation bill continues to grow, with the bank setting
a further $260 million from its half-year cash earnings for
customers still owed money for bad financial advice problematic
loans.

The bank said on March 25 about half the allocation was related to
financial advice and the remainder to business and consumer
banking, including for interest-only loans that did not correctly
switch to principal and interest.

The provision will be recorded in Westpac's first-half results and
follows $118 million set aside in the 2017 financial year and $281
million in 2018, bringing Westpac's total remediation bill to $659
million with fees-for-no-service refunds yet to come.

"We are determined to fix these issues and stop these errors
occurring again," chief executive Brian Hartzer said.

The bank said it was still trying to calculate fee-for-no-service
refunds for customers of authorised advisers.

"We will continue to review our products and services to ensure
they deliver the right outcomes for customers and, if necessary,
make further provisions."

Westpac said it will assess provisions for authorised
representatives as part of its first-half results, which are due on
May 6.

Shares fell about 1.5 per cent in the first few minutes of the
March 25 trade, with only ANZ recording bigger falls (dropping
about 2.5 per cent by 2pm).

Lending practices attracted law suit
Westpac's lending practices, scrutinised in depth at the hands of
the royal commission, are also now the subject of a class action
being led by law firm Maurice Blackburn.

The class action was filed with the federal court on February 21,
claims the bank left thousands of Australians with unsuitable home
loans, and has been filed as an 'open' class action so anyone who
recieved a loan from the bank which they believe to have been
inappropriate for their financial circumstances can join the
action.

Consumer Action Law Centre chief executive Gerard Brody told The
New Daily at the time that the action could be the first of many,
with all the big banks found to have weaknesses in their lending
practices.

Reviews of affected clients overdue
The full amount of compensation owed to customers of the big four
banks and AMP is expected to exceed $1.15 million however the exact
total is not yet finalised, as the banks are yet to complete a full
review of their customer base to identify customers who were
charged fees for services they didn't receive.

ASIC accused the big four banks and AMP failing to "sufficiently
prioritise and resource" these reviews, and said the delay in
completion was unreasonable. [GN]


WEXFORD HEALTH: Bid to Certify Pinckneyville Prisoners Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMON CLARK, Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,
INC., VIPIN SHAH, VENERIO SANTOS, ARNEL GARCIA, LISA KREBS, DEBORAH
ZELASKO ROBERT MUELLER, SHERRY BENTON, and MICHAEL D. SCOTT,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-1266-MJR-MAB (S.D. Ill.), Judge Michael
J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois denied Clark's motion for class certification and
consolidation of the instant case with three other cases pending in
the District: 17-cv-1135-MJR-GCS, Sparky Jackson v. Venerio Santos,
et al., 18-cv-254-NJR-MAB, Vincent Miles v. Dr. Santos, et al., and
18-cv-1061-MJR-GCS, Reynel Valencia v. Venerio Santos, et al.

On Nov. 21, 2016, Plaintiff Clark filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 against te Defendants, who are healthcare providers
and prison officials at Pinckneyville Correctional Center and
Centralia Correctional Center, alleging that they were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs.  Clark's claims relate to
the Defendants' alleged failure to provide adequate medical care
and treatment relating to a testicular mass.

Before the Court is Clark's motion.  Magistrate Judge Mark A.
Beatty issued a report & recommendation ("R&R") recommending that
Judge Reagan denies Clark's motion.  

Judge Beatty's R&R came to two principle conclusions: (1) the Court
should not exercise its discretion under Rule 42 to consolidate
Clark's case with the other cases listed above because doing so
would serve the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and
avoiding delay and prejudice to the parties in the other cases; and
(2) Clark's complaint, which was brought pro se and contains no
class allegations or class definitions, combined with his motion
for class certification, do not satisfy the requirements for class
certification under Rule 23.

Clark filed an objection to the R&R, and the Defendants followed
with a response to Clark's objections. (Doc. 182). Timely
objections having been filed, the Judge undertakes de novo review
of the portions to the Report to which Clark specifically
objected.

Judge Reagan finds that the fact that Clark is pro se, and has not
made an effort to secure class counsel, is a sound reason for
denying class certification and concluding that Clark may not
adequately and fairly represent the interests of the class.  Even
if the Judge construes Clark's motion as a separate motion for
recruitment of counsel, that request fails.  Clark has plainly
failed to meet the threshold required to be appointed counsel,
because he has not demonstrated that he made a reasonable attempt
to obtain counsel, or has been effectively precluded from doing so.
Because Clark has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that he can fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class his motion must be denied.

For the stated reasons, Judge overruled Clark's objection to the
R&R.  He adopted the R&R in its entirety, and denied the motion
class certification and consolidation.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://is.gd/0EmN9z from Leagle.com.

Ramon Clark, Plaintiff, pro se.

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Vipin Shah, M.D., Venerio Santos,
M.D., Arnel Garcia, M.D. & Michael D. Scott, Defendants,
represented by Timothy P. Dugan -- tdugan@cassiday.com -- Cassiday
Schade, LLP & Maxwell D. Huber -- mhuber@cassiday.com -- Cassiday
Schade LLP.

Lisa Krebs, Health Care Administrator, individually and in official
capacity, Deborah S. Zelasko, Grievance Officer, individually and
in official capacity, Robert Mueller, Warden at Centralia
Correctional Center, individually and in official capacity & Sherry
Benton, Member of Administrative Review Board, individually and in
official capacity, Defendants, represented by Joseph D. Bracey,
Jr., Office of the Attorney General.

Vincent Miles, Interested Party, pro se.

Sparky Jackson, Interested Party, pro se.

Reynel Valencia, Interested Party, pro se.


ZOOT SPORTS: Figueroa Files ADA Class Action New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoot Sports, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zoot Sports, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03160 (S.D. N.Y., Apr. 9, 2019).

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

Zoot is a running and triathlon sports brand, providing quality
running shoes, triathlon, running, and cycle apparel and
wetsuits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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 ***