CAR_Public/190426.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 84

                            Headlines

ACCESS FUNDING: Approval of Class Action Deal Reversed
ADOBE INC: Sued by Bonoan Over Erroneous Collection Calls
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Still Defends Securities Suit over Macrilen Drug
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal Filed in Webloyalty Suit
AGMENT LLC: Misclassified Exotic Dancers as Contractors, Says Suit

AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Reaches $2.25MM Settlement in Faulkner Case
ALTICE USA: Rosen Firm Got Okay to Lead Investors' Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mohammed Suit Removed to N.D. California
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs in Keyboard Litig. Directed to Amend Suit
ARES SECURITY: Deecki Seeks to Recoup Security Guards' Overtime Pay

ASSOCIATE MD: Class Certification Sought in Progressive Suit
ATLANTIC MARINE: Whatley Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. Ct.
ATLANTIC TRAVEL: Bonifacio Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEHR PROCESS: Faces Deceptive Marketing Class Action in N.Y.
BRE SELECT: Awaits Court's Initial OK of Battaglia Suit Settlement

BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Messer Moves to Certify Two Subclasses
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Verde Suit OK'd
CACH LLC: Faces Schmitt Suit over its Debt Collection Practices
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Antitrust Suit
CALEB PEARSON: Alderman Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

CAMDEN COUNTY, GA: Approval of $11.75MM Agnone Suit Deal Endorsed
CANAL WOOD: Court Dismisses ERISA Suit Without Prejudice
CBL PROPERTIES: Approves Structure of Class Action Settlement
CERAGON NETWORKS: Still Faces Potential Class Suit in Tel-Aviv
CH ROBINSON: Dietrich Moves to Certify Class of Carrier Workers

CHARTER COMMS: Missouri Court Dismisses A. Michael's Suit
CHEROKEE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Garza Says
CHEVRON CORP: White Wants Supreme Ct. to Review Suit Dismissal
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Settlement in Jones FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
CITIZENS BANK: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of B. Fawcett's Suit

COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Still Faces Anthony Pepe Securities Class Suit
CONCENTRA INC: Kilburn Seeks Certification of ACO Directors Class
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Squire Patton Discusses Class Certification
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Pulido Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CREDIT CONTROL: Dismissal of Nardino FDCPA Suit Recommended

CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Final Approval of $50K Accord in Ramos Suit
CREDIT PROTECTION: Roldan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CYNOSURE INC: Maryland Court Dismisses S. Snyder's Suit
D. & B. CORP: Dancers Forced to Pay House Fees, Suit Alleges
DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Travis Ito-Stone Securities Class Action Underway

DELL TECHNOLOGIES: City of Pontiac Employee's Suit Still Ongoing
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Hallandale Beach Retirement Plan's Suit Underway
DIRECTV GROUP: Viasat Appeals Ruling in Getz Suit to 11th Circuit
DNC FOOD: Ramos Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Lavender Moves to Certify Class of Workers

EATON VANCE: Reaches Agreement to Settle ERISA Class Action
EDUCATIONAL FIN'L: $1.1MM Cabiness TCPA Suit Deal Has Final OK
EGALET CORP: Officer Defendants Want Stay of Class Suit Lifted
EMBRAER SA: 4 Suits over Boeing Transaction Underway
ENVOY AIR: Hinkley Discrimination Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Solomon Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
EXPERIAN INFO: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Wilson FCRA Suit Denied
FAT BRANDS: Discovery in Rojany Class Suit Remains Stayed
FAT BRANDS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Vignola Case Set for June 17
FCA US: Court Dismisses J. Bledsoe's MMWA Claim

FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Removes Hernandez Suit to C.D. California
FMR LLC: Faces Bailis ERISA Suit Over Illegal Kickbacks
FORD MOTOR: Disabled Applicant Can Pursue Discrimination Case
FOX TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Truck Drivers, Santana Suit Alleges
FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit Denied

GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: 11th Cir. Upholds Muransky Settlement Approval
GOOGLE INC: Class-Action Objector Faces Cy Press Challenge
GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court's Cy Pres Settlement Ruling Criticized
GOOGLE LLC: Court Tosses Out 4 Claims in Adtrader's Suit
GOPRO INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Dismissal

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class of Floridians Certified in Jones Suit
GRUPO TELEVISA: Buzaco Testimony Enough to Sustain Class Action
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: May 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HERTZ CORP: Bradley to Submit Supplemental Expert Reports
HOME DEPOT: Coronado-Picazo Sues over Background Checks

HOME/LIFE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Gelin Suit Claims
HUDSONS BAY: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Rudolph Fraud Suit
INLAND PRODUCTS: March 25 Discovery Letter in Fraud Suit Terminated
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Class of Employees Certified in Arroyo Suit
IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties in Ryan-Nielson Suit Reach Initial Pact

IQVIA INC: Sued by Fischbein Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
ITC: Class Action Among Options for People Affected by Fire
JACKSON HEWITT: Illegally Sent Unsolicited Texts, Hancock Alleges
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Certify Benecol Mislabeling Class Denied
JONES SWEET: Migrant Workers Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages

JUICE BEAUTY: Figueroa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIMBALL TIREY: Scott Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Class Action in California Continues
KIRKLAND'S INC: To Seek Dismissal of Gennock Class Suit
L.L. BEAN: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Footwear Warranty

L.L. BEAN: Massachusetts Court Dismisses B. Pershouse's Suit
LAMPS PLUS: SCOTUS Limits Classwide Arbitration in Varela
LELAND STANFORD: Langlands ERISA Suit Removed to N.D. California
LOUISIANA: Act 131 Unconstitutionality Judgment in Ulrich Flipped
LOWE'S HOME: $250K Settlement in Saenz Suit Has Prelim Approval

M&T BANK: Workers Ask NY Court to Certify Class
MDL 2741: 14 Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal. for Roundup Litigation
MDL 2741: 38 Suits Transferred to N.D. Calif. in Roundup Litigation
MEDLEY LLC: 2 Class Actions in New York vs. MCC Underway
MEDLEY LLC: Corrective Disclosure Required in MCC-Sierra Merger

MEDLEY LLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Virginia
MEMORIAL HEALTH: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Myers Suit
MERIDIAN CORP: Bid for Collective Status Pending in Jordan Suit
MGT CAPITAL: Class Suits in New Jersey & New York Underway
MIDLAND CREDIT: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Debt Collection Class Suit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Regan FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Young Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Court Drops 2 OvaScience Merger Class Suits
MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Freedman Class Suit Underway
MONSANTO CO: Faces Schafer Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries

MONSANTO CO: Fails to Give Proper Roundup(R) Warnings, Erb Says
MONSANTO CO: Roundup Had No Adequate Warnings, Batherson Claims
MONSANTO CO: Smith Files Suit Over Roundup-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Smith Seeks to Recover Damages for Roundup(R) Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Sued by Chatman Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries

MONSANTO CO: Sued by Shultz Over Inadequate Roundup(R) Warnings
MOVIEPASS: Faces Class Action Over Subscription Service
NANTHEALTH INC: Employees Retirement Fund Class Suit Still Stayed
NANTHEALTH INC: Motion to Certify 2 Classes in Deora Suit Pending
NASCAR HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over ISC Buyout Offer

NCAA: Feldman Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NECA/IBEW FAMILY: Bid to Certify Class in Mental Health Suit OK'd
NEW TECH: Decertification Bid in M. Clay Suit Partly Granted
NEWPARK DRILLING: Golsborough Sues Over Mud Engineers' Unpaid OT
NIAGARA BOTTLING: Class Certification Sought in Frompovicz Suit

NIO INC: Jeon Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Hernandez et al. Sue over Xtronic CVT Defect
NISSAN: Quebec Court Grants Discontinuance of Class Action
NORTH BRONX ISLAMIC: Faces Luthfur Suit in New York
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Baker Sterchi Discusses High Court Ruling

OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Garaygordobil Seeks to Enjoin NeuBase Merger
OMNI LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Suit Claims
ONE NEVADA: Settlement in Smith FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
OTIS ELEVATOR: Gorss Motels' Bid for Class Certification Denied
OXY USA: Royalty Owners' Suit Remains in Kansas District Court

PACIFIC, MO: Employees Class Certified Under FLSA in Donoho Suit
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Appeal from Settlement Approval Order Pending
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Still Faces Collective Action in Netherlands
PFIZER INC: NY Suit Stayed Pending Cert Ruling Illinois Suit
PHARMACIE TANIA: Can Appeal Ruling in Billing Class Action

PLACER COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Bangert Suit Has Final Approval
POLK COUNTY, FL: Case Sues Over Denied Promotions
POTPOURRI GROUP: Figueroa Files ADA Class Action in New York
POWERHOUSE TITLE: Piper Suit Removed to Maryland District Court
PROSHARES TRUST II: Bittner Securities Suit Hits Fund Devaluation

QIKIQTANI GENERAL: Racism Class Action Mulled on Behalf of Inuit
QUDIAN INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Ongoing
QUDIAN INC: Securities Suit in New York Remains Stayed
QUDIAN INC: Song Class Action Stayed
RAINBOW USA: Brewer Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

RED LOBSTER: Block Sues Over Wheelchair Inaccessibility at Restos
ROBERTSON'S READY: Soriano Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
ROSSINI'S PLACE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Juarez Says
ROTHMANS BENSON: Gets Creditor Protection After Tobacco Ruling
ROYAL KATSUEI: Coronel Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages

ROYAL SEAS: Court Certifies McCurley TCPA Class
SAMSONITE COMPANY: Schertzer Suit Removed to S.D. California
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Bail Schedule Suit
SAND CASTLE: Fails to Properly Pay Workers Under FLSA, Kaine Says
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Partial Judgment in Securities Suit Denied

SANITARIOS LAMOSA: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Cone Partly OK'd
SENIOR PLANNING: Faces Lester Cotton Estate's Suit in New Jersey
SENTINEL REAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coney Suit Alleges
SHIFTPIXY INC: Ramirez Suit Against Shift Human Capital Concluded
SINGING RIVER: High Court Refuses to Hear Settlement Appeal

SKM SERVICES: Court Orders Mediation of Coolaroo Plant Fire Case
STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Sour Gummy Candies
STATE FARM: Can Appeal Ruling in Labor Depreciation Class Action
STEPHENS PRODUCTION: Certification of Royalty Owners Class Upheld
SUN AMERICA: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Edwards Suit Alleges

SWAROVSKI NORTH: Removes Lerman Class Suit to S.D. California
SYMMETRY MANAGEMENT: Dunbar Sues over Debt Collection Practices
TAILORED BRANDS: Oliver Settlement Awaits Court Approval
TAILORED BRANDS: Subsidiary Still Faces Twin Hill Class Action
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Bids to Dismiss M. Haley's ERISA Suit Denied

TELIGENT INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Generic Drugs Lawsuit Pending
TEP ROCKY: Gonzales Appeals Sefcovic Suit Ruling to 10th Cir.
TFORCE FINAL: Underpays Truck Drivers, Malaver Suit Claims
THEIS: Largely Liable for 2014 Bushfire Damages, Court Rules
TILLY'S INC: Redemption of Settlement Coupons Underway

TILLY'S INC: Seeks Calif. High Court Review in Skylar Ward Case
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Court Tosses Out Navy Crew's Claims vs. GE
TURTLE CREEK: Ohio App. Reverses Arbitration Order in Shillingburg
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ruling May Have Implications for Insurers
UNITED NATURAL: Guerra Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.

UNITED STATES: Christy Inc. Appeals Decision to Federal Circuit
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Amended Alharbi Immigration Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Szuggar Suit in U.S. Federal Claims
WAUKEGAN, IL: Court Certifies Class of Harry Poe Manor Residents
WELLMARK: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in York Insurance Suit

WEST END INDIANA: Uncashed Checks in Easler Settlement Expires
WESTERN UNION: Court Stays Frazier RICO Suit Pending Arbitration
WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: Appeal from Nixed Budde Suit Still Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Corado-Cortez Suit Removed to C.D. California
YALE UNIVERSITY: Rescinds Admission of Student Linked to Scam

ZAPPOS: Must Face Data Breach Class Action, Supreme Court Rules

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,772 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Deaths Driving Up Workplace Fatalities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bergeson & Campbell Comments on EPA's SNUR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Distribution Faces Claims in Bankr. N.D. Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Railway Worker's Widow Gets Significant Pay

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Wins Right to Obtain Info vs. Lobbyist
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Remove Part of Libby Site Off Superfund List
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Has $1.7BB Envt'l, Asbestos Reserves at Dec.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Talks Still Ongoing at Dec.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mikelsen Drops Claims vs. CBS

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mikelsen's Claims vs. Foster Wheeler Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mikelsen's Claims vs. General Electric Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 86 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recent Mesothelioma Suit Takes on Avon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Had $3.0MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UT Asbestos Response Falls Short, UTFA Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $81.7MM Libby Costs at Dec. 31


                            *********

ACCESS FUNDING: Approval of Class Action Deal Reversed
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION, v. CRYSTAL LINTON, ET
AL., No. 2609, September Term, 2017 (Md. Spec. App.), the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland finds that the process begetting the
class action settlement between Access Funding, LLC, and certain
victims of lead poisoning was fair but because the settlement
interferes with the enforcement authority of the Consumer
Protection Division and the United States Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, and because settlements are all-or-nothing
packages, it reverses the judgment and remands for further
proceedings.

Access is a structured settlement factoring company that marketed
its services to victims of lead poisoning.  Between 2013 and 2015,
Access obtained judicial approval to acquire 163 structured
settlements from 100 victims, and obtained $33.8 million in future
payment rights (with a present value of approximately $25.5
million) in exchange for $7.7 million in cash.

Under Maryland Code (1974, 2013 Repl. Vol., 2018 Cum. Supp.),
Section 5-1102 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article,
structured settlement payment rights cannot be transferred without
court approval.  Among other things, the court must find that the
transferor "received independent professional advice concerning the
proposed transfer[.]"  But an adviser is not "independent" if they
are, among other things, "affiliated with or compensated by the
transferee[.]"

When people responded to Access's ads, Access referred them to
Charles Smith, a lawyer.

On July 6, 2016, Crystal Linton filed suit in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City against Access on behalf of 100 victims who sold
their structured settlements (the "Class" or the "Class Members").
The Class alleged claims of negligence, misrepresentation, fraud,
constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy against Access, Access
Holding, LLC; En Cor, LLC; Assoc, LLC; Reliance Funding, LLC; Mr.
Smith; CES Law Group, LLC; Mr. Sud; and Sudlaw, LLC.  The Class
argued in its complaint that Access defrauded the victims by
representing that Mr. Smith provided independent professional
advice, and that Access induced them to sell their structured
settlement rights by offering unlawful incentives that were not
disclosed in the various circuit court petitions. The Class did not
name Mr. Jundanian, Mr. Boghosian, or Mr. Borkowski as defendants.

On March 28, 2017, the settling parties filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The proposed
agreement provided, among other things, a settlement fund of $1.1
million, from which the Class's attorneys would receive $330,000 in
fees.  The proposed settlement bars the Class from "receiving any
benefits from any lawsuit or arbitration proceeding arising out of
or related to any of the Released Claims," and compels the Class to
"irrevocably assign and transfer . . . any recovery based on the
equitable remedies of restitution, disgorgement of profits or
damages obtained by [the CFPB or the Division] for the benefit of
each Settlement Class Member."  Moreover, the settlement releases
all of the Class's claims against the Class Action Defendants, as
well as any claims against Messrs. Jundanian, Boghosian, and
Borkowski (even though none of them was named in the suit).

The Court finds that although the process begetting the class
action settlement was fair, the parties to the settlement cannot
settle the claims of those who aren't parties to the agreement.
The Division and the Bureau weren't parties to the settlement and
their rights to seek restitution was not something the Class could
bargain away.  And because the settlement effectively preempted a
major portion of the pending claims being pursued by the Division
and the Bureau when it assigned any benefit from those actions to
Access and the Class Defendants -- i.e., the targets of the
agencies' enforcement efforts -- the judgment approving the
settlement must be reversed, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the April 22, 2019, Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y36ytq5b from Leagle.com.


ADOBE INC: Sued by Bonoan Over Erroneous Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Viann Bonoan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Adobe, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01068 (N.D. Cal., February 27, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, permanent injunction to enjoin Defendants' and their
agents' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act;
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; statutory
prejudgment interest; and such other relief.

Defendant is a multinational computer software company
headquartered in San Jose, California. Defendants or its agents
placed telephone calls to Plaintiff using autodialers and/or left
prerecorded telephone messages in an effort to reach a certain
"Harold Cortez" about an Adobe account. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Morrison, Esq.
      ALEXANDER KRAKOW & GLICK LLP
      1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Phone: (310) 394-0888
      Fax: (310) 394-0811

             - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      KOZONIS LAW, LTD
      4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
      Chicago, IL 60630
      Phone: (773) 545-9607
      Fax: (773) 496-8617
      Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Still Defends Securities Suit over Macrilen Drug
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. said in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the Company and certain of its current and
former officers are defendants in a class-action lawsuit pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, brought on
behalf of shareholders of the Company.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
made by the defendants between August 30, 2011 and November 6, 2014
(the "Class Period"), regarding the safety and efficacy of
Macrilen(TM) (macimorelin) and the prospects for the approval of
the Company's New Drug Application for the product by the FDA.  The
plaintiffs represent a class comprised of purchasers of the
Company's common shares during the Class Period and seek damages,
costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by the
Court.

Aeterna Zentaris said, "The Company considers the claims that have
been asserted in the lawsuit to be without merit and is vigorously
defending against them.  The Company cannot, however, predict at
this time the outcome or potential losses, if any, with respect to
this lawsuit."

Aeterna Zentaris Inc. is a specialty biopharmaceutical company
engaged in developing novel treatments in oncology and
endocrinology.  The Company's pipeline encompasses compounds from
drug discovery to regulatory approval.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal Filed in Webloyalty Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, 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 plaintiff in
the class action suit against Webloyalty Holdings, Inc. is taking
an appeal from a court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

On August 27, 2010, a former member of Webloyalty's membership
programs filed a putative class action lawsuit against Webloyalty
Holdings, Inc., one of its former clients, and one of the credit
card associations in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (the "Connecticut District Court"). The
plaintiff alleged that Webloyalty's enrollment of the plaintiff
using debit card information obtained from a third party via data
pass, and not directly from the plaintiff, was deceptive.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers
whose credit or debit card data was transferred to Webloyalty via
data pass on or after October 1, 2008. The complaint, which was
amended several times, asserted, among others, claims for
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFT"), the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") as well as other common law
claims. On October 15, 2015, the Connecticut District Court entered
judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice.

The plaintiff appealed that judgment to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On December
20, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the Connecticut District
Court's dismissal in part, but reversed and remanded the dismissal
of claims against Webloyalty and its former client under CUTPA and
the EFT. The defendants have answered the remaining counts of the
complaint and denied any liability.

The defendants have also filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on the plaintiff's CUTPA claim, and for summary judgment
on his EFT claim. On October 26, 2018, the Connecticut District
Court entered summary judgment for defendants on the EFT claim,
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the CUTPA
claim, and dismissed the CUTPA claim without prejudice. The
Connecticut District Court also directed the clerk to close the
file.

On December 6, 2018, the plaintiff noticed an appeal to the Second
Circuit.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. engages in designing, marketing, and
servicing customer engagement and loyalty solutions worldwide. It
develops programs and solutions that motivate and inspire loyalty.
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


AGMENT LLC: Misclassified Exotic Dancers as Contractors, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE GILBO, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. AGMENT LLC d/b/a The Brass Pole and HARLEY ROWE, Case No.
1:19-cv-00767 (N.D. Ohio, April 5, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Ohio Wage Law, misclassify exotic dancers as so-called "independent
contractors."

Agment LLC is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal
place of business located in in Lorain County, Ohio.  Harley Rowe
is the owner of Agment LLC.

The Defendants own and operate The Brass Pole, an adult nightclub
employing exotic dancers in Elyria, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT LAW LLC
          11925 Pearl Road, Suite 310
          Strongsville, OH 44136
          Telephone: (216) 367-9181
          Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
          E-mail: kevin@mcdermottattorney.com


AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Reaches $2.25MM Settlement in Faulkner Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Akers Biosciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that on March 8, 2019, the parties in the
consolidated "Faulkner" class action case signed a settlement
agreement, subject to approval by the Court, whereby the Company
agreed to pay US$2,250,000 in exchange for full releases and
discharge of all claims against the Company.  On the same day, Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement and to establish notice procedures.  That motion remains
pending.

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Tim Faulkner filed the class action
complaint alleging securities violations against Akers Biosciences,
Inc. ("Akers"), John J. Gormally, and Gary M. Rauch ("Individual
Defendants") (together with Akers, "Defendants") on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased publicly traded Akers securities
from May 15, 2017 through June 5, 2018 (the "Faulkner Action").

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.  In particular, the complaint alleges that Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
in its first, second, and third quarter 2017 10-Qs and its 2017
10-K that: (1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017; and, (2) Akers had downplayed
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and
failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses.

On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff David Gleason filed a class action
complaint under the caption Gleason v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No.
2:18-cv-10805 (D.N.J.) based on the same allegations and causes of
action (the "Gleason Action").

On November 21, 2018, the Faulkner and Gleason Actions were
consolidated under the Faulkner Action docket.

The parties conducted mediation on January 10, 2019, and agreed to
a settlement in principle disposing of the consolidated action as
to all Defendants, including the Individual Defendants.

Akers Biosciences, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and supplies rapid screening and testing products
designed to deliver healthcare information to healthcare providers
and consumers in the United States, the People's Republic of China,
and internationally.  The Company founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Thorofare, New Jersey.


ALTICE USA: Rosen Firm Got Okay to Lead Investors' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Rosen Law Firm got the green light from a
New York federal judge on March 22 to lead a proposed class action
against Altice USA that alleges the cable television provider
misled investors. [GN]


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mohammed Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Hasim A. Mohammed, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; RENEE MAXWELL; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV343784 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01946.

The Complaint asserts six causes of action: Race Discrimination;
Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination;
Retaliation; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy;
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Unfair Business
Practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ROBERT A. SIEGEL, ESQ.
     O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
     400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
     Phone: 213-430-6000
     Facsimile: 213-430-6407
     Email: rsiegel@omm.com

          - and -

     ADAM P. KOHSWEENEY, ESQ.
     SUSANNAH K. HOWARD, ESQ.
     KRISTIN M. MACDONNELL, ESQ.
     O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
     Two Embarcadero Center
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
     Phone: 415-984-8912
     Facsimile: 415-984-8701
     Email: akohsweeney@omm.com
            showard@omm.com
            kmacdonnell@omm.com



APPLE INC: Plaintiffs in Keyboard Litig. Directed to Amend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: MacBOOK KEYBOARD LITIGATION, Case No.
5:18-cv-02813-EJD (N.D. Calif.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California directed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint no
later than May 13, 2019, after granting, in part, and denying, in
part, Defendant Apple, Inc.'s motion to dismiss.

This case is about the thin "butterfly" keyboards that Apple rolled
out with its MacBook and MacBook Pro laptop computers in 2015 and
2016.  The Plaintiffs bring a number of consumer protection and
warranty claims stemming from an alleged defect in the keyboards,
and they purport to represent a nationwide class and state-specific
subclasses.

Apple contends, among other things, that the Plaintiffs allege a
design defect in the keyboard, but the Limited Warranty only
obliges Apple to provide warranty services for "defects in
materials and workmanship."  Thus, Apple is under no duty to
provide any warranty services for the allegedly defective keyboard
design, and therefore could not have violated the implied
covenant.

The Court agrees with Apple that the consolidated class action
complaint alleges that the defect is a product of the keyboard's
design.  The Plaintiffs allege that Apple designed the butterfly
keyboard and that the "design" has a "defective nature."  That the
CCAC describes the defect as a "physical" one does not make the
defect a production defect.  Contrary to the Plaintiffs'
contention, the CCAC does not sufficiently allege a manufacturing
or production defect.  The CCAC's assertions that Apple
"produc[ed]" the defective keyboard either are conclusory or refer
to the keyboards' design, not their manufacture.

The Court further agrees with Apple that the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied into the Limited Warranty does not apply
to design defects.  Courts have found that warranties for defects
in "materials" and "workmanship" do not apply to design defects.
Because the implied covenant protects the "express" terms of a
contract and does not create obligations not included in the
contract, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
a cause of action for violation of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.  Accordingly, the Court grants Apple's the
Motion without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the April 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2yz4wuq from Leagle.com.

Zixuan Rao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Kyle Barbaro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew William
Ferich, Esq. -- AWF@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, Angelica Maria Ornelas, Esq. --
aornelas@girardsharp.com -- Girard Sharp LLP, Beena M. McDonald,
Esq. -- bmm@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. --
BFJ@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith
LLP, Jordan S. Elias, Esq. -- jelias@girardsharp.com -- Girard
Sharp LLP, Simon Seiver Grille, Esq. -- sgrille@girardsharp.com --
Girard Sharp LLP, Steven Alan Schwartz, Esq. --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, Adam E. Polk, Esq. -- apolk@girardsharp.com --
Girard Sharp LLP & Daniel C. Girard, Esq. --
dgirard@girardsharp.com -- Girard Sharp LLP.

Remy Turner & Christopher Martin, Plaintiffs, represented by Esther
Shinjung Kim, Attorney at Law, Noah M. Schubert, Schubert Jonckheer
& Kolbe LLP, Robert C. Schubert, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP,
Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Beena M.
McDonald, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac
vice, Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Sharp LLP & Steven
Alan Schwartz, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP.

Joey Baruch, Plaintiff, represented by Esther Shinjung Kim,
Attorney at Law, Noah M. Schubert, Esq. -- dschubert@sjk.law --
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Robert C. Schubert, Esq. --
rschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Willem F.
Jonckheer, Esq. -- wjonckheer@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe
LLP, Angelica Maria Ornelas, Girard Sharp LLP, Beena M. McDonald,
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice,
Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP,
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Sharp LLP, Jordan S. Elias, Girard Sharp
LLP & Steven Alan Schwartz, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP.

Diego Binatena, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Craig Borison,
Angelica Maria Ornelas, Girard Sharp LLP, Beena M. McDonald,
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice,
Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP,
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Sharp LLP, E. Michelle Drake, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Jordan S. Elias, Girard Sharp LLP, Joseph C.
Hashmall, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Steven Alan Schwartz, Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP.

Kevin Kou, Plaintiff, represented by Beena M. McDonald, Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin F.
Johns, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Sharp LLP, Esfand Nafisi, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP &
Steven Alan Schwartz, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith
LLP.

Steve Eakin, Kevin Melkowski, Lorenzo Ferguson, Michael Hopkins,
Benjamin Gulker & Adam Lee, Plaintiffs, represented by Angelica
Maria Ornelas, Girard Sharp LLP, Beena M. McDonald, Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin F.
Johns, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Jordan S.
Elias, Girard Sharp LLP, Steven Alan Schwartz, Chimicles Schwartz
Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP & Daniel C. Girard, Girard Sharp LLP.

Apple Inc., California Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Kelsey Marie Stricker, Esq. -- kstricker@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster LLP, Margaret Elizabeth Mayo, Esq. -- mmayo@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP San Francisco, Penelope Athene Preovolos,
Esq. -- ppreovolos@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Purvi
Govindlal Patel, Esq. -- ppatel@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP.


ARES SECURITY: Deecki Seeks to Recoup Security Guards' Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Deecki, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Ares Security & Investigation LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-01455-NIQA (E.D. Pa., April 5, 2019), is brought on behalf
of security guards to recover overtime compensation and other
relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Ares Security & Investigation LLC is a limited liability company
incorporated in Delaware.  The Defendant operates in interstate
commerce by providing security services to communities, such as
gated communities, retailers, schools and universities, and health
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSOCIATE MD: Class Certification Sought in Progressive Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND REHAB
CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. ASSOCIATE MD, LLC, a
North Carolina limited liability company, Case No.
2:19-cv-01317-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), files a "placeholder" motion for
class certification.

The "placeholder" motion is filed in order to prevent a "buy-off"
attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt
to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief,
the Plaintiff contends.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 2221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


ATLANTIC MARINE: Whatley Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Whatley, et al. v. Atlantic Marine Corps
Communities LLC, et al., Case No. 2019-CP-07-00498, was removed on
April 4, 2019, from the Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Beaufort).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:19-cv-00997-BHH to the
proceeding.[BN]

Plaintiffs SSgt Joshua Whatley, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; PO1 Randy Fuhrman, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; CW4 Robert Domen, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; SSgt Paul Cross, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; GySgt Scott Howe, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and Sgt Levi
Risher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Bert Glenn Utsey, III, Esq.
          PETERS MURDAUGH PARKER ELTZROTH AND DETRICK PA
          1 Wesley Drive, Suite 1B
          PO Box 30968
          Charleston, SC 29407
          Telephone: (843) 549-9544
          Facsimile: (803) 914-6716
          E-mail: butsey@pmped.com

               - and -

          Ronnie L. Crosby, Esq.
          PETERS MURDAUGH PARKER ELTZROTH AND DETRICK PA
          PO Box 457
          101 Mulberry Street E
          Hampton, SC 29924
          Telephone: (803) 943-2111
          Facsimile: (803) 943-3943
          E-mail: rcrosby@pmped.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Metro, Esq.
          BAUER AND METRO PC
          PO Box 7965
          Hilton Head Island, SC 29938
          Telephone: (843) 842-5297
          E-mail: Rmetro@Bauerandmetro.com

Defendants Atlantic Marine Corps Communities LLC, doing business
as: Atlantic Marine Corps Communities at Tri-Command, formerly
known as: Tri-Command Managing Member LLC, formerly known as:
Tri-Command Military Housing LLC; Atlantic Marine Corps Communities
Property Management LLC; and Robert Bible are represented by:

          H. Brewton Hagood, Esq.
          James A. Bruorton, IV, Esq.
          ROSEN ROSEN AND HAGOOD
          PO Box 893
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (843) 577-6726
          Facsimile: (843) 724-8036
          E-mail: bhagood@rrhlawfirm.com
                  cbruorton@rrhlawfirm.com


ATLANTIC TRAVEL: Bonifacio Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jorge Aldaz, et al.
The case is styled as PRISCILIANO CRISTOBAL BONIFACIO, On Behalf Of
Himself, And All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Jorge
Aldaz, Atlantic Travel Express Of New York, Inc., Atlantic Travel
Express Multiservices Inc., Atlantic Travel Services Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02168 (E.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019).

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

Atlantic Travel Express is a privately held company in Brooklyn, NY
and is a Single Location business, categorized under Travel
Agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEHR PROCESS: Faces Deceptive Marketing Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Behr Process Corporation over
allegations of false and deceptive marketing of its paint products.


According to the March 11 court filing in U.S. District Court
Eastern District of New York, Levin Gurkov and Wendy Kates,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, allege
Behr's "Paint & Primer in One" products that are marketed as no
need to prime the surface before painting "do not cover and adhere
to the surface without first separately applying primer."

The lawsuit also alleges the products "do not cover the surface in
one coat" as Behr's product labeling and advertising claims.

Gurkov and Kates allege Behr's actions violate New York General
Business Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law,
California False Advertising Law, consumer protection statutes in
all 50 states as well as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The lawsuit states "Plaintiffs and class members conferred
significant financial benefits and paid substantial compensation to
the defendant for the products, which were not as the defendant
represented them to be."

The lawsuit seeks permanent injunctive relief against Behr and
"correction of the company's practices and comply with consumer
protection statutes" as well as monetary and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys James Sultzer and Adam
Gonnellli of the Sultzer Law Group LLP in Poughkeepsie, New York.
[GN]


BRE SELECT: Awaits Court's Initial OK of Battaglia Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case styled, Battaglia v. BRE Select Hotels
Corp., continue to await the court's preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement, according to BRE Select Hotels Corp's Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company, as the successor to Apple Six, is subject to claims
for alleged acts of Apple Six that occurred prior to the Merger.

On February 24, 2017, a putative class action, captioned Wilchfort
v. Knight, et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-01046 (E.D.N.Y.), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against BRE Select Hotels Corp, as
successor-in-interest to Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple Hospitality
REIT, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc.
(together with Apple REIT Six, Inc. and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., the
"Apple REITs"), certain of the Apple REITs' directors, officers and
advisors, and Apple Fund Management, LLC.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons and entities
who elected to participate in Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment
Plans ("DRIPs") between July 17, 2007 and the later of the
termination and/or suspension of the respective DRIPs or February
12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the prices at which
plaintiff and the purported class members purchased additional
shares through the DRIPs were artificially inflated and not
indicative of the true value of units in the Apple REITs.
Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, tortious
interference with contract and tortious interference with business
expectancy and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing and seeks, among other things, damages and other costs and
expenses.

On March 30, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss and, on April 13, 2018, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, captioned Wilchfort et al. v. BRE
Select Hotels Corp., Civil Action No. 17-cv-1046 (E.D.N.Y.).

On May 31, 2018, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, captioned Battaglia v. BRE Select Hotels Corp., Civil
Action No. 17-cv-01046 (E.D.N.Y.), which, among other things,
narrowed the putative class period to February 24, 2011 through
November 29, 2012.

On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
On June 27, 2018, the Company filed an Answer to the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.

On March 1, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement to
resolve all of plaintiff's claims without any admission of
wrongdoing for US$3.75 million.  Also, on March 1, 2019, the
plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement.

The Company said, "The settlement agreement is also subject to
final approval by the court, and there can be no assurance that the
court will approve such settlement."

As of December 31, 2018, the Company had fully reserved for this
settlement amount.

BRE Select Hotels Corp is a non-listed real estate investment trust
(REIT) focused on the ownership of upscale, extended-stay and
select-service hotels.  The company is based in New York, New
York.


BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Messer Moves to Certify Two Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TONY A. MESSER, et al. v.
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and GARRISON INVESTMENT
GROUP, LP, Case No. 1:18-cv-00040-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.), move for
certification of two subclasses:

   -- Subclass No. 1: Initial Terminations:

      The members of Subclass 1 are all those who worked at the
      Bristol Plant full time and who were terminated without
      cause on their part between July 31, 2018 and August 31,
      2018, as part of, or as the reasonably foreseeable
      consequences of the plant closing ordered on July 31, 2018,
      who do not file a timely request to opt out of the class;
      and

   -- Subclass No. 2: Extended Terminations:

      The members of Subclass 2 are all those who worked full
      time at the Bristol Plant and who were terminated without
      cause on their part after August 31, 2018, as part of, or
      as the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the plant
      closing ordered by Defendants on July 31, 2018, who do not
      file a timely request to opt out of the class.

On October 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated former employees of Bristol
Compressors International, LLC and Garrison Investment Group LP,
for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act and other claims under Virginia and common law.

The Plaintiffs contend that they and other former employees
suffered an "employment loss" arising from the Defendants' "plant
closing", as those terms are defined in the WARN Act.  The
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants violated the WARN Act by
failing to provide 60 days' advance written notice of a plant
closing.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary Lynn Tate, Esq.
          TATE LAW PC
          16006 Porterfield Hwy
          Abingdon, VA 24210
          Telephone: (276) 628-5185
          Facsimile: (276) 628-5045
          E-mail: mltate@tatelaw.com

Defendant Bristol Compressors International, LLC, is represented
by:

          W. Bradford Stallard, Esq.
          PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE
          P.O. Box 2288
          Abingdon, VA 24212
          Telephone: (276) 628-5151
          Facsimile: (276) 628-5621
          E-mail: bstallard@pennstuart.com

               - and -

          Alexander A. Ayar, Esq.
          MCDONALD HOPKINS
          39533 Woodward Ave., Suite 318
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 220-1353
          Facsimile: (248) 646-5075
          E-mail: aayar@mcdonaldhopkins.com

Defendant Garrison Investment Group, L.P., is represented by:

          Mark H. Churchill, Esq.
          Kevin M. D'Olivo, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          1650 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1700
          Tysons, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 720-8094
          Facsimile: (703) 720-8610
          E-mail: mark.churchill@hklaw.com
                  kevin.dolivo@hklaw.com


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Verde Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERDE MINERALS, LLC, et al, Plaintiffs, v. DIANE
DUNCAN KOERNER, et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-199
(S.D. Tex.), Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division,
granted Burlington's motion to dismiss the third amended class
action complaint.

The third amended class action complaintalleges a claim for
nonpayment of oil and gas proceeds pursuant to Texas Natural
Resources Code Section 91.404(c) along with a request for
declaratory relief.  The Court previously described the facts of
the case in the order granting the Co-Defendants' motion for
partial dismissal.  In the third amended complaint, Verde pleads
two claims against Burlington, the lessee and operator of the
Hawley Tract.  

Verde first asserts that Burlington failed to distribute payments
on the oil and gas proceeds of the Hawley Tract to Verde under
Texas Natural Resources Code Section 91.404(c).  It also seeks a
declaratory judgment determining: (1) that the Hawley Deeds
conveyed to the grantees undivided mineral interests in the oil and
gas found to be in, under or upon the Hawley-Ayers Survey, and
rights and interests in and to the proceeds for oil and gas found
and sold from the Hawley-Ayers Survey; (2) that the right to
develop and the right to lease were reserved by Hawley from the
Hawley Deeds' conveyances of undivided mineral interests in the oil
and gas found to be in, under or upon the Hawley-Ayers Survey; and
(3) that the rights to receive bonus, delay rental, and royalty
payments were conveyed by Hawley to the grantees of the Hawley
Deeds along with undivided mineral interests in the oil and gas
found to be in, under or upon the Hawley-Ayers Survey.

Defendant Burlington moves to dismiss these claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that (1) Verde cannot
sustain a cause of action for nonpayment, and (2) a declaratory
judgment is an improper vehicle for a title dispute under Texas
law.

Judge Ramos finds that Burlington entered into a lease with the
Co-Defendants to produce oil and gas on the Hawley Tract.  Verde
gave Burlington notice asserting its interest in the proceeds and
brought the lawsuit.  These facts establish that there is a
"dispute over title" that allows Burlington to withhold payments
until the issue of Verde's ownership interests is resolved.  Thus,
Verde has failed to plead facts that lead to a reasonable inference
that Burlington has violated the payment requirements of Section
91.402.  Accordingly, Verde's claim of nonpayment of proceeds under
Texas Natural Resources Code Section 91.404(c) is dismissed.

Next, Burlington asserts that Verde is improperly seeking to
determine title to real property in Texas through a declaratory
judgment action.  It relies on Texas law that a trespass to try
title action is the method of determining title to lands,
tenements, or other real property.  However, the Texas Declaratory
Judgments Act is a procedural statute that is inapplicable to
declaratory judgment actions in federal court.

The Judge need not address the issue of whether the DJA prohibits
declaratory relief under the facts.  Where all the substantive,
underlying claims have been dismissed, a claim for declaratory
judgment cannot survive.  Verde has failed to state a claim for
which relief may be granted against Burlington for nonpayment of
oil and gas proceeds.  In the absence of any facts that would lead
to the conclusion that a present controversy exists between Verde
and Burlington, Verde cannot obtain declaratory relief against
Burlington.  Accordingly, Verde's request for declaratory relief is
dismissed.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Ramos granted the motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.  She dismissed the claims
against Defendant Burlington.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kfhK2T from Leagle.com.

Verde Minerals, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Walter James Scott,
Jr., Scott Law Group LLP, Douglas E. Chaves --
dchaves@coplawfirm.com -- Chaves Resendez et al & George Theodore
Scott, Scott Law Group LLP.

Mark Larson & Scott Saufferer, Plaintiffs, represented by George
Theodore Scott, Scott Law Group LLP.

Diane Duncan Koerner, Kimberly K. Sheridan, Stacey E. Koerner &
Charles D. Duncan, Defendants, represented by William Louis Sciba,
III, Cole, Cole, Easley & Sciba, P.C., Elizabeth Gilman --
beth.gilman@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Michael Terrell Murphy
-- Michael.T.Murphy@klgates.com -- K&LGates.

Jo Ann Crawford Floyd, Robyn L. Wolin Trust, Virginia K. Pittman
Rothermel, Charles T. Rothermel, III, Elizabeth Pittman Clark,
Ansel P. Clark & Trustee Barbara Braun Wolin as Trustee of the
Robyn Louise Wolin Trust, Barbara Braun Wolin as Trustee of the
Robyn Louise Wolin Trust, Defendants, represented by Michael
Terrell Murphy, K&LGates & Elizabeth Gilman, K&L Gates LLP.

Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, LP, Defendant,
represented by William Scott Hastings, Locke Lord LLC, Alexandra
Ann LoCasto, Locke Lord LLP & Susan E. Adams, Locke Lord LLP.


CACH LLC: Faces Schmitt Suit over its Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer credit class action lawsuit has been filed against debt
collectors Cach, LLC and Messerli & Kramer, P.A. for alleged
violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska
Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned Victor E. Schmitt,
on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. CACH, L.L.C. and MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00155-LSC-SMB (D. Neb., April 12, 2019). This matter arises
from Defendants' routine practices of filing county court
collection complaints against Nebraska Consumers for alleged debts
incurred for personal, family or household purposes, which fail to
include the identity of the original creditor, the dates of
service, or a copy the contract at issue, and the connection
between the county court plaintiff and the alleged debt it seeks to
collect. Accordingly, Plaintiff
Victor E. Schmitt seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
actual and statutory damages against the Defendant debt
collectors.

Cach, LLC is located in Denver, Colorado and is a debt buyer doing
business in Nebraska. It is engaged in the business of collecting
defaulted accounts purchased, acquired or claimed to have
purchased, that were due others.  Messerli & Kramer, P.A. is the
law firm for Cach, LLC. It is itself engaged in the business of
collecting debts due or alleged to be due to others across the
state of Nebraska. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
     HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
     25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 372-9922
     E-mail: rand@hortitzlaw.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 2, 2019, that the District Court has heard oral argument on
the renewed motions for summary judgment in the Egg Antitrust
Litigation but has not issued a ruling.

On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States
shell egg industry.  The cases were consolidated into In re:
Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the "District Court"), in three groups of cases --
the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the "Indirect
Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class Cases."

As previously reported, the Company settled all of the Direct
Purchaser Putative Class Action cases and the Indirect Purchaser
Putative Class Action cases.  The Company settled all Non-Class
cases except for the claims of certain plaintiffs who sought
substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg
products (as opposed to shell eggs).

On November 7, 2018, the Company agreed to settle all claims
brought by one of these plaintiffs, Conopco, Inc. on a confidential
basis and for an amount that does not have a material impact on the
Company's financial condition or results.  The settlement is,
however, reflected in the Company's results of operations along
with certain other legal settlements and expenses.  The Court
entered a final judgment dismissing Conopco's claims against the
Company on November 21, 2018.

The remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General
Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company.  These egg
products plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under
the Sherman Act and are attacking certain features of the United
Egg Producers animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the
Company and many other egg producers.

On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants' motion
for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims based
on the purchase of egg products.  That ruling was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on
January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's
grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the District
Court.

Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the
Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit
declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings,
including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether
the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation
and damages to submit the case to a jury.  On March 5, 2018,
defendants filed a motion in the District Court seeking leave to
file a motion for summary judgment in light of the remand
statements in the Third Circuit's opinion.  Plaintiffs opposed that
motion, and on March 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply in
support of the motion.  On July 16, 2018, the court granted the
defendants' motion for leave and on August 17, 2018, defendants
filed their motions for summary judgment and requested oral
argument.

The plaintiffs filed their responses on September 21, 2018, and
sur-replies on October 19, 2018, and the defendants filed their
replies on October 12, 2018.  On December 19, 2018, the District
Court heard oral arguments on the renewed motions for summary
judgment but has not issued a ruling.

Cal-Maine Foods said, "The Company intends to continue to defend
the remaining case as vigorously as possible based on defenses
which the Company believes are meritorious and provable.  While
management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse
outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been
significantly reduced as a result of the settlements and rulings
described, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material
adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation.  At the
present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of
monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of this remaining
case.  Adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution
of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the
financial statements."

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces, grades, packages, markets, and
distributes shell eggs.  The company offers specialty shell eggs,
such as nutritionally enhanced, cage free, organic, and brown eggs
under the Egg-Landâ€(TM)s Best, Land O' Lakes, Farmhouse, and
4-Grain
brand names, as well as under private labels.  The company was
founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.


CALEB PEARSON: Alderman Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew W. Alderman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Caleb Pearson Team, LLC dba Max Alliance, Caleb
Pearson, Hank Johnson, and Brandon Bott, Case No. 2:19-cv-00744
(D.S.C., March 11, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated FLSA by failing to provide wage statements
for each pay period, and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a real estate agent
or "Employee Realtor".

The Defendants have the common business purpose of providing real
estate services in South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben Whaely Le Clercq, Esq.
      Scott, Riddell, Esq.
      LE CLERCQ LAW FIRM
      708 South Shelmore Blvd. #202
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Tel: (843) 722-3523
      Fax: (843) 352-2977
      E-mail: Ben@LeClercqLaw.com
              Scott@LeClercqLaw.com


CAMDEN COUNTY, GA: Approval of $11.75MM Agnone Suit Deal Endorsed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN AGNONE & ENZO AGNONE; DOUGLAS & CYNTHIA
PORCELLI; BRIDGE POINTE AT JEKYLL SOUND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAMDEN COUNTY, GEORGIA; WILLIS R.
KEENE, JR.; JIMMY STARLINE; CHUCK CLARK; TONY SHEPPARD; GARY
BLOUNT; DAVID L. RAINER; KATHERINE NISI ZELL; CHARLENE SEARS;
STEPHEN L. BERRY; STEPHEN L. HOWARD; O. BRENT GREEN; JOHN McDILL;
DAVID KEATING; SCOTT BRAZELL; LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY; THOMAS A.
DIERUF; DAVID E. CAMPBELL; JEKYLL SOUND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC;
and CAMDEN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:14-cv-00024-LGW-BKE (S.D. Ga.), Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia,
Brunswick Division, recommended that the Court grants the Class
Representatives' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement,
Amended Request for Attorneys' Fees and Service Awards, as
supplemented, and Petition for Approval of Qualified Settlement
Fund.

The action arises from a failed subdivision in Camden County,
Georgia known as Bridge Pointe at Jekyll Sound and bonds issued by
Lexon Insurance Co. to secure completion of infrastructure
improvements in the Subdivision.  The original developer bankrupted
before constructing the infrastructure improvements.  A company
owned in part by Lexon executives acquired unsold lots and amenity
parcels in the Subdivision through a bankruptcy sale.  A subsequent
developer, BPJS Investments, LLC ("BPJSI"), negotiated a release of
the Bonds with the County in return for (i) payment by Lexon of $4
million that BPJSI committed to use to construct infrastructure
improvements in the Subdivision, (ii) a transfer of a nearby marina
to BPJSI, and (iii) transfer of unsold lots and amenity parcels in
the Subdivision to BPJSI.  Development of the Subdivision has been
at a virtual standstill since those transactions were completed.

The case was filed by owners of approximately 200 lots in the
Subdivision and Bridge Pointe at Jekyll Sound Community
Association, Inc., a mandatory association of lot owners in the
Subdivision, against the Camden County Defendants.  The lot owners
alleged that the Camden County Defendants failed to comply with
applicable law regarding release of the Lexon Bonds.  Their
complaint was amended by a second amended complaint, to add the
Class allegations and claims on behalf of a putative class of
equitable and legal owners of lots in the Subdivision against the
Lexon Defendants for failing to perform their duties and
obligations under the Bonds.

Another case pending before the Court, the Camden County Action,
filed shortly before this matter, arises from the same facts and
circumstances as the instant case, and includes claims brought by
Camden County against Lexon Insurance Co., and Lexon Insurance Co.
against BPJSI and principals of BPJSI.

A third matter, the Befumo Action is pending in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, Georgia, and involves claims brought by a group
of owners of lots in the Subdivision against the Lexon Defendants
and BPJSI and its affiliates and principals.

The Class Representatives, through their counsel, have conducted a
thorough investigation of the facts, analyzed the relevant legal
issues, reviewed relevant documents, and confirmed the results of
their investigation through additional discovery, including
thousands of pages of documents obtained from the Camden County
Action.  They engaged, with the Lexon Defendants, in three
mediations and extensive subsequent negotiations.  The Class
Representatives, through the Class Counsel, have weighed the
potential risks and costs associated with continued prosecution of
the Action against the benefits of the Settlement Agreement and
determined that the proposed Class Settlement is in the best
interests of the Class Members.

In summary, the Settlement Agreement provides, inter alia, that the
Settlement Class will receive from the Lexon Defendants, subject to
the terms and conditions of the Agreement, a total of $11.75
million with which to construct infrastructure improvements in the
Subdivision, to pay the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees approved by
the Court, and to pay Class Representatives up to $5,000 each for
their service as representatives of the Class.

The Settlement will collectively benefit the Class Members by
providing them with funds to construct infrastructure improvements,
such as roads, curbs and gutters, walkways, utility connections,
sewers, and other infrastructure improvements. The Lexon Defendants
have paid or will pay all costs of Notice to the Settlement Class.


The Settlement Proceeds will be paid and disbursed as follows:

     • Lexon has paid $3.75 million into the Registry of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
(the Registry of the Court).  Upon receipt by the Registry of the
Court, those funds were transferred to an interest bearing account
in the Court Registry Investment System ("CRIS").

     • Lexon has paid at the direction of Camden County $250,000
into the IOLTA Escrow Account of Aitkens & Aitkens, P.C., for the
benefit of the Association for use as determined by the
Association.

     • Within 10 business days of a final order approving the
Class Settlement without material change and the exhaustion of any
appeal, the Lexon Defendants will pay an additional $7.75 million
into the Registry of the Court for immediate transfer to the CRIS.
The Camden Settlement Fund Payment and the Lexon Settlement Fund
Payment (totaling $11.5 million), together with accrued interest
will remain in the CRIS subject to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the Final Order.

     • The Association as representative of the lot owners in the
Subdivision, has also received from the Camden County Defendants
(1) the described Camden Payment from Lexon by assignment from the
County; (2) $25,000 from the other Defendants in the Befumo Action
by direction from the County of its entitlement under the Amended
Memorandum Regarding Settlement by and between the Camden County
Defendants, the Lexon Defendants, and George L. Boog Potter, Mike
Martinez, BPJSI, Robert Steven Williams, Sr. and Robert Steven
Williams, Jr. filed Aug. 29, 2017, in the Camden County Action; (3)
an assignment of all right and interest in any lien (excluding tax
liens) or security interest of Camden County in any real property
in the Subdivision owned by any one or more of George L. Boog
Potter, Mike Martinez, BPJSI, Robert Steven Williams, Sr. or Robert
Steven Williams, Jr. or any transferee from any one or more of
these Defendants; and (4) an assignment of all right and interest
of the County in that certain obligation of BPJSI, Robert Steven
Williams, Sr., and Robert Steven Williams, Jr. under the AMRS to
pay $100,000.

On Oct. 10, 2018, the Court reported and recommended that a
Settlement Class of all persons or entities who hold legal or
equitable title as of the date of preliminary approval of the Class
Action Settlement to any Unit or Parcel in the Bridge Pointe at
Jekyll Sound Subdivision and any transferees of any Unit or Parcel
following preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement,
except for BPJS Investments, LLC; Robert Steven Williams, Sr.;
Robert Steven Williams, Jr.; and any related entities or persons,
as these entities are obligated to release any and all claims
against Lexon Insurance Company and any related entities or
persons.

In addition to recommending that the Settlement Class be certified
preliminarily, the Court (i) recommended that Robert G. Aitkens and
the law firm of Aitkens & Aitkens, P.C. of Atlanta, Georgia, and
John T. Sparks and the law firm of Austin & Sparks, P.C. of
Atlanta, Georgia be appointed as the Class Counsel; (ii)
recommended that Douglas Porcelli, Richard Mumford, and Joseph
Moronese be appointed as the Class Representatives; and (iii)
recommended the establishment of a deadline for the Settlement
Class Members to object to the Settlement and scheduled a Fairness
Hearing on Feb. 28, 2019.

Pending before the Court are Class Representatives' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Settlement, Original and Amended Requests
for Attorneys' Fees and Service Awards, as supplemented, and
Petition for Approval of Qualified Settlement Fund.  On Feb. 28,
2019, the Court held a hearing on the motions.

After careful consideration of the same, the materials and evidence
submitted in support thereof and a previously filed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and for Certification of
Settlement Class, as supplemented, and the positions of the Parties
expressed in writing and at the Fairness Hearing, Magistrate Judge
Epps reported and recommended the U.S. District Judge (i) denies as
moot the original Request for Class Representatives Service Awards
and Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(h) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2); and (ii) grants the
Class Representatives' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement, Amended Request for Attorneys' Fees and Service Awards,
as supplemented, and Petition for Approval of Qualified Settlement
Fund.

The Judge findsas follows in a final appealable order:

     A. The Notice to the Settlement Class Members has been
provided as directed by the Court in the Preliminary Approval
Order, and such Notice constituted the best notice practicable.

     B. The Settlement Class, as set forth above and in the
Preliminary Approval Order, is finally certified as a non-opt out
class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2).  The Settlement Class
meets all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1) and
(b)(2).

     C. The final certification of the Settlement Class is for
settlement purposes only and will not constitute, nor be construed
as, evidence or an admission on the part of the Defendants that the
Action, or any other proposed or certified class action is
appropriate for class treatment pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or any other class action statute or rule.

     D. Attorneys Robert Aitkens, John Sparks and their respective
firms are appointed finally and recognized as having acted as the
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

     E. The Court has carefully reviewed, weighed, and considered
the Class Counsels' Amended Request for Class Representatives'
Service Awards and Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) and
Supplemental Request for Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses,  and the arguments and evidence presented relative to
said motions.  Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Amended
Request for Class Representatives Service Awards and Class Counsel
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) as amended by the Supplemental Request for
Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and awards the Class
Counsels' Final Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the
amount of $344,449.42, which will be paid from the Final Settlement
Fund as provided in the Settlement Agreement and as directed below.
The original Request for Class Representatives Service Awards and
Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(h) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) is denied as moot.

     F. Douglas Porcelli, Joseph Moronese, Jr., and Richard Mumford
are finally appointed and recognized as having acted as the Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class.  The Class Counsel has
also requested the payment of Service Awards to the Class
Representatives in the amount of $5,000 each for their time and
efforts spent in pursuit of this litigation.  Class Representative
Joseph Moronese, Jr. has declined a Service Award.

     G. The Court further orders that, within 10 business days of
the entry of the Final Order Approving the Class Action Settlement
and the exhaustion of any appeal of such Final Order, the Lexon
Defendants will pay the Lexon Settlement Fund Payment in the amount
of $7.75 million into the Registry of the Court for immediate
transfer to CRIS and the Registry of the Court will pay from CRIS,
within 10 days of receipt of written request from Robert G. Aitkens
of Aitkens & Aitkens, P.C., the following amounts to the identified
payees: (1) $10,000 for the Class Representative Service Awards to
Aitkens & Aitkens, P.C. at 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One,
Suite 100, Atlanta, Georgia 30339 for payment to each of the two
Class Representatives, respectively, in the amount of $5,000 each;
$246,725.23 for the portion of the Final Class Counsel Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses payable to Aitkens & Aitkens, P.C. to be mailed
to 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 100, Atlanta,
Georgia 30339; (3) $97,724.19 for the portion of the Final Class
Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses payable to Austin & Sparks,
P.C.

     H. The Court approves the Plaintiffs' and Petitioner's
Petition for Petitioner Qualified Settlement Fund, and the escrow
agreement attached thereto, and will issue a separate order
regarding that Petition.

     I. The Action is dismissed, with prejudice, as against all
Defendants, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and without costs to any party, except as provided in
Order or in a separate order of the Court, in the Preliminary
Approval Order, or in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Final Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/M9b2Oc from
Leagle.com.

Stephen Agnone, Enzo Agnone, Douglas Porcelli, doing business as
ADVANTA IRA Properties, Cynthia Porcelli, Bridge Pointe at Jekyll
Sound Community Association, Inc., Jitendra Hirani, Carlos E.
Calvo, Monica B. Nunez De Calvo, Yogesh Patel, Ananta Patel, Ralph
H. Petrella, Tomi J. Petrella, Jamie Barnard, Mark Zurawel, Francis
G. O'Such, Valerie D. O'Such, Millicent Harwell-Cross, Totally
Free, Inc., Brian A. Donovan, Steven Sanders, William D. Turner,
Cheryle W. Turner, Rick A. Nutcher, Robert J. Bisnett, Carol Ann
Bisnett, Richard W. Garrison, Beryl K. Garrison, Michael B.
Randall, Alex S. Paulson, Robert W. Wilhelm, Roxanne M. Wilhelm,
Michael Danyus, MELS LLC/NUVIEW IRA, Victor Hernandez, Maria Vega,
Greg E. Murphy, Debra E. Murphy, Laura Donovan, Daniel D. Veal,
Elizabeth B. Veal, John P. Glish, Barbara K. Glish, Marilyn
Militscher, Cassandra R. Bowen, Joshua S. Bowen, John Murphey,
Laura Murphey, Jeanne Steinebrunner, The Steinebrunner Family
Trust, Bernd Steinebrunner, The Steinebrunner Family Trust, Lidia
Penalver, Dennis H. Thomas, Peggy E. Thomas, Michael A. Scott,
Equity Trust Company Custodian, FBO, Peter J. Veit-IRA, Vincent
Salierno, Deborah Salierno, BPJSCA, Inc., David Lewis, Sage Brook,
LLC, James C. Heller, Kathleen A. Heller, Dale Ellis, James Conrad
Bishop, Raymond Prescottano, Len A. Carter, BCCS Investments, LLP,
Clifford W. O'Neill, Pamela A. O'Neill, David Bishop, Eva Bishop,
Edward Wojciechowski, Ann Marie Wojciechowski, James M. Corcoran,
Dennis Vaccaro, Janet Vaccaro, Warren Mueger, Eve Mueger, Daniel K.
Harshman, Henry Huey, Huey Tran Trust, Palm Tree Partners, Curt L.
Riggen, Robert Bock, Diane Bock, Fiserv & Co., FBO, Robert A.
Jensen, IRA, Michael Wagner, David L. Emerson, Cynthia Joanne
Emerson, John Kazmerski, John H. Cherry, III, Phyllis A. Cherry,
Rosanna D. Clark, NUVIEW IRA, Danyus/Cavaliere, Louis Karvonidis,
Andy Rosolinski, Kate Zaluski, Robert L. English, Jr., Nancy T.
English, Timothy J. Walkley, Susan M. Walkley, Marla Scherker,
Marcia Rudderman, Doug Metcalfe, Karen Metcalfe, Dean Befumo,
Jeffrey Wienand, Sr., Edward J. Kulik, Pamela M. Kulik, Barbara
Zolli, Lawrence O'Hern, Jr., Jeff Thomas, E. Kipp Echols, Allen W.
Barley, Dorinda J. Barley, Robert Carpentier, Donna Carpentier,
Nicholas Franco, John A. King, JATN FLP, Erminio Torello, Rita
Torello, Jack Lupas, Bomber Investment, Peter Cavaliere, Frederick
W. Heidtman, Adrienne Heidtman, Dallen Atack, Kimber Atack, Andrew
J. Seeley, Sean P. Seeley, Alfonso DeRosa, III, George S. Merlo,
Georgianne Merlo, Thomas Trainor, Kristen N. Befumo, John T.
Bollinger, Jr., Patricia Nunez, Joseph N. Murdock, Margie A.
Murdock, William Moorhead, Carol Moorhead, Heidi Ruff, The Ruff
Trust, Douglas Windsor, Joanne Windsor, Walter W. Hoff, Jeanette S.
Ray, Robert Hileman, Cindy Hileman, Joseph E. Flynn, Jean Flynn,
Catherine Cruz, Richard E. Mumford, Sally Mumford, Allen M. Seeley,
Joan M. Seeley, Joseph Shanahan, Susan Shanahan, James Pace,
Jacqueline Pace, Eric Lee, Lee Trust, Lai-Fong Lee, Lee Trust,
Nicole Lam, Michael B. Sullivan, Pamela Manos Petkas, Arif Suwandi,
Jennifer Jung, Andrew Michael Petkas, Neil Arthur Kain, III, Kathy
Penn, Hugh Penn, Kevin Vogt, Emily Vogt, Philip C. Krebs, Aylin M.
Kerbs, Sena Properties, LLC, Sarita Hirani, Trustee, Ching-Kang
Chen, Yu-Jiun Chen, David L. Russell, Harriet T. Russell, Michael
O'Connell, Carol O'Connell, Neil Patel, Kenneth Kringle, Iva
Kringle, David Preston Bush, B. David Richardson, Richardson/Wright
Properties LLC, Bradley S. Shepherd, Joseph B. Manderson, John L.
Aitkens, Jr., Aitkens Realty Co. II, LLC, Richard M. Taylor, Mark
W. Carson, D. B. Richardson, Jr., Moody Williams, Freedom Property
Group II, LLC, Deborah Villm, Villm and Associates, Paul B. Roy,
Tammy R. Roy, Joseph P. Chanely, Marilyn A. Chanley, Dana K. Huie,
Jeanette E. Huie, Nancy A. Hodge, Aitkens Realty Co., LLC, David L.
Carlberg & Jean M. Carlberg, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert G.
Aitkens, Aitkens & Aitkens, PC, Teresa T. Aitkens, Aitkens &
Aitkens, PC, pro hac vice, John B. Austin, Austin & Sparks, PC &
John Thomas Sparks, Austin & Sparks, PC.

Joseph Moronese, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. Aitkens,
Aitkens & Aitkens, PC & John Thomas Sparks, Austin & Sparks, PC.

Camden County, Georgia, Defendant, represented by G. Todd Carter --
tcarter@brbcsw.com -- Brown, Readdick, Bumgartner, Carter,
Strickland & Watkins, LLP & Garret W. Meader -- gmeader@deflaw.com
-- Drew, Eckl & Farnham, LLP.

Willis R. Keene, Jr., Jimmy Starline, Chuck Clark, Tony Sheppard,
Gary Blount, David L. Rainer, Katherine Nisi Zell, Charlene Sears,
Stephen L. Berry, Stephen L. Howard, O. Brent Green, John McDill,
David Keating & Scott Brazell, Defendants, represented by G. Todd
Carter, Brown, Readdick, Bumgartner, Carter, Strickland & Garret W.
Meader, Drew, Eckl & Farnham, LLP.

Jekyll Sound Development Company, LLC, Thomas A. Dieruf, Camden
County Development, LLC, Lexon Insurance Company & David E.
Campbell, Defendants, represented by Geremy W. Gregory --
ggregory@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham, LLP, Hugh B. McNatt --
hmcnatt@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham & W. Joseph McCorkle, Jr. --
jmccorkle@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham, LLP, pro hac vice.


CANAL WOOD: Court Dismisses ERISA Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAROLD JONES, LUIS GONZALEZ, HODGES SESSOMS, and GLENN
SURLES, Plaintiffs, v. CANAL WOOD, LLC; CANAL CHIP, LLC also known
as North Carolina Chip, LLC; and CANAL HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-CV-274-FL (E.D. N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Western Division, granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

The action arises out of the closing of a wood-chipping plant in
Wilson County, North Carolina.  The Plaintiffs are former workers
at the NC Chip Mill who claim the Defendants owe them severance
benefits and other relief under an employee benefit plan pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint on June 13,
2018, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
attaching and relying upon a document titled "The Canal Industries,
Inc. Severance Benefit Plan," and seeking the following relief: (1)
to recover benefits due, enforce their rights to benefits, and
clarify their rights to benefits under the Plan, pursuant to ERISA;
(2) to pursue remedies for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, 29
U.S.C. § 1109, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2); (3) to
enjoin further violations and obtain other appropriate equitable
relief, pursuant to ERISA; and (4) to recover attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to ERISA.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are successors to
non-party Canal Industries, Inc., and that they are related to
Canal Industries, Inc., in such manner as to subject them to
liability to the Plaintiffs under the Plan.

Defendant Canal Holdings, LLC, filed the instant motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim on Aug. 28, 2018, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), relying in part upon articles of
merger filed with the South Carolina Secretary of State.  On the
same date, Defendants Canal Wood, LLC, and Canal Chip, LLC, filed
their motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the motions to dismiss on
Oct. 12, 2018, stating in part that if the Court considers the
documents attached to the motion to dismiss by Defendants Canal
Wood, LLC, and Canal Chip, LLC, then the Court should convert the
motion to one for summary judgment and also consider the documents
in opposition thereto, attached to the Plaintiffs' response: (1)
North Carolina General Warranty Deed between non-parties Canal
Industries, Inc., and North Carolina Chip Company; (2) the
Plaintiffs' declarations; and (3) Declaration of William Joseph
Austin, Jr., attorney for plaintiffs, attaching additional exhibits
including correspondence, memoranda, and corporate documents.

On Nov. 2, 2018, Defendants Canal Wood, LLC, and Canal Chip, LLC,
filed a document comprising: 1) a response and objection to the
Plaintiffs' request to convert the motion to dismiss to one for
summary judgment; and (2) objection to certain exhibits attached to
the Plaintiffs' opposition.  The Defendants also filed on the same
date replies in support of their motions to dismiss.  On Nov. 20,
2018, the Plaintiffs responded to the response and objections by
defendants Canal Wood, LLC, and Canal Chip, LLC.


The Defendants argue that the Oplaintiffs' claim for and related to
benefits must be dismissed because the Plan provides under the
circumstances alleged that the Plaintiffs will receive no benefits
under the Plan.  They also argue that the Plaintiffs' claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and for equitable relief must be dismissed
on several grounds.

Judge Flanagan holds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
or related to benefits under the Plan.  Where the Plaintiffs have
not alleged any facts tending to show that Defendant Canal Wood,
LLC, falls under the definition of the "Canal Family of Companies"
or that Defendant Canal Wood, LLC, adopted the Plan as a
"Participating Employer," the plain language of the "Sale of the
Employer" exclusion in Section 2.4 applies.  Therefore, the
Plaintiffs' first claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) must be
dismissed without prejudice.

She also holds that the Plaintiffs' claim under Section 1132(a)(2)
must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.  She finds that the Plaintiffs do
not state a claim for relief on behalf of the Plan in their second
claim under Section 1132(a)(2).  While the Plaintiffs assert they
should be entitled to assert a claim under Section 1132(a)(2) "on
behalf of all Plan participants," the argument is self-defeating.

Next, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient
facts to support a claim for equitable relief under 29 U. S.C.
Section 1132(a)(3).  While the Plaintiffs point to additional
documentation in their brief, the Court does not consider such
documentation upon the instant motion to dismiss. Moreover, the
representations described about continuation of "benefits" was a
matter governed by the plain language of the Plan, not an issue of
fact in the unique purview only of the employer like the
misrepresentation in Varity.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' third
claim must be dismissed without prejudice.

The Juge holds that the Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for
failure to plead sufficient facts supporting the claims.  As such,
dismissal is without prejudice to refiling, moving for leave to
amend, or standing on the complaint" as the circumstances may
dictate.  Accordingly, in the event the Plaintiffs wish to pursue
their claims in the case, they must, within 21 days of the date of
the Order, file a motion for leave to amend the complaint,
accompanied by 1) a proposed amended complaint, 2) a redline
showing differences between the proposed amended complaint and the
original complaint, and 3) a memorandum in support thereof.  In the
event they do not seek leave to amend in this manner in the time
period specified, the Clerk without further order of the Court will
enter judgment closing the case based upon the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/rk4la0 from Leagle.com.

Harold Jones, Luis Gonzalez, Hodges Sessoms & Glenn Surles,
Plaintiffs, represented by Stephen A. Dunn --
sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com -- Emanuel & Dunn, William Joseph Austin,
Jr., Narron Wenzel, PA & S. Michael Dunn, Emanuel & Dunn.

Canal Wood, LLC & Canal Chip, LLC, also known as, Defendants,
represented by Edward P. Perrin -- eperrin@hallettperrin.com --
Hallett & Perrin, P.C., David Lester Woodard --
dwoodard@poynerspruill.com -- Poyner Spruill LLP, Kaitlin C.
Dewberry -- kdewberry@poynerspruill.com -- Poyner Spruill LLP &
Kevin Michael Ceglowski -- kceglowski@poynerspruill.com -- Poyner
Spruill LLP.

Canal Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas M. Jarrell
-- djarrell@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson,
P.A., Edward P. Perrin, Hallett & Perrin, P.C. & Mark A. Hiller --
mhiller@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A..


CBL PROPERTIES: Approves Structure of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBL Properties (NYSE: CBL) on March 26 disclosed that it has
approved the structure of a settlement of a class action lawsuit as
outlined below.

Background

On March 16, 2016, Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a
Salon Adrian filed a putative class action in the United States
Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking unspecified
monetary damages, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, based on
allegations that CBL and certain affiliated entities overcharged
tenants at bulk metered malls for electricity.

In recent months, the pace of the case accelerated to a
considerable degree. On January 7, 2019, the Court partially
granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification of a
nationwide RICO class and a Florida RICO and FDUTPA class. On
January 22, 2019, CBL filed a petition with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit seeking permission to appeal
the Court's class certification order, and on March 4, 2019, that
petition was denied. On March 11, 2019, the Court set the trial
date for April 2, 2019. On March 15, 2019, following mediation
proceedings, a proposed structure of a settlement was approved by
representatives of the parties.

CBL denies all allegations of wrongdoing and asserts that its
actions have at all times been lawful and proper. However, given
the class certification, the accelerated trial schedule, the
inherent risk of any trial, and the potential cost of an adverse
resolution of the litigation, the Company believes that mediation
was the prudent path. Furthermore, it maintains that the proposed
settlement is in CBL's best interest and in the best interests of
its shareholders.

Proposed Settlement Structure

Details of the proposed settlement structure and anticipated
accounting impact are available on CBL's Form 8-K filed with the
SEC on March 26.

As part of the proposed settlement, CBL will suspend payment of its
common dividend for two quarters: the quarter ended June 30, 2019
(payable in third quarter 2019), and the quarter ended September
30, 2019 (payable in fourth quarter 2019). The suspension of the
dividend for two quarters will preserve approximately $26.0 million
in cash at the current quarterly dividend rate. Based on the
current projection of taxable income for 2019, which includes the
impact of the settlement, CBL believes it will satisfy all required
REIT distributions for the 2019 taxable year. The proposed
settlement does not restrict CBL's payment of common dividends
thereafter. CBL anticipates resuming a quarterly distribution with
its dividend payable in January 2020 (subject to Board approval) in
an amount to be determined at that time based on updated taxable
income projections for 2020. CBL's common dividend previously
declared on February 25, 2019, and payable on April 16, 2019, will
be paid as declared. [GN]


CERAGON NETWORKS: Still Faces Potential Class Suit in Tel-Aviv
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ceragon Networks Ltd.  said in its Form 20-F filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that it awaits the District Court of
Tel-Aviv (Economic Department)'s decision whether to approve the
motion for a purported class action against the Company, its CEO
and its directors.

On January 5, 2015, a motion to approve a purported class action,
naming the Company, its CEO and its directors as defendants, was
filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv (Economic Department), on
behalf of holders of ordinary shares, including those who purchased
shares during the period following the Company's follow on public
offering in July 2014 (the "Motion").

The purported class action is based on Israeli law and alleges
breaches of duties by the Company and its management on account of
false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and
public statements, during the period between July and October 2014.
The plaintiff's principal claim is that immediately prior to the
follow on public offering, the defendants presented misleading
guidance concerning the expected financial results for the third
quarter of 2014, indicating an anticipated improvement in the rate
of gross profit based on orders which were already received by the
Company at the time of such presentation.  Although the plaintiff
admits that, in accordance with the actual results for the third
quarter, the Company did meet the guidance as far as revenues were
concerned, the actual rate of gross profit turned out to be much
lower than the one anticipated.  Plaintiff argues that at the time
such guidance was presented by the defendants, they already knew,
or should have known, that it was incorrect.  The plaintiff seeks
specified compensatory damages in a sum of up to US$75,000,000, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Motion was served to the Company on January 6, 2015 and the
Company filed its response on June 21, 2015.  On October 22, 2015,
the plaintiff filed a request for discovery of specific documents.
The Company filed its response to the plaintiffs' request for
discovery on January 25, 2016, and the plaintiffs submitted their
response on February 24, 2016.  On June 8, 2016, the District Court
partially accepted the plaintiff's request for discovery, and
ordered the Company to disclose some of the requested documents.
The Company's request to appeal this decision was denied by the
Supreme Court on October 25, 2016, and the Company disclosed the
required documents to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed their
reply to the Company's response to the Motion on April 2, 2017.

In May 2017 the Company filed two requests: the first, requesting
to dismiss the Plaintiff's response to the Company's defense, or,
alternatively, to allow the Company to respond to it; the second,
to first hear the Company's claims with regards to the legal
question of the governing law.  A preliminary hearing was held on
May 22, 2017, where the court set dates for response to the
Company's above-mentioned requests and for evidence hearings.  On
July 17, 2017, the court allowed the Company to respond to the
plaintiff's response and on July 29, 2017 the Court denied the
Company's second request.  The Company filed its response to the
plaintiff's response on September 18, 2017.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed a request to summon the
Company's Chairman of the Board, Mr.  Zisapel, and its CEO, Mr.
Palti, to the upcoming evidence hearing.  The Company filed its
response to this request on October 26, 2017; and the plaintiff
filed its reply to Company's response.

The first evidence hearing took place on November 2, 2017.  During
this hearing the Company agreed to consider summoning to the second
evidence hearing one of the above-mentioned Company's officers, and
on November 8, 2017, the Company advised the court that it agrees
that Mr.  Palti will be summoned to the next evidence hearing.  The
second and final evidence hearing took place on January 8, 2018.

The Plaintiff submitted his summaries on March 21, 2018.  The
Company and its officers submitted their summaries on June 12,
2018; The Plaintiff submitted his reply summaries on September 5,
2018.

On October 4, 2018, an interim decision regarding dual listed
companies, which corresponds with the Company's arguments in this
case, was rendered by the Supreme Court of Israel.  This Supreme
Court's decision upholds two recent rulings of the District Court
of Tel-Aviv (Economic Department), which determined that all
securities litigation regarding dual listed companies should be
determined only in accordance with US law.  One of these District
Court rulings dismissed a motion to approve a class action, on the
sole basis that the motion relied on Israeli law.  The Israeli
Supreme Court issued its final ruling in that case on October 16th,
2018 and repeated its principle decision to accept the District
Court' rulings regarding application of US law to claims regarding
dual listed companies.

In light of the above decision, on October 15, 2018, the Plaintiff
requested from District Court to add a plea to his summaries.  The
District Court has approved and gave the Company the right to
reply, and the Company's response was submitted on December 4,
2018.  Plaintiff's reply was submitted on December 26, 2018.

Ceragon Networks said, "The Company awaits the court's decision
whether to approve the Motion or to deny it.  The Company believes
that it has a strong defense against the allegations referred to in
the Motion and that the District Court should deny it."

Ceragon Networks Ltd.  provides wireless backhaul solutions that
enable cellular operators and other wireless service providers to
deliver voice and data services worldwide.  The Company was
formerly known as Giganet Ltd.  and changed its name to Ceragon
Networks Ltd.  in September 2000.  Ceragon Networks Ltd.  was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel.


CH ROBINSON: Dietrich Moves to Certify Class of Carrier Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned TARYN DIETRICH, on behalf of
herself and a class of all those similarly situated v. C.H.
ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-04871 (N.D. Ill.), asks
the Court to certify a class defined as:

    "All persons who have been employed in the state of Illinois
     at C.H. Robinson as Assistant Carrier Account Managers,
     Buyers, Carrier Representatives, Carrier Account Managers,
     Senior Carrier Account Managers, Capacity Account Managers,
     and/or other similar positions, and who did not sign a C.H.
     Robinson arbitration agreement, at any time from three years
     before the filing of this action through and including the
     present and until final resolution of the case."

Ms. Dietrich contends that her claims under the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and her proposed class satisfy all of the applicable
provisions of Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
          Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
          POTTER BOLANOS LLC
          111 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861-1800
          E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org
                  nieves@potterlaw.org
                  patrick@potterlaw.org

               - and -

          Jamie S. Franklin, Esq.
          THE FRANKLIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 803
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 662-1008
          E-mail: jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com


CHARTER COMMS: Missouri Court Dismisses A. Michael's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX MICHAEL, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17 CV 1242 (JMB) (E.D. Mo.), Magistrate
Judge John M. Bodenhausen of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, (i) dismissed as
time-barred the Plaintiff's claims under the Cable Communications
Act of 1984, asserted in Counts I through V; and (ii) dismissed
without prejudice the Plaintiff's state-law claims, asserted in
Counts VI through VIII.

Michael alleges that he was a subscriber of the Defendant from July
2007 through May 2009.  He states that the Defendant advertised and
marketed that its services were provided for monthly itemized rates
on a no-contract basis.  He alleges that, contrary to its
representations, the Defendant failed to disclose that, in addition
to collecting subscribers' fees, it would sell to third parties
subscribers' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including
names, addresses, and subscription information.

In his second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant sold his PII "numerous times to numerous parties" both
while he was a subscriber and after he terminated his service
relationship with the Defendant.  He alleges that the Defendant's
actions violated the Cable Act, and the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act ("MMPA").  In addition, the Plaintiff asserts
common-law claims for conversion and unjust enrichment.  He seeks
to certify a nationwide class of individuals who subscribed to
receive Charter services between January 2005 and September 2014.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant committed five violations
of the Cable Act.  First, Charter failed to deliver privacy
notifications, in violation of Section 551(a)(1), both when the
parties entered into a service agreement (Count I), and at least
once a year thereafter during his subscription (Count II).  In
addition, he alleges that, even if the Defendant had provided him
with its privacy notifications, they were not clearly and
conspicuously worded and thus violated Section 551(a)(1)(A)-(E)
(Count III).  He also alleges that the Defendant failed to obtain
his prior written or electronic consent before disclosing his PII,
in violation of Section 551(c)(1) (Count IV).  Finally, he alleges
that the Defendant failed to provide its subscribers an opportunity
to prohibit or limit disclosures, in violation of Section
551(c)(2)(C) (Count V).  In Count VI, the Plaintiff asserts that
defendant violated the MMPA by offering its services without
disclosing that his PII would be sold.  He also asserts claims for
conversion (Count VII) and unjust enrichment (Count VIII) arising
from the Defendant's alleged sale of his PII.

The matter is before the Court for determination of whether the
Plaintiff's claims are timebarred and whether he has standing to
proceed.

Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen finds that although the Plaintiff
asserts that he is entitled to tolling of the statute of
limitations, he has confined his analysis to consideration of when
his claims accrued.  A litigant asserting federal claims is
entitled to toll the statute of limitations only if the litigant
establishes two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights
diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in
his way and prevented timely filing.  The circumstances in the case
do not meet the requirements for equitable tolling.

The Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff's claims under the Cable
Act are time-barred.  He declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims arising under state law.
Because all claims will be dismissed, he need not address whether
the Plaintiff has established that he has standing to proceed in
the matter.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen (i) dismissed as
time-barred the Plaintiff's claims under the Cable Act, asserted in
Counts I through V; and (ii) dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's state-law claims, asserted in Counts VI through VIII.

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

Alex Michael, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace --
ryan@swmwlaw.com -- SWMK LAW, Steven J. Stolze --
sstolze@hollandtriallawyers.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Michael
A. Brockland -- mike@swmwlaw.com -- SWMW LAW, LLC.

Charter Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew D.
Guletz -- mguletz@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP &
Roman P. Wuller -- rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN,
LLP.


CHEROKEE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Garza Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Garza, Elsa Toscano, Norma Bexar-Moline, Teresa Villanueva,
and San Juana Gomez, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Cherokee Healthcare Services, Case No.
5:19-cv-00353 (W.D. Tex., April 5, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
minimum wage and/or overtime compensation with respect to the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees.

Cherokee Healthcare Services provides services to the healthcare
industry.  The Defendant is a provider of contract healthcare
services on a multi-state basis.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


CHEVRON CORP: White Wants Supreme Ct. to Review Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Charles E. White, Jr., et al., filed with the Supreme
Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the
matter styled Charles E. White, Jr., et al., Petitioners vs.
Chevron Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-1271.

Response is due on May 3, 2019.

The Plaintiffs want the Supreme Court to review the affirmation of
the dismissal of their class action lawsuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the
affirmation on November 13, 2018, in the appellate case titled
CHARLES E. WHITE, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CHEVRON
CORPORATION and ESIP INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 17-16208.  The Lower Court Rehearing Request was denied on
January 3, 2019.

The District Court case is captioned CHARLES E. WHITE, et al. v.
CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Case No. Case No. 4:16-cv-00793-PJH,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
are participants in the Chevron Employee Savings Investment Plan
("the ESIP Plan"), a Section 401(k) defined contribution,
individual account, employee pension benefit plan under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1002(2)(A) and Section 1002(34).  As of Dec. 31, 2014, the
Plan had over $19 billion in total assets and more than 40,000
participants with account balances.

The Plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in choosing certain funds in the Plan lineup, and in failing
to monitor those funds that were selected for the Plan lineup.  As
in the original complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that the Vanguard
Prime Money Market Fund--the Plan's sole conservative capital
preservation investment option--was an imprudent choice because of
its low return starting in 2008.  They assert that stable value
funds generally outperform money market funds, and that in this
case a stable value fund would have been a more prudent choice than
a money market fund.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          James Redd, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  jredd@uselaws.com

               - and -

          Jamie L. Dupree, Esq.
          Jaime G. Touchstone, Esq.
          FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP
          180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 399-3840
          Facsimile: (415) 399-3838
          E-mail: jdupree@fddcm.com
                  jtouchstone@fddcm.com


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Settlement in Jones FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BONNIE R. JONES, on behalf of Herself and all others
similar situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY
(DELAWARE a/k/a CB&I and CB&I STONE & WEBSETER, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00424-RJC-DS (W.D. N.C.), Judge Robert J. Conrad,
Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division,  granted the Parties' Joint Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Rule 23 Class Action and FLSA
Collective Action Settlement.

The Parties' Class Action Settlement is preliminary approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e),
and a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  As a result, the terms of the
Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement are approved.

The Judge preliminarily certified, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), pending final approval of the
settlement, the class defined as non-exempt employees working a
9/80 plan in the Defendant's Power Division for the 2 years
preceding the filing of the Complaint who were located in
Charlotte, North Carolina and Canton, Massachusetts.

He preliminarily approved Plaintiff Bonnie Jones as the
Representative of the Settlement Class; and Gibbons Leis, PLLC and
Stephan Zouras, LLP as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

The Class Action Settlement Notice is approved and will be
distributed pursuant to the terms of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for June 25, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's march 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sgogvV from Leagle.com.

Bonnie R. Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine T. Mitchell, STEPHAN
ZOURAS, LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan F. Stephan --
Rstephan@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice,
Craig Lorne Leis, Gibbons Leis, PLLC & Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. --
Pgibbons@stephanzouras.com -- Gibbons Leis, PLLC.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, also known as CB&I also known as
CB&I Stone & Webster, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Robert Holland -- ben.holland@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart PC.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sgogvV from Leagle.com.

Bonnie R. Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine T. Mitchell, STEPHAN
ZOURAS, LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan F. Stephan --
Rstephan@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice,
Craig Lorne Leis, Gibbons Leis, PLLC & Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. --
Pgibbons@stephanzouras.com -- Gibbons Leis, PLLC.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, also known as CB&I also known as
CB&I Stone & Webster, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Robert Holland -- ben.holland@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart PC.


CITIZENS BANK: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of B. Fawcett's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sandra Lea Lynch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case,
BARBARA FAWCETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A., Defendant,
Appellee, Case No. 18-1443 (1st Cir.).

The putative class action alleges that Citizens Bank's "Sustained
Overdraft Fees" for overdrawn checking accounts are usurious
interest charges in violation of Section 85 of the National Bank
Act.  Citizens Bank is a national bank that offers checking account
services to its customers.  When a Citizens Bank customer overdraws
her account, Citizens Bank has two options: It can either (1) cover
the overdraft or (2) decline to cover the overdraft and return the
check.

Citizens Bank charges a fee in both instances.  If Citizens Bank
returns a check, it charges a $35 "Returned Item Fee."  If Citizens
Bank honors the check, it charges a $35 "Overdraft Fee."  If the
account remains overdrawn after Citizens Bank has honored the check
and charged the initial overdraft fee, Citizens Bank then charges a
"Sustained Overdraft Fee."  It charges that "Sustained Overdraft
Fee" three times: $30 four business days after the overdraft,
another $30 after seven business days, and a final $30 after ten
business days.  The complaint does not allege that Citizens Bank
charges any "Sustained Overdraft Fees" after the ten-business-day
mark.

On the facts presented, then, Citizens Bank may charge a customer
up to $90 more to honor her overdraft than it charges her to not
cover it.  Thie case considers whether that $90 difference --
Citizens Bank's excess overdraft charge -- is "interest" under the
National Bank Act ("NBA").

Fawcett filed her complaint in Massachusetts federal district court
on June 7, 2017.  The complaint alleges that Citizens Bank's
"Sustained Overdraft Fees" violate the NBA because they constitute
"interest" at a rate above that allowed by Rhode Island, the state
in which Citizens Bank is located.  The complaint does not
challenge either Citizens Bank's "Returned Item Fee" or its
"Overdraft Fee."

Citizens Bank moved to dismiss.  The district court held a hearing
on that motion and then dismissed Fawcett's complaint with a short
text order.  That order says that the court would follow the
overwhelming majority of jurisdictions which have ruled that
sustained overdraft fees are not considered interest under the NBA,
apparently referring to cases cited in the briefing.

Fawcett timely appealed.  She advances three arguments for why the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC")'s interpretation
in Interpretive Letter 1082 otherwise does not merit deference.
First, Fawcett argues that Auer deference does not apply because
Interpretive Letter 1082 analyzes OCC's regulation governing
non-interest charges, not its "interest" regulation.  Second, she
argues that OCC has advanced internally inconsistent
interpretations of "interest."  And third, Fawcett appears to argue
we should not defer to OCC's definition of "interest" in 12 C.F.R.
Section 7.4001 because that definition simply paraphrases language
from the NBA.

Judge Lynch rejects each argument.  She holds that (i) in
classifying the bank's excess overdraft charges as "deposit account
service charges," OCC necessarily rejected the conclusion that
those charges were "interest"; (ii) a flat excess overdraft charge
does not constitute "interest"; and (iii) because OCC's
interpretation in Interpretive Letter 1082 is "consistent with the
regulatory text" and not plainly erroneous, and because there is no
alternative reason to withhold deference, she gives OCC's
definition of "interest" deference.

Next, the Judge holds that Citizens Bank's "Sustained Overdraft
Fees" are "deposit account service charges," not interest.  The
fact that some flat fees may be "interest" is no proof that it is
invalid for OCC to classify the flat fees here as something other
than "interest."  And in Smiley, the Court considered flat late
fees applied to holders of credit card accounts, not deposit
accounts.  The Judge finds OCC's reasoning persuasive.

Fawcett makes an argument that, in her view, "the economic reality
of banks paying overdrafts" is that the bank is in fact extending
credit to its checking account customers.  The Judge finds that the
statement in the Joint Guidance is inapplicable for several reason.
First, the Joint Guidance was not meant to provide OCC's
interpretation of the NBA, nor does it purport to do that.  Second,
the Joint Guidance (from 2005) predates Interpretive Letter 1082
(from 2007), and so is not OCC's last word on overdraft programs or
on flat excess overdraft fees.  And third, the statement that when
overdrafts are paid, credit is extended" appears in a section of
the Joint Guidance entitled "Safety and Soundness Considerations.

Fawcett's argument, adopted by the dissent, that the district court
erred in not allowing discovery fails.  The dissent says that
Fawcett should be allowed to probe "the rationales and factual
basis for Citizens Bank's `Sustained Overdraft Fees.'  But Congress
entrusted OCC, not inexpert federal judges, with interpreting "the
meaning of the banking laws."  The dissent's case-by-case approach
would upend the order, at a cost to the clarity needed by the
financial industry.  OCC's guidance forecloses this approach.  This
appeal concerns a pure question of law and does not turn on
discovery.

The Judge holds that only that flat excess overdraft fees like
Citizens Bank's "Sustained Overdraft Fees" are not "interest" under
the NBA.  Citizens Bank urges a broad ruling that "no fee connected
to the overdraft is interest under § 7.4001." The bank argues that
regulatory history establishes this proposition. We decline to take
such a sweeping approach, given that the considerations surrounding
overdraft fees are, in OCC's words, "complex and fact-specific,"
and because the Court need not adopt such a position to resolve the
case.  When it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not
to decide more.

Based on this, Judge Lynch affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ITI0QJ from Leagle.com.

Edward F. Haber -- ehaber@shulaw.com -- with whom Patrick J.
Vallely -- pvallely@shulaw.com -- and Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP,
were on brief, for appellant.

David J. Zimmer, with whom Brenda R. Sharton --
bsharton@goodwinlaw.com -- and Goodwin Procter LLP, were on brief,
for appellee.


COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Still Faces Anthony Pepe Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. continues to face Anthony Pepe's securities
class complaint in New Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

On September 20, 2018, Anthony Pepe, individually and on behalf of
a class, filed with the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey a complaint against the Company, certain
current and former executive officers and directors of the Company
and the other defendants named therein for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The class consists of the persons and entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from September 23, 2013
through September 7, 2018.  Pepe also alleges violation of other
sections of the Exchange Act by the defendants named in the
complaint other than the Company.  Pepe seeks damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees
and other costs.

Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., formerly known as Biozone Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., is a clinical stage biotechnology company discovering and
developing novel antiviral therapeutics that target the replication
machinery of hepatitis viruses, influenza viruses, and noroviruses.
The company is headquartered in Tucker, Georgia.


CONCENTRA INC: Kilburn Seeks Certification of ACO Directors Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CHELSEA KILBURN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONCENTRA, INC.,
and CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-00757-D (W.D.
Okla.), seeks conditional class certification.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay their
Assistant Center Operations Directors ("ACODs") overtime
compensation for hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, even
though the ACODs' primary duty was performing routine, non-exempt
work.  Through this motion, the Plaintiff seeks to protect the
rights of ACODs nationwide by sending them Court-approved notice,
and allowing them to decide whether to join the case and attempt to
recover their unpaid wages.

Ms. Kilburn asserts that she exceeds her low burden to establish
that Concentra subjected all ACODs to a common policy of
misclassifying them as exempt from the overtime requirements of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hence, the Plaintiff asks that the Court: (1) authorize the
dissemination of notice of this action to the members of the
potential collective; (2) order Concentra to produce information
for all potential collective members; (3) authorize the issuance of
the proposed Notice, Consent to Join form, and reminder notice to
collective members in the methods and manner described above; and
(4) toll the FLSA statute of limitations for all Opt-In
Plaintiffs.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Waller, Esq.
          J. David Jorgenson, Esq.
          WALLER JORGENSON WARZYNSKI, PLLC
          401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 500
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 629-3350
          E-mail: mwaller@wjwattorneys.com
                  djorgenson@wjwattorneys.com

Defendant Concentra, Inc., is represented by:

          Victor F. Albert, Esq.
          Justin P. Grose, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          The Heritage Building
          621 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 400
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 272-5711
          E-mail: victor.albert@ogletree.com
                  justin.grose@ogletree.com

               - and -

          John B. Brown, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Preston Commons West
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 987-3800
          E-mail: john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Squire Patton Discusses Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy B. Doolittle, Esq. -- amy.doolittle@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that another decision from the Northern District of
Illinois holding that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), applies to class actions
pending in federal court, and as result, the court held that it
lacked personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant
(Holiday Cruise Line) as to the TCPA claims of residents outside of
Illinois. See Bakov v. Consol. World Travel, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 46510 (N. Ill. Mar. 21, 2019). In so holding, the court
rejected plaintiffs' waiver argument and excused Holiday's failure
to raise the jurisdictional objection in its initial response. The
court, however, went on to consider whether to certify a class of
Illinois residents. After addressing various challenges to both
plaintiffs' and defendant's expert testimony, the court certified a
class of Illinois residents.

The lawsuit involves a challenge to prerecorded calls made by a
third party to market a Holiday cruise. The purported class
included "all persons in the United States." As a preliminary
matter, the court considered whether it had personal jurisdiction
over Holiday to certify a nationwide class. It found it did not.
First, there was no general jurisdiction because Holiday is
incorporated under Florida law with its principal place of business
in Florida. The court then found that pursuant to Bristol-Myers, it
lacked specific jurisdiction over Holiday with respect to the
nonresident class members' TCPA claims. The court expressly
followed earlier decisions from the Northern District of Illinois,
holding that Bristol-Myers applies in federal court and applies to
class actions. Acknowledging that Holiday failed to raise its
personal jurisdiction defense in its motion to dismiss, the court
excused this failure, again following earlier decisions from the
Northern District of Illinois.

As to class certification, the court first addressed the parties'
challenges to each side's expert testimony. The court rejected
plaintiffs' challenges to Holiday's expert, Ken Sponsler, finding
that his testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 702 and that plaintiffs' challenges amounted to nothing
more than a disagreement with Mr. Sponsler's testimony or went to
the weight (not the reliability) of the testimony. Holiday
challenged plaintiffs' three experts. As to the first -- Colin Weir
-- the court concluded that testimony from a data analysis expert
would assist the jury and that Mr. Weir's methodology was reliable.
However, with respect to plaintiffs' second expert – Randall
Snyder -- the court concluded that his opinion that the calls were
prerecorded is inadmissible for lack of sound methodology and that
such testimony was unlikely to assist the jury. The court also
excluded Mr. Snyder's opinion (identifying class members through
telephone numbers) because he "derived this opinion through his
exposure to and observance of a process utilized by" another firm
retained by plaintiffs to identify class members. Finally, as to
plaintiffs' third expert (from the firm plaintiffs retained to
identify class members) -- Christina Peters-Staziweicz -- the court
allowed her testimony, finding that her proffered methodology for
identifying class members had previously been found by other courts
to be an acceptable method and that challenges to its reliability
are matters to be explored on cross-examination.

The court then turned to the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the
requirements of Rule 23(b), and ascertainability. As the court
noted, "[t]he central theme of [Holiday's] opposition to class
certification is questioning the validity of Plaintiffs' proposed
method of class member identification." Ultimately, the court
disagreed with Holiday's contention that class members should not
be permitted to "self-identify" through affidavits in the absence
of objective records, finding that the Seventh Circuit has
determined that courts should not decline certification because a
plaintiff's proposed method for identifying class members relies on
affidavits. Thus, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification, in so far as the class is limited to Illinois
residents.

As those of us who inhabit TCPAworld know, there is disagreement
amongst courts across the country on the Court's two central
rulings in this case -- that is, whether Bristol-Myers applies to
class actions and whether TCPA classes based on self-identifying
affidavits in the absence of objective records can be certified.
Both issues will eventually work their way to the appellate courts,
so stay tuned. In the meantime, for those of us who defend TCPA
class actions, make sure to develop and timely raise both defenses.
[GN]


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Pulido Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Pulido on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credence
Resource Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02099 (E.D.
N.Y., April 10, 2019).

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

Credence Resource Management, LLC provides business solutions to
organizations in order to enhance their service, compliance, and
recovery goals.[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


CREDIT CONTROL: Dismissal of Nardino FDCPA Suit Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROLINE NARDINO on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Defendant,
No. CV 17-03772 (ADS) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge A.
Kathleen Tomlinson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York recommended to Judge Joan Spatt that (1) the
Defendant's Motion to Strike be denied, (2) the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss be granted, and (3) the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification be denied as moot.

Nardino commenced the lawsuit on Feb. 3, 2017 in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, by filing a Summons
with Notice against debt-collector Defendant Credit Control.  The
Defendant removed the action to the Court on June 22, 2017.

Thereafter, on June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a formal
Complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.
She alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), based on abusive, deceptive, or misleading
debt collection practices in connection with a debt collection
letter which the Defendant sent her about a purportedly outstanding
debt.

The Plaintiff originally asserted six causes of action, the third
of which alleges that the Collection Letter did not properly
identify the creditor or the entity on whose behalf the Defendant
was attempting to collect the debt.  On April 30, 2018, the
Plaintiff withdrew all but one of the claims and moved for class
certification, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  The third cause of
action is the only claim remaining in the case.  In it, the
Plaintiff asserts that the Collection Letter did not properly
identify the creditor, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e,
1692(e)(2)(A) and 1692e(10).

The Defendant opposed the Plaintiff's Motion on May 18, 2018 and
cross-moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of standing.  The
Plaintiff opposed the Cross-Motion and attached an affidavit signed
by her bankruptcy attorney, Richard Jacoby, Esq., which attempts to
explain the reasons why she did not disclose her FDCPA claims in
her Chapter 7 petition.

The Defendant then moved to strike the Jacoby Affidavit, arguing
that the Affidavit contains inadmissible hearsay.  Judge Spatt
referred the pending motions to the Court for a Report and
Recommendation.

Magistrate Judge Tomlinson finds no reason to set aside the law
governing a debtor's disclosure obligation relating to legal claims
in a bankruptcy proceeding and the effect of non-disclosure on a
debtor's ability to subsequently bring an action asserting those
claims.  The law is clear that nondisclosed claims remain the
property of the bankruptcy estate.  The Plaintiff has offered no
legal argument as to why she nevertheless has standing to bring the
instant action.  The Jacoby Affidavit appears to offer an
explanation for the Plaintiff's omission.  However, in the absence
of authority suggesting that the Plaintiff's explanation
constitutes good grounds to set aside the law governing legal claim
disclosures in a bankruptcy petition and the effect of
nondisclosure, th ePlaintiff's explanation as such is not relevant.
She has no standing to prosecute the instant claim insofar as it
remains the property of the bankruptcy estate.  Therefore, the
Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the litigation.

Because she finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the
instant action insofar as it belongs to the bankruptcy estate, the
Magistrate need not analyze whether the Plaintiff is similarly
judicially estopped from bringing the instant action.

As an alternative to dismissal, the Plaintiff requests leave to
move to reopen her bankruptcy to amend her schedules to include her
FDCPA claims.  In support of her application, the Plaintiff relies
on In re Moyette, and BPP Illinois, LLC v. Royal Bank of Scotland
Grp., PLC.  Once again, the Plaintiff includes belabored block
quotations without any explanation, application, or connected legal
reasoning.  In any event, the Magistrate finds that the cases the
Plaintiff cites are inapposite.
  There is no basis for the Court to be concerned with a
"significant windfall" in the Defendant's favor, nor is there any
reason to stay the action so that the Plaintiff can move to re-open
her bankruptcy.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Tomlinson recommended
to Judge Spatt that: (1) the Defendant's Motion to Strike be
denied; (2) the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted; and (3)
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be denied as moot in
light of her recommendation to dismiss the Complaint.

The parties will have 14 days from service of the Report and
Recommendation to file written objections.  Such objections by an
attorney of record will be filed with the Clerk of the Court via
ECF.  A courtesy copy of any objections filed is to be sent to the
Chambers of the Judge Spatt, and to the Chambers of the Magistrate
Judge.  Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections
must be directed to Judge Spatt prior to the expiration of the
14-day period for filing objections.  Failure to file objections
will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal.


A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/PhWaO1 from
Leagle.com.

Caroline Nardino, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similiarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin.

Credit Control, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas R. Dominczyk
-- tdominczyk@MauriceWutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher, LLP.


CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Final Approval of $50K Accord in Ramos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Joan M. Azrack gives final approval order to the
Class Settlement Agreement between the parties in the lawsuit
captioned HENRY A. RAMOS and ROXANN RAMOS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, a
Missouri Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS
1 THROUGH 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-04098-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.).

The Settlement Class is certified as:

     All persons with addresses in the State of New York to whom
     Credit Control, LLC mailed a collection letter between
     July 25, 2015, and October 5, 2017, to collect a debt on
     behalf of Kohls Department Stores, Inc., which debt was
     charged-off by the creditor prior to the date the letter was
     sent to the consumer, and the letter either:

      (i) stated, "[b ]ecause of interest, late charges and other
          charges that may be assessed by your creditor that vary
          from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay, may
          be greater;" or

     (ii) offered to settle the debt when the debt was in default
          for more than three years prior to the date of the
          letter and did not disclose the debt may be barred by
          the statute of limitations.

Upon the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Agreement,
Credit Control will make these payments:

   (a) Credit Control shall create a class settlement fund of
       $50,000.00 ("Class Recovery"), which Class Counsel through
       the Settlement Administrator will distribute pro rata,
       not to exceed $25.00, among those Class Members who did
       not exclude themselves and who timely returned a claim
       form ("Claimants").  Claimants will receive their pro rata
       share of the Class Recovery by check.  Checks issued to
       Claimants will be void sixty (60) days from the date of
       issuance;

   (b) Credit Control shall pay each Plaintiff $2,000;

   (c) Credit Control shall pay Class Counsel $96,000 for their
       attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the
       action including class administration costs based upon
       their requested hourly rates.  Class Counsel shall not
       request additional fees or costs from Credit Control or
       Class Members; and

   (d) The Plaintiffs shall file a report stating the final
       amount that was ultimately claimed by class members, and
       indicating the number, if any, of settlement checks that
       were not cashed.[CC]


CREDIT PROTECTION: Roldan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Protection
Association L.P. The case is styled as Juan Roldan individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Protection Association L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02160
(E.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019).

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

Credit Protection Association is an independent debt collection
agency located in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CYNOSURE INC: Maryland Court Dismisses S. Snyder's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN B. SNYDER, M.D., P.A., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CYNOSURE, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-18-2049 (D. Md.),
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
Maryland granted Cynosure's Motion to Dismiss.

Snyder and Dermatology Laser Center & Medispa bring the action
against Cynosure based on the purchase of a medical device from
Cynosure that uses laser technology to remove tattoos.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Cynosure made false and misleading
representations in their sales literature, and the device does not
remove tattoos as represented.

Initially, in 2015, the Plaintiffs joined a purported class action
lawsuit in Illinois against Cynosure, but they were dismissed from
the case for lack of personal jurisdiction in January 2018.  The
Plaintiffs then filed the instant lawsuit in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland on May 11, 2018.  The Defendant timely
removed the case to the Court on July 6, 2018 based on diversity of
citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.

Currently pending before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.  Cynosure contends that under Maryland law, the Purchase
Agreement contains an express disclaimer of warranty, the tort
claims are subsumed under the contract, the economic loss doctrine
forecloses negligence claims seeking only economic damages, and the
intentional misrepresentation claims are not pled with
particularity as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).  It seeks
dismissal of all claims, or in the alternative, seeks dismissal of
the Plaintiffs' damages claims for lost profits and revenue as
barred by the Purchase Agreement.

Judge Bennett granted Cynosure's Motion, and dimissed the
Plaintiffs' Complaint.  Counts I (Negligent Misrepresentatio) and
IV (Breach of Express Warranty) are dimissed with prejudice, and
Counts II and III (Intentional Misrepresentation) are dimissed
without prejudice.

As to Count I, he finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
that Cynosure owed them an independent duty of care that would
allow them to recover under a tort claim.  As to Count II and III,
he finds that there is simply insufficient particularity in the
Plaintiffs' allegations for Counts II and III to survive the
dismissal motion.  And with respect to Count IV, he finds that the
Plaintiffs make no contentions that the warranty and disclaimer
were either inconspicuous or were not seen.  Additionally, since
the Plaintiffs do not suggest that they were unaware of the
disclaimer and integration clause in the Purchase Agreement,
allowing an express warranty claim to be based on language not
present in the contract would be inconsistent with the integration
clause.  

Since he dismissed all of the Plaintiffs claims, it's not necessary
to address Cynosure's alternative request to limit damages.

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

Steven B Snyder, M.D, P.A. & Dermatology Laser Center & Medispa,
Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas Joseph Dolina --
tdolina@bodie-law.com -- Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer,
PC.

Cynosure, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean Hennessy --
sean.hennessy@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter, Daniel S.
Pariser -- daniel.pariser@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold and Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Jocelyn Wiesner --
jocelyn.wiesner@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP, pro hac vice & John Bucher Isbister --
jisbister@tydingslaw.com -- Tydings and Rosenberg LLP.


D. & B. CORP: Dancers Forced to Pay House Fees, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ARIELLE PHILIBOTTE; LISA MINICHIELLO and GABRIELE ROHDE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. D. & B. CORP. d/b/a THE GOLDEN BANANA; MARK J.
FILTRANTI; and ROBERT DEPESA, Defendants, Case No. 1977CV00411C
(Mass. Super., Essex Cty., March 25, 2019) alleges that the
Defendants required the Plaintiffs to pay "house fees" and strongly
encouraged the Plaintiffs to share their tips with DJs and
bouncers.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers.

D. & B. Corp. d/b/a The Golden Banana is a corporation incorporated
under the laws of the State of Massachusetts. The Company operates
a dance club. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Dishman, Esq.
          DISHMAN LAW, PC
          224 Lewis Wharf
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 523-5252
          E-mail: david@dishmanlaw.com


DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Travis Ito-Stone Securities Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DBV Technologies S.A.  is facing a class action complaint filed by
Travis Ito-Stone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, in New Jersey, according to the Company's Form
20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 1, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

A class action complaint was filed on January 15, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
entitled Travis Ito-Stone v. DBV Technologies, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00525.  The complaint alleges that the Company and its
former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Executive Officer
and its Deputy Chief Executive Officer violated certain federal
securities laws, specifically under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiff
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between February 14, 2018
and December 19, 2018.

DBV Technologies said, "The Company believes that the allegations
contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend
the case vigorously.  However, whether or not the plaintiff's
claims are successful, this type of litigation is often expensive
and diverts management's attention and resources, which could
adversely affect the operation of the Company's business.  If the
Company is ultimately required to pay significant defense costs,
damages or settlement amounts, such payments could adversely affect
its operations."

DBV Technologies S.A., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
engages in the research and development of epicutaneous
immunotherapy products.  The Company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Montrouge, France.


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: City of Pontiac Employee's Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the securities class action suit entitled,
City of Pontiac Employee Retirement System vs.  Dell Inc., et al.,
according to Dell Technologies Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 1, 2019.

On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac
Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et al. (Case No.
1:14-cv-03644).

The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain current and
former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made false and
misleading statements about Dell's business operations and products
between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which resulted in
artificially inflated stock prices.

The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss.  On September 16, 2016, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss and the case is proceeding with discovery.

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

Dell Technologies Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets,
sells, and supports information technology (IT) products and
services worldwide.  It operates through three segments: Client
Solutions Group (CSG), Infrastructure Solutions Group (ISG), and
VMware.  The company was formerly known as Denali Holding Inc. and
changed its name to Dell Technologies Inc. in August 2016.  Dell
Technologies Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round
Rock, Texas.


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Hallandale Beach Retirement Plan's Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc.'s directors continue to face a class action
lawsuit entitled, Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement Plan
v. Michael Dell, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2019.

On November 8, 2018, Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement
Plan filed a putative stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned
Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell,
et al., (No. 2018-0816-JTL), against the Company's directors and
Michael S. Dell, a separate property trust for the benefit of Mr.
Dell's wife, investment funds affiliated with Silver Lake Partners,
and investment funds affiliated with MSD Partners, L.P. in Delaware
Chancery Court, alleging, among other things, that the directors of
the Company breached their fiduciary duties to holders of the Class
V Common Stock in connection with the Class V transaction, because,
among other things, the Class V transaction was allegedly
financially unfair and coercive to holders of the Class V Common
Stock and there were various conflicts of interest.

The lawsuit seeks, among other remedies, a judicial declaration
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of
damages, fees and costs.

Dell Technologies Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets,
sells, and supports information technology (IT) products and
services worldwide.  It operates through three segments: Client
Solutions Group (CSG), Infrastructure Solutions Group (ISG), and
VMware.  The company was formerly known as Denali Holding Inc. and
changed its name to Dell Technologies Inc. in August 2016.  Dell
Technologies Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round
Rock, Texas.


DIRECTV GROUP: Viasat Appeals Ruling in Getz Suit to 11th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Viasat Inc. filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Daniel Getz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The DIRECTV Group, Inc., a California
Corporation and Viasat, Inc., d/b/a Exede Internet, a California
Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-22802-JEM (S.D. Fla.).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

DIRECTV provides television services to commercial and residential
consumers.  The Defendant's principal office is located in El
Segundo, California.

Viasat Inc. provides internet and telephone services to commercial
and residential consumers.  Viasat's principal office is located in
Carlsbad, California.

The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Getz v. Viasat Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-11117, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before May 1, 2019;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before April 19, 2019, as to Appellee Daniel Getz.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DANIEL GETZ, individually and on behalf of al
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          Joshua Robert Levine, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, PA
          1 W Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: edelsberg@kolawyers.com
                  levine@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 Ne 1st Ave., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

Defendant-Appellant VIASAT INC., a California Corporation d.b.a.
Exede Internet, is represented by:

          Brigid Finerty Cech Samole, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA
          333 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0500
          E-mail: cechsamoleb@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Ian M. Ross, Esq.
          STUMPHAUZER FOSLID SLOMAN ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC
          1 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1820
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 371-9686
          E-mail: iross@sfslaw.com

               - and -

          Colin Ward, Esq.
          VIASAT, INC.
          6155 El Camino Real
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: (760) 893-1840
          E-mail: Colin.Ward@viasat.com

Defendant The DIRECTV, LLC, is represented by:

          Hans J. Germann, Esq.
          Kyle J. Steinmetz, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com
                  ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Markowitz, Esq.
          DEMAHY, LABRADOR, DRAKE, VICTOR & CABEZA
          6400 N Andrews Ave., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 229-9951
          E-mail: smarkowitz@dldlawyers.com


DNC FOOD: Ramos Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO GARCIA RAMOS, JORGE PEREZ AGUILAR, FELIX LUNA, and
GUILLERMO ALONSO MORALES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DNC FOOD SERVICE CORP. d/b/a SPEEDY'S DELI,
NIKOLAOS VASILATOS and SPIROS ZISIMATOS, Jointly and Severally,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02967 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2019), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed to them
pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

DNC Food Service Corp. is an active New York Corporation doing
business as "Speedy's Deli" with its principal place of business
located in at 1271 Broadway, in New York City.  The Individual
Defendants are owners and operators of the Corporate Defendant.

The Defendants have owned and operated at least three restaurants
and/or delicatessen locations in New York City under the name
Speedy's Deli, The Harold and New York Burger Co.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com


DRIVELINE RETAIL: Lavender Moves to Certify Class of Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHIRLEY LAVENDER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. DRIVELINE RETAIL
MERCHANDISING, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02097-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.),
moves for certification of a class defined as:

     All current and former Driveline employees whose PII was
     compromised as a result of the Data Disclosure.

Excluded from the Class are the officers, directors and legal
representatives of Driveline and the judges and court personnel to
whom this case may be assigned and any members of their immediate
families.

The class action is brought by Ms. Lavender on her own behalf and
as representative of the class of Driveline employees that were
subject to the Driveline Employee W-2 Disclosure.  She is a current
employee at Driveline whose social security number, name, address,
and wage information, along with that of more than 15,800 other
employees, was released by her employer to an unknown third party.
On February 14, 2017, the Defendant notified its current and former
employees that their 2016 W-2 tax form information had been
subjected to "a data breach."[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (813) 559-4908
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
          E-mail: jmartin@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800
          Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
          E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com


EATON VANCE: Reaches Agreement to Settle ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for Plansponsor, reports that a motion
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
could bring to a close a class action Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) self-dealing lawsuit filed by participants in
an Eaton Vance retirement plan.

The joint motion requests the judge in the case stay further
proceedings -- including a hearing scheduled for March 25.
According to the motion, lead plaintiff Shannon Price, individually
and on behalf of the class and the plan, has agreed to a proposed
settlement, as have defendants Eaton Vance Corporation, Eaton Vance
Management, the Eaton Vance Investment Committee, and some 30
individual defendants.

The March 25 hearing would have addressed the defendants' motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim regarding counts VII, VIII,
and IX of the complaint.

In support of the stay motion, the parties state they have reached
an agreement in principle to settle this action on a class-wide
basis. Further, according to the motion, the parties will "work
diligently to prepare and submit a motion for preliminary approval
of the anticipated class settlement."

"In the event that the parties are unable to reach a final
agreement to settle this action, they will promptly notify the
court," the motion states. "The parties request that the court
vacate the date now on the calendar for the March 25, 2019, hearing
on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim counts VII, VIII,
and IX of the complaint, and stay further proceedings in this
action pending the parties' submission of a motion for preliminary
approval of the anticipated class settlement. The parties
anticipate that they will be in a position to make that submission
to the Court within 45 days."

The text of the lawsuit alleges that Eaton Vance "used the entire
plan as a test laboratory and vehicle for self-gain."

"Instead of leveraging its investment expertise to select prudent
investment options on the open market, Eaton Vance filled the plan
with funds that Eaton Vance managed," the compliant states. "Of the
42 non-money market investments strategies on the plan, 35 were
managed by one of the Eaton Vance defendants. Moreover, Eaton Vance
proprietary funds were the exclusive actively managed investment
strategies available on the plan. As of December 31, 2016, the Plan
had $434,848,484 in assets under management, approximately 80% of
which were invested in Eaton Vance funds."

The details of the settlement will be made available when the
parties file their formal settlement motion with the court, in
about a month and a half. In the meantime, context for this
settlement decision can be found in the recently filed settlement
agreement struck in a similar case by BB&T. Apart from tens of
millions of dollars in monetary compensation, the employer in that
case agreed to "significant future relief in terms of scope and
duration while also securing additional commitments for
participants' benefit." In particular, the fiduciaries agreed to
engage a consulting firm to conduct a request for proposal for
investment consulting firms that are unaffiliated with BB&T and
engage an investment consultant to provide independent consulting
services to the plan. Among other matters, during the two year
period following entry of the final order, BB&T will rebate to the
plan participants any 12b-1 fees, sub-ta fees, or other monetary
compensation that any mutual fund company pays or extends to the
plan's recordkeeper based on the plan's investments; and if, during
a two-year time period following the entry of the final order, BB&T
decides to charge plan participants a periodic fee for
recordkeeping services, the plan fiduciaries will conduct a request
for proposal for the provision of recordkeeping and administrative
services. [GN]


EDUCATIONAL FIN'L: $1.1MM Cabiness TCPA Suit Deal Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WINIFRED CABINESS, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-01109-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Cabiness' unopposed motions
for (i) final approval of class action settlement, and (ii) for a
service award, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Cabiness brought the action on behalf of herself and
similarly situated individuals pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  He alleges that the Defendants form a
single business enterprise that violated the TCPA by impermissibly
placing calls to his and the members of the class' cellular
telephones using an ATDS (automatic telephone dialing system) or an
artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior express written
consent.

Cabiness asserts that the Defendants acquired a phone number
previously used by the United States Department of Education
("DOE") to operate a call center for federally-backed student loan
programs.  This number was allegedly listed on the DOE's forms,
website, and consumer account statements.  When tje class members
called the number believing they were contacting the DOE, the
Defendants allegedly collected their telephone numbers and stored
them in a database.  Cabiness alleges that the Defendants used
these stored numbers to place calls with an ATDS to mislead the
class members into paying for student loan forgiveness and payment
programs that were otherwise offered for free by the federal
government.

On March 4, 2016, Cabiness filed an individual complaint against
CDS for violations of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227.
CDS filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay, which the Court
denied.

On Sept. 23, 2016, Cabiness amended her complaint to include TCPA
claims on behalf of a putative class.  CDS again moved to dismiss
or stay the action.  The Court denied CDS's motions.  Cabiness
filed a second amended complaint on March 24, 2017, adding the
remaining Defendants.

On June 5, 2017, the parties attended a full-day mediation with the
Hon. Peter D. Lichtman (Ret.) at JAMS, but were unable to finalize
a settlement during the mediation.  The parties eventually resolved
their disputes and Cabiness moved for preliminary approval of class
action settlement on Jan. 26, 2018.  On June 25, 2018, the Court
granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement.  On
Sept. 7, 2018, Cabiness filed a motion for a service award,
attorneys' fees, and costs.  On Oct. 11, 2018, Cabiness filed a
motion for final approval of the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement defines the class as: all persons in the
Unites States and its Territories: (a) who received one or more
telephone solicitation calls on their cellular telephone
advertising CDS' student loan consolidation and loan forgiveness
services, made by or on behalf of CDS; (b) using an automated
telephone dialing system, or artificial or prerecorded voice; (c)
without providing prior express written consent to receive such
phone calls; (d) since Oct. 16, 2013.

Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendants will create a settlement
fund of $1.1 million, which will be used to pay administration
costs, attorneys' costs and expenses, attorneys' fees, and
Cabiness's service award.  The balance remaining in the settlement
fund, an estimated $615,000, will be distributed to class members
on a pro rata basis.  

Any checks that are not cashed within 90 days after the date of
issuance will be contributed to the National Consumer Law Center.

Judge Tigar granted final approval of the proposed settlement
agreement.  He made final the Court's certification of the class
for the purposes of the settlement only.  He granted (i) the Class
Counsel $330,000 in attorneys' fees and $20,000 00 in costs; and
(ii) the Cabiness a service award of $5,000.

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

Winifred Cabiness, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by enter, Elliot Jason
Conn -- elliot@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, LLP,
Kristin A. Kemnitzer -- kristin@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer, Barron &
Krieg, LLP & Nancy Barron, Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg, LLP.

Educational Financial Solutions, LLC, doing business as Campus Debt
Solutions, Defendant, represented by James Harold Vorhis --
jvorhis@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP, Beth-Ann Ellenberg Krimsky --
beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, PA, pro hac vice &
Jessica Brooke Alhalel -- jessica.alhalel@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, PA, pro hac vice.


EGALET CORP: Officer Defendants Want Stay of Class Suit Lifted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Officers of Egalet Corp. have filed a Notice of Lifting of
Automatic Stay of Proceedings and Discharge of Subordinated Claims
in a class action lawsuit.

Egalet Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that on January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017,
respectively, two putative securities class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
that named as defendants Egalet Corporation and current officer
Robert S. Radie and former officers Stanley J. Musial and Jeffrey
M. Dayno (the "Officer Defendants" and together with Egalet
Corporation, the "Defendants").  These two complaints, captioned
Mineff v. Egalet Corp.  et al., No. 2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v.
Egalet Corp.  et al., No. 2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities
fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet
Corporation securities between December 15, 2015 and January 9,
2017 and seek damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
expenses.

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases before it, appointing the Egalet Investor Group -- consisting
of Joseph Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold -- as lead
plaintiff and approving their selection of lead and liaison
counsel.  On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint, which named the same Defendants and also
asserted claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs brought their claims
individually and on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Egalet between November
4, 2015 and January 9, 2017 inclusive.  The consolidated amended
complaint based its claims on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and/or failures to disclose information about the
likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved for intranasal
abuse-deterrent labeling.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 1, 2017 (the "Motion to Dismiss"), the plaintiffs
filed their opposition on October 31, 2017, and the Defendants
filed their reply on December 8, 2017.  The Court heard oral
arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 2018 and entered
an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint on March 6, 2018.  The
Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the plaintiffs filed
their reply on March 27, 2018.  The Court heard oral arguments on
the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
on July 12, 2018.

On August 2, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Securities Class Action Litigation with
prejudice.  On August 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeal for the Third
Circuit.  On November 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of
suggestion of bankruptcy and unopposed motion to stay the appeal as
to the Officer Defendants (the appeal was automatically stayed as
to the Company upon the Chapter 11 filing).

On February 6, 2019, the Officer Defendants filed a Notice of
Lifting of Automatic Stay of Proceedings and Discharge of
Subordinated Claims, as plaintiffs' claim against the Company was
extinguished as part of the bankruptcy, which restarted the
appellate process.

The Company said, "We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit and
intend to defend these actions vigorously.  We cannot determine the
likelihood of, nor can it reasonably estimate the range of, any
potential loss, if any, from these lawsuits."

Egalet Corporation, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and commercializes treatments for patients with pain
and other conditions.  Egalet Corporation was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


EMBRAER SA: 4 Suits over Boeing Transaction Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Embraer S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that there are four ongoing lawsuits,
one of which is a class action, seeking to prevent or delay the
consummation of the company's Master Transaction Agreement with The
Boeing Company.

On January 24, 2019, Embraer, Boeing and certain of their
subsidiaries entered into the Master Transaction Agreement and
certain other transaction agreements, pursuant to which, subject to
certain approvals and other conditions precedent, a Brazilian
subsidiary of Boeing will acquire a controlling stake in Embraer's
commercial aviation business unit and Embraer and Boeing or their
respective subsidiaries will form a joint venture for the promotion
and development of new markets and applications for the KC-390
multi-mission aircraft.

The consummation of the Transaction has been subject to various
legal proceedings and challenges seeking to suspend the
continuation of the consummation of the Transaction.  

The four ongoing lawsuits seeking to prevent or delay the
consummation of the Transaction are: (1) class action No.
5017611-59.2018.4.03.6100, filed by Paulo Pimenta and others before
the 24th Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo, (2) public interest
civil action No. 5031433-18.2018.4.03.6100, filed by the
Confederacao Nacional dos Trabalhadores Metalurgicos and others
before the 24th Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo, (3) public
interest civil action No. 5000804-27.2019.4.03.6100, filed by the
Associacao Brasileira de Investidores -- ABRADIN before the 8th
Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and (4) public interest civil
action No. 1000309-57.2019.4.01.3400, filed by the Partido
Democratico Trabalhista -- PDT before the 9th Federal Civil Court
of the Federal District.

The Company said, "Embraer has thus far been able to prevail and
obtain decisions favorable to the continuation of the Transaction.
However, the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain.  Also,
there can be no assurance that other legal proceedings will not be
initiated with the purpose of suspending actions to consummate the
Transaction nor that we will prevail in those proceedings.  An
adverse ruling in any such lawsuit could prevent or delay
consummation of the Transaction and/or result in additional costs
to us."

Embraer S.A. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells aircraft
and systems in Brazil, North America, Latin America, the Asia
Pacific, Europe, and internationally.  It operates through
Commercial Aviation, Defense and Security, Executive Jets, Service
& Support, and Other segments.  The Company was formerly known as
Embraer-Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.  and changed its
name to Embraer S.A.  in November 2010.  Embraer S.A.  was founded
in 1969 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


ENVOY AIR: Hinkley Discrimination Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Hinkley, et al. v. Envoy Air Inc., Case No.
4:19-cv-00014, was transferred on April 3, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas (San Antonio), and
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00340.

The lawsuit arises from alleged employment discrimination.

Envoy Air Inc. provides regional flight services to American
Airlines under the American Eagle brand, and livery and ground
handling services for airlines.  Envoy Air was formerly known as
American Eagle Airlines, Inc. and changed its name to Envoy Air
Inc. in April 2014.  The Company was founded in 1984 and is based
in Irving, Texas. Envoy Air operates as a subsidiary of Envoy
Aviation Group Inc.[BN]

Plaintiffs John Hinkley and Steve Rice are represented by:

          Kirk Matthew Claunch, Esq.
          THE CLAUNCH LAW FIRM
          2912 West 6th Street
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (817) 335-4003
          Facsimile: (817) 335-7112
          E-mail: claunchlaw3@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Joshua H. Sisam, Esq.
          Stuart Andrew Shaffer, Esq.
          SISAM & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          110 Industrial Dr.
          Boerne, TX 78006
          Telephone: (830) 428-0333
          Facsimile: (830) 331-4044
          E-mail: josh@sisam.com

Defendant Envoy Air Inc. is represented by:

          Lindsay A. Hedrick, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          2727 North Harwood Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-2985
          Facsimile: (214) 969-5100
          E-mail: lahedrick@jonesday.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Solomon Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Sarah Solomon on behalf of
herself and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00266-JAG (E.D. Va., April 10, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
credit information to financial institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Clifton Leffler, Esq.
     Emily Connor Kennedy, Esq.
     Boleman Law Firm
     2104 W Laburnum Ave, Suite 201
     PO Box 11588
     Richmond, VA 23230
     Phone: (804) 358-9900
     Fax: (804) 358-8704
     Email: mcleffler@bolemanlaw.com
            eckennedy@bolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Stephen Frederick Relyea, Esq.
     BWW Law Group LLC (Richmond)
     8100 Three Chopt Rd, Room 240
     Richmond, VA 23229
     Phone: (703) 209-6909
     Email: steve.relyea@bww-law.com

          - and -

     Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
     Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
     Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
     Consumer Litigation Associates
     763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Phone: (757) 930-3660
     Fax: (757) 930-3662
     Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com
            lenbennett@clalegal.com
            craig@clalegal.com


EXPERIAN INFO: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Wilson FCRA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:178-CV-01249-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Plaintiffs Wilson and Nieysha White each separately filed for
bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of California.  They requested and obtained a copy of their
consumer report from Experian.  They allege that their consumer
reports contained inaccurate information.  Upon close inspection,
the Plaintiffs realized that Experian had reported the location of
their bankruptcy information as '940 FRONT ST RM 5N26, SAN DIEGO CA
92101,' rather than the true address of the bankruptcy court.
Based on this inaccuracy, the Plaintiffs initiated the current
class action litigation.

The Plaintiffs originally filed the action in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego.  The Defendant removed the action
to the Court.  The Defendant filed an Answer to the Plaintiffs'
Complaint.  Thereafter, the Defendant filed the current motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges negligent and willful violations
of Section 1681e(b).  They have not alleged that the consumer
report obtained from the Defendant were reports that would be
issued to third parties for qualifying purposes.  Rather, the
Plaintiffs have alleged that they requested and obtained copies of
their consumer report.  However, based on Guimond v. Trans Union
Credit Info. Co., Judge Battaglia declines to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint because they failed to allege that the report
was issued to third parties.

The Defendant next argues that even if the case law were silent,
under Section 1681a(d) would still exclude the report at issue from
the definition of a "consumer report."  Section 1681a(d) provides
that a consumer report does not include a report containing
information solely as to transactions or experiences between the
consumer and the person making the report.  However, the Judge
finds this unpersuasive.  He does not agree with the Defendant's
interpretation that this statute means that a report that is only
exchanged between the consumer and the person making the report is
excluded from the definition of a "consumer report." Accordingly,
he declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint on this basis.

For the reasons stated, Judge Battaglia denied the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7TUz4b from Leagle.com.

John Wilson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Nieysha White, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Veronica Cruz --
veronica@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Daniel G. Shay--
danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com -- Law Offices of Daniel G. Shay & Mona
Amini -- mona@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
John A. Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Ann Theresa
Rossum -- atrossum@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


FAT BRANDS: Discovery in Rojany Class Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated lawsuit styled Eric Rojany, et al.  v. FAT
Brands Inc., et al., a stay of discovery in the action remains in
effect pending resolution of Defendants' demurrer to the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint, according to Fat Brands Inc.'s Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018.

On June 7, 2018, plaintiff Eric Rojany, a putative investor in the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company,
Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc.,
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of
directors, entitled Rojany v. FAT Brands Inc., in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC708539.

The complaint asserted claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the defendants were
responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the Company's
common stock.  Plaintiff alleged that he intended to certify the
complaint as a class action and sought compensatory damages in an
amount to be determined at trial.

On August 2, 2018, plaintiff Daniel Alden, another putative
investor in the Company, filed a second putative class action
lawsuit against the same defendants, entitled Alden v. FAT Brands,
Inc., in the same court, Case No. BC716017.

On September 17, 2018, Rojany and Alden were consolidated under the
Rojany case caption and number.

On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric Rojany, Daniel Alden,
Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron Marin filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint ("FAC") against the Company, Andrew
Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Fog Cutter
Capital Group Inc. and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively,
"Defendants"), thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants.  The FAC asserted the
same claims as asserted in the original complaint.

On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed a demurrer to the FAC.  On
January 25, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' demurrer to the
FAC, with leave to amend in part.

On February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint ("SAC") against Defendants.  On March 27,
2019, Defendants filed a demurrer to the SAC.  A stay of discovery
in the action remains in effect pending resolution of Defendants'
demurrer to the SAC.

Fat Brands said, "The Company and other defendants dispute the
allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against
the claims."

Fat Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts.  The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California.  FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FAT BRANDS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Vignola Case Set for June 17
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, Adam Vignola, et al.  v. FAT Brands Inc., et
al., the Defendants filed on March 18, 2019, a motion to dismiss
the First Amended Consolidated Complaint ("FAC") filed in the
Rojany case or, in the alternative, to stay the action in favor of
Rojany.  The motion is set to be heard on June 17, 2019, according
to Fat Brands Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018.

On August 24, 2018, plaintiff Adam Vignola, a putative investor in
the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group,
Inc., Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's
board of directors, entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. 2:18-cv-07469.  The complaint asserted claims
under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
alleging that the defendants are responsible for false and
misleading statements and omitted material facts in connection with
the Company's initial public offering, which resulted in declines
in the price of the Company's common stock.  The plaintiff alleged
that he intended to certify the complaint as a class action and is
seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.

On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs (collectively,
"Lead Plaintiffs") moved to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and the
Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion on November 16, 2018.

On January 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Defendants, thereby removing Marc L.
Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as
defendants.  The allegations and claims for relief asserted in
Vignola are substantively identical to those asserted in the First
Amended Consolidated Complaint ("FAC") filed in the Rojany case.

On March 18, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC or,
in the alterative, to stay the action in favor of Rojany.  The
hearing on Defendants' motion is scheduled for June 17, 2019.

All discovery and other proceedings in this action are currently
stayed by operation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995.

Fat Brands said, "The Company and other defendants dispute the
allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against
the claims."

Fat Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts.  The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California.  FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FCA US: Court Dismisses J. Bledsoe's MMWA Claim
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware
corporation, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 16-14024 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted with prejudice the Defendants' motions to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' second consolidated and amended class action
complaint as they pertain to the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, but
denied as they pertain to all other claims.

The Plaintiffs in the proposed putative class action allege that
Defendant FCA's 2007-2012 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 diesel trucks,
equipped with 6.7-liter Turbo Diesel engines manufactured by
Defendant Cummins Inc., emit nitrogen oxides ("NOx") at levels that
exceed federal and state emissions standards and the expectations
of reasonable consumers.  The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased
their trucks on the basis of advertising from defendants that
touted the trucks as more fuel efficient and environmentally
friendly than other diesel trucks.  The Plaintiffs allege that
despite marketing the trucks as containing "clean diesel engines,"
the Defendants knew the trucks discharged emissions at levels
greater than what a reasonable customer would expect based on the
alleged representations.  The instant Complaint alleges violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO
Act"), the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and consumer
protection, breach of contract, and fraudulent concealment laws of
50 states as well as the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs seek to bring claims on behalf of themselves and a
nationwide class of all persons or entities in the United States
who, as of Nov. 1, 2016, owned or leased a 2007 to 2012 Dodge Ram
2500 or Dodge Ram 3500 pickup truck equipped with a Cummins
6.7-Liter diesel engine.  They also seek to establish sub-classes
representing owners and/or lessees of the Trucks in every state and
the District of Columbia, alleging deceptive advertising, breach of
contract, and fraudulent concealment claims under the laws of those
respective states.

The instant complaint -- the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") -- is
the Plaintiffs' third complaint before the Court on these claims.

Pending before the Court are the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second consolidated and amended class action complaint
pursuant, in part, to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b),
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  In their previous motions to dismiss, the
Defendants called on the Court to decide how much factual matter
must be pleaded to establish more than conclusory allegation.  The
Defendants make the same request now.  They say that the Plaintiffs
have filed a repackaged version of the dismissed amended complaint,
and failed again to plead more than conclusory allegations related
to the presence of "defeat devices" in the trucks.

Judge Berg denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as they
pertain (i) to violations of the RICO Act (Count I of federal
statute allegations); (ii) to violations of consumer protection
(Count I of state statute allegations); (iii) fraudulent
concealment (Count II of state statute allegations); and (iv)
breach of contract (Count III of state statute allegations),
brought under the laws of all 50 states and the District of
Columbia.  He granted the Motion as they pertain to violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count II of federal statute
allegations), with prejudice.

Among other things, the Judge finds that the Defendants' allege in
their motions that the Plaintiffs again failed to adequately plead
MMWA claims in the SAC, for the same reason as before.  In their
response to the Defendants' motions, the Plaintiffs agree, saying,
the Plaintiffs concede that the SAC should be amended to allege
underlying state law warranty claims and respectfully request leave
from the Court to do so.  The  Plaintiffs do not provide any
explanation for why they have failed to correct this deficiency,
nor why three separate complaints were not sufficient for them to
adequately articulate facts in support of the MMWA claim.

The Judge denied the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend their
second amended complaint in order to fix this long-known
deficiency.  He therefore granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss as they pertain to claims that the Defendants violated the
MMWA, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Hfv8Wr from Leagle.com.

James Bledsoe, Paul Chouffet, Jay Martin & Martin Rivas,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher A. Seeger --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, James E. Cecchi --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne, Jason Henry Alperstein,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jerrod C. Patterson --
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Lindsey H.
Taylor, Carella, Byrne, Mark Jeffrey Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLp, Paul Jeffrey Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLp,
Scott A. George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP,
Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm,
P.C., Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller
Law Firm.

Alan Strange, Dawn Roberts, James Forshaw, Matt Langworthy, Marty
Ward, Marc Ganz, Michael Erben, Jordan Hougo, Martin Witberg &
Natalie Beight, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher A. Seeger,
Seeger Weiss LLP, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne, Jason Henry Alperstein , Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark Jeffrey Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLp, Paul Jeffrey Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLp &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Jeremy Perdue, Consolidated from case 16-14461, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Sharon S.
Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Stuart Andrew Davidson,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Brittany J. Mouzourakis ,
Dykema, James P. Feeney -- jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett,
Paul L. Nystrom -- nystrom@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Robert J.
Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLp &
William B. Monahan, Sullivan & Cromwell LLp.

Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Soble , Foley &
Lardner LLP, Jonathan W. Garlough, Foley & Lardner LLP, Lauren M.
Loew, Foley & Lardner LLP, Leah R. Imbrogno, Foley & Lardner LLP,
Michael D. Leffel, Foley & Lardner LLP & Vanessa L. Miller, Foley &
Lardner.


FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Removes Hernandez Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JUAN HERNANDEZ; and RICHARD DIAZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Riverside (Case No.
RIC190569) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 25, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00536-AB-KK.

Flexsteel Industries, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures, imports, and markets residential and contract
upholstered and wood furniture products in the United States. It
offers its products for use in home, hotel, healthcare,
recreational vehicle, marine, and office applications. The company
distributes its products through its sales force and independent
representatives. Flexsteel Industries, Inc. was founded in 1929 and
is headquartered in Dubuque, Iowa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
            SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com


FMR LLC: Faces Bailis ERISA Suit Over Illegal Kickbacks
-------------------------------------------------------
JASON BAILIS, On Behalf of the PUBLICIS BENEFITS CONNECTION 401(K)
PLAN and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employee Benefit
Plans v. FMR LLC; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY; FIDELITY
MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC; NATIONAL
FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL
OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Case No.
1:19-cv-10654 (D. Mass., April 5, 2019), seeks a declaratory
judgment and permanent injunction against the Defendants for their
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, beginning in 2017, Fidelity began
requiring various mutual funds, affiliates of mutual funds, mutual
fund advisors, sub-advisors, investment funds, including collective
trusts, and other investment advisors, instruments or vehicles that
are offered to the Plans through Fidelity's FundsNetwork, to make
secret payments (the "kickbacks," "kickback payments," or "secret
payments") to Fidelity for its own benefit in the guise of
"infrastructure" payments or so-called relationship-level fees in
violation of, inter alia, the prohibited transaction rules of the
ERISA.  The Plaintiff contends that Fidelity received kickback
payments in connection with the investments of the Plaintiff and
the Publicis Benefits Connection 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan.

FMR LLC, also known as Fidelity Management & Research, is a
financial services conglomerate headquartered in Boston, Suffolk
County, Massachusetts, which operates as the parent entity for
Fidelity Investments and its associated business enterprises.

Fidelity Management & Research Company ("FMR Co."), is a subsidiary
of FMR that is headquartered at the same address as FMR in Boston,
Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and is a privately owned investment
manager that provides certain services to FMR, including acting as
the volume submitter sponsor for FMR with respect to certain
adoption agreements entered into with the Plans so that Fidelity
can provide recordkeeping and fiduciary services to the Plans.

Fidelity Management Trust Company ("FM Trust Co."), is a subsidiary
of FMR that is headquartered at the same address as FMR in Boston,
Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which acts as a trustee and
fiduciary with respect to the retirement funds of the Plans and
their participants.  FM Trust Co. collects and delivers the
retirement assets of the Plans to mutual funds and, in return, the
kickbacks at issue are remitted to Fidelity as a condition of the
mutual funds maintaining their position as participants in
Fidelity's FundsNetwork.

Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC ("FBS"), is a subsidiary of FMR
that is headquartered at the same address as FMR in Boston, Suffolk
County, Massachusetts, and is a registered broker-dealer that makes
the mutual funds available to the Plans through the FundsNetwork
and collects certain of the kickbacks on behalf of FMR.

National Financial Services LLC ("NFS"), is a subsidiary of FMR and
affiliate of FBS that is headquartered at the same address as FMR
in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which also is a
registered broker-dealer that makes the mutual funds available to
the Plans through the FundsNetwork and collects certain of the
kickbacks on behalf of FMR.

Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc.
("Fidelity Operations"), is a subsidiary and affiliate of FMR that
also maintains offices in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts,
and which is the Fidelity entity that provides recordkeeping
services to the Plans.  The Doe Defendants include additional
Fidelity entities and fiduciaries, the identities of which/whom are
not presently known to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
                  mrosen@barrack.com


FORD MOTOR: Disabled Applicant Can Pursue Discrimination Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian and Genevieve Douglas, writing for Bloomberg Law,
report that an Ohio man may pursue a class action alleging Ford
Motor Co.'s online job application process isn't fully accessible
to and thus discriminates against job seekers with disabilities, a
federal judge ruled.

Edward Kasper's lawsuit, which was originally filed in Ohio state
court, adequately alleges a claim on behalf of himself and a
proposed class of other workers who tried to apply for work through
the auto giant's job portal but were unable to.

The case is EDWARD KASPER, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-2895 (N.D. Ohio).

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated March 22, 2019, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y657fe2w from Leagle.com.

Edward Kasper, and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Lewis A. Zipkin, Zipkin Whiting & Shawn A. Romer.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Blaine H. Evanson,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher - Irvine, David A. Posner, Baker &
Hostetler, Eugene Scalia, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, pro hac vice,
Naima L. Farrell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher & Ronald G. Linville,
Baker & Hostetler. [GN]


FOX TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Truck Drivers, Santana Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS SANTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; MICHAEL K. FOX;
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10135 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Santana was employed by the Defendants as truck
driver.

Fox Transportation, Inc. was founded in 1979. The company's line of
business includes providing trucking transportation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Stephen Glick, Esq.
         M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
         1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 387-3400
         Facsimile: (213) 387-7872
         E-mail: sglick@glicklegal.com
                 ajenkins@glicklegal.com


FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORRAINE CAPPELLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRANCISCAN
ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Defendants, Cause No. 3:16-CV-290 RLM-MGG
(N.D. Ind.), Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, denied
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

The case is a putative class action brought by retired employees of
various affiliates of Franciscan Alliance seeking to represent a
class of persons that are participants or beneficiaries of the
Franciscan Alliance Pension Security Plan.  They contend that the
Defendants -- Franciscan Alliance, its Board of Trustees, the
Franciscan Alliance Pension and Benefits Committee, and 40 John
Does -- have underfunded the Plan by as much as $320 million and
have operated it in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (Counts 1-9), state law (Counts 10-11), and/or
the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment (Count 12).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of standing
and/or Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.  They moved to
dismiss the Plaintiffs ERISA failure to fund, state law breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract, and Establishment Clause
claims (Counts 6 and 10-12) under Rule 12(b)(1), contending that
the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring those claims because they
haven't sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact.  It argues, in the
alternative, that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety
under Rule 12(b)(6) because: (1) the Franciscan Alliance Plan
qualifies for the "church plan" exemption to ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 1003(b)(2) (Counts 1-8); (2) the breach of fiduciary duty
claims and breach of contract claims (Counts 9-11) aren't supported
by sufficient factual allegations; alternatively, the Court should
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims (Counts 10-11), if it dismisses the federal ERISA claims;
and (3) the Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the "church
plan" exemption should be dismissed because the exemption satisfies
the three-prong test in Lemon v. Kurtzman.

Judge Miller finds that the extent to which the Franciscan Alliance
Plan may be underfunded and whether the Defendants could cover the
deficit if required to do so are questions of fact that can't be
resolved on a motion to dismiss.  Unlike the plaintiffs in Lee v.
Verizon Communications, Perelman v. Perelman, and David v. Alphin,
these Plaintiffs allege that the Plan is underfunded by more than
$320 million, the insurance provided to ERISA plan participants by
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation isn't available to them
because Franciscan Alliance has been operating the Plan as a church
plan in violation of ERISA, and there is an inherent and
substantial risk that their benefits will be reduced or terminated
if corrective action isn't taken.  The Judge must assume those
facts are true for purposes of the motion.  The Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact and have standing to sue based
on the enhanced risk of default and lack of insurance coverage.

He also finds that Franciscan Alliance didn't address the
limitations on the Court's ability to look outside the pleadings on
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and hasn't asked the Court
to take judicial notice of the extrinsic evidence on which it
relies.  To the extent it contends that the decisions in Overall v.
Ascension, and Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, support its
argument and the Court's use of extrinsic evidence, it is mistaken.
The facts and inferences present plausible claims under ERISA.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim
is a closer call.  The Plaintiffs outline in great detail how the
Defendants breached their obligations under ERISA, but devote only
a few paragraphs to their alternative breach of contract claim,
alleging that they have a contract (the Plan Documents) with
Franciscan Alliance that requires it to contribute to the Plan the
amount recommended by the Actuary to comply with the funding
policy, and Franciscan Alliance breached the contract by not
adequately funding the Plan.  

Although the Plaintiffs don't specifically allege in Count 11 that
they were harmed by the alleged breach, they incorporate by
reference all prior allegations, including the allegation that
failure to create and enforce adequate funding policies for the
Plan and to properly fund the Plan has resulted in a loss to the
Plan and substantially increased the risk of participants' pensions
being lost or reduced.   When the complaint is read in its
entirety, it sufficiently states a plausible claim for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract under ERISA and Indiana law.

Finally, the Judge can't tell at this stage whether the Franciscan
Alliance Plan qualifies as a church plan under ERISA, and won't
address the merits of the Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge
until it has.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Miller denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Ox0ITY from Leagle.com.

Lorraine Cappello, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; Case No. 3:16-cv-290 & Jeffrey O'Barski, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Case No. 3:16-cv-290,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jamie Bowers --
jbowers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac
vice & Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice.

Jean L. Jewett, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; Case No. 3:16-cv-591, Plaintiff,
represented by Jamie Bowers , Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro
hac vice, Julie G. Reiser -- jreiser@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Karen L. Handorf --
khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro
hac vice, Laura R. Gerber -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Lynn L. Sarko -- lsarko@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn A. Toops --
LTOOPS@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Cohen & Malad LLP, Michelle C. Yau --
myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac
vice, Ron Kilgard , Keller Rohrback LLP & Mark K. Gyandoh, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice.

Lenore R Owens, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Lori L Buksar, on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jamie Bowers, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Julie G. Reiser, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Karen L. Handorf, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Lynn A. Toops, Cohen & Malad LLP,
Michelle C. Yau, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice & Mark
K. Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice.

Franciscan Alliance, Inc., an Indiana non-profit Corporation; Case
No. 3:16-cv-290 and Case No. 3:16-cv-591, Defendant, represented by
Bradford D. Roth, Cassiday Schade LLP, Daniel J. Broderick, Jr. --
dbroderick@cassiday.com -- Cassiday Schade LLP, Lars C. Golumbic --
lgolumbic@groom.com -- Groom Law Group Chtd, pro hac vice, Mark D.
Boveri , Krieg DeVault LLP, Robert A. Anderson , Krieg DeVault LLP,
Sarah M. Adams -- sadams@groom.com -- Groom Law Group Chtd, pro hac
vice, Sean C. Abouchedid -- sabouchedid@groom.com -- Groom Law
Group Chtd, pro hac vice & William Patrick Downes, Franciscan
Alliance Inc.

Franciscan Alliance Pension and Benefits Committee, Case No.
3:16-cv-290, Defendant, represented by Lars C. Golumbic, Groom Law
Group Chtd, pro hac vice, Mark D. Boveri, Krieg DeVault LLP, Robert
A. Anderson, Krieg DeVault LLP, Sarah M. Adams, Groom Law Group
Chtd, pro hac vice, Sean C. Abouchedid, Groom Law Group Chtd, pro
hac vice & William Patrick Downes, Franciscan Alliance Inc.

John Does 1 - 20, Case No. 3:16-cv-290, Defendant, represented by
Lars C. Golumbic, Groom Law Group Chtd, pro hac vice, Mark D.
Boveri, Krieg DeVault LLP, Sarah M. Adams, Groom Law Group Chtd,
pro hac vice, Sean C. Abouchedid, Groom Law Group Chtd, pro hac
vice & William Patrick Downes, Franciscan Alliance Inc.

Board of Trustees of Franciscan Alliance, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Lars C. Golumbic, Groom Law Group Chtd, pro hac vice
& Mark D. Boveri, Krieg DeVault LLP.

United States of America, Movant, represented by Emily S. Newton,
Civil Division Federal Programs Branch US Department of Justice.


GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: 11th Cir. Upholds Muransky Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals cases styled DR. DAVID S. MURANSKY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
JAMES H. PRICE, ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, Interested Parties-Appellants,
v. GODIVA CHOCOLATIER, INC., a New Jersey corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 16-16486, 16-16783 (11th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
approval of the class-action settlement reached by Dr. David
Muransky and Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.

This appeal was brought to contest the approval of a class-action
settlement. Dr. David Muransky filed a class action against Godiva
Chocolatier, Inc. for violating the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act ("FACTA").  Appellants James Price and Eric
Isaacson ("the objectors") objected to a class settlement reached
by Dr. Muransky and Godiva.  Over their objections, the District
Court approved the settlement, class counsel's request for
attorney's fees, and an incentive award for Dr. Muransky.

After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, the
Eleventh Circuit affirms.

The Eleventh Circuit held that although the District Court erred by
requiring class members to object before they could assess the
attorney's fee motion, that error does not warrant reversal under
the particular facts of this case.  After receiving the notice,
four class members objected.  Two of those, Mr. Price and Mr.
Isaacson, made detailed arguments in opposition to the requested
attorney's fee and incentive awards, including by filing opposition
briefs after Dr. Muransky filed the attorney's fee motion.  The
arguments made against the attorney's fee motion were considered by
the Magistrate Judge and by the District Court.  And on this
record, the Court has no reason to think other unnamed class
members would have made arguments besides those made by Mr. Price
and Mr. Isaacson.  Class members were not therefore prejudiced by
the objection schedule established by the District Court, the
Eleventh Circuit said.  Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit held that
the District Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding
attorney's fee, despite the Rule 23(h) violation.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 22, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yywy4hce from Leagle.com.

Eric Alan Isaacson, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michele L. Stocker, for Defendant-Appellee.

John W. Davis, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jonathan S. Franklin, for Defendant-Appellee.

Linda M. Reck, for Defendant-Appellee.

Scott D. Owens, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Wallace Allen McDonald, for Interested Party-Appellant.

Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David S. Almeida, for Defendant-Appellee.

Brian Melendez, for Defendant-Appellee.

Patrick Christopher Crotty, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Shawn Y. Libman, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael S. Hilicki, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Keith J. Keogh, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeremy Samuel Bloch Newman, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Peter B. Siegal, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Brent Huff, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


GOOGLE INC: Class-Action Objector Faces Cy Press Challenge
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
before the end of the current term, the U.S. Supreme Court will get
another chance to consider class action settlements in which all or
nearly all the funds are paid to unrelated third parties and
lawyers instead of to class members.

The justices avoided ruling on the merits of the controversial
practice, known as "cy pres," in the case Frank v. Gaos. The high
court, in an unsigned opinion, sent that case, which involved an
$8.5 settlement with Google, back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit to determine whether the plaintiffs had suffered
the required harm necessary to have standing to sue.

Ted Frank, director of litigation at the Hamilton Lincoln Law
Institute, who argued pro se in Frank, has another cy pres petition
teed up for the justices -- one that he says lacks the problem that
triggered the justices' decision to punt on the merits.

"There are no technical trip ups," Frank said. "There will not be
an Article III standing problem, a Spokeo (v. Robins) problem. This
is a claim for money, a claim for fraud."

The Google settlement was known as a cy pres-only agreement, where
more than $5 million would be paid to six entities that are focused
on internet privacy research, more than $2 million to class
counsel, and no money to absent class members. With an estimated
129 million class members, the trial court found the settlement
money was not distributable. A federal appeals court upheld that
conclusion.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the high court's opinion,
writing: "Because the class members here received no settlement
fund, no meaningful injunctive relief, and no other benefit
whatsoever in exchange for the settlement of their claims, I would
hold that the class action should not have been certified, and the
settlement should not have been approved."

There is some appetite at the court for reviewing cy pres cases. In
2013, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. expressed his "fundamental
concerns" with such settlements. The justices "may need to clarify
the limits on the use of [cy pres]," which he said "are a growing
feature" of class action settlements.

Frank's new challenge does not involve a cy pres-only settlement
but, he said, "it's just as abusive."

The case, Perryman v. Romero, stems from a lawsuit alleging Provide
Commerce Inc. and Regent Group Inc. unlawfully enrolled 1.3 million
online consumers in a rewards program without their consent and
then charged them a monthly membership fee after they accepted a
$15 "thank you" gift.

The settlement created a $12.5 million cash fund. Class counsel
sought $8.65 million in fees and $200,000 in costs from the fund.
Class representatives would receive $80,000 in awards from the
fund. Each class member would received a $20 "e-credit" for use on
Provide Commerce's websites. The remaining funds would be used for
refunds.

Only 3,000 class members sought refunds for total of $225,000,
leaving about $3 million for cy pres awards to three San Diego-area
universities, including the University of San Diego School of Law,
alma mater to several of the attorneys in the case.

Washington attorney Brian Perryman, a class member, objected to the
settlement, which called for a cy pres award even though every
class member was known and would receive the e-credit. He also
challenged the award to the three San Diego schools, which were
local even though, he argued, the class was nationwide.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the cy pres award, acknowledging "it
might be technically feasible" to distribute the amount to the
non-claimant class members, but such a distribution would be "de
minimis" because there were more than a million members. The awards
would run from between $2.50 and $7. The court vacated the attorney
fee award, which is being recalculated in the district court.

In the Google high court case, Frank had urged the justices to hear
Perryman if they failed to reach the merits of the settlement
involving Google.

"The circuit split is still there," Frank said. "They granted cert
on it before and the Ninth Circuit is still signing off on some
really appalling cy pres settlements."

Jennie Anderson of San Francisco's Andrus Anderson, represents
Josue Romero and other class members. She did not respond to a
request for comment. The high court has given her until April 17 to
file a brief in opposition. Provide Commerce was represented in the
Ninth Circuit by Leo Norton of Cooley.

Sixteen state attorneys general, led by Arizona solicitor general
Oramel Skinner, have filed an amicus brief supporting Frank's
petition.

The Center for Individual Rights, with Michael Rosman as counsel,
also is a supporting amicus. Rosman raises a First Amendment issue
with cy pres awards. Relying on the high court's union fee
decision—Janus v. AFSCME, Rosman tells the court that cy pres
funds "may then be used to engage in speech or political activity
with which class members may very well disagree, in violation of
their First Amendment rights."

Jonah Knobler -- jknobler@pbwt.com -- partner in Patterson Belknap
Webb & Tyler, said the oral arguments in Frank's Google case
suggested that cy pres-only settlements were not likely to
survive.

"We could only guess how Justice Thomas felt about them, however,
since he did not speak," Knobler said. "With Thomas' dissent, it is
even more likely that, once the court finally reaches the issue, it
will significantly limit the use of cy pres." [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court's Cy Pres Settlement Ruling Criticized
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that after the
U.S. Supreme Court decided not to opine on whether it was fair that
no money from an $8.5 million class action settlement actually went
to class members, a critic of such agreements noted that lawyers
will continue to succumb to the "perverse incentive" to line their
own pockets this way.

In an unsigned opinion, the court decided to send the appeal, Frank
v. Gaos, back to lower courts to decide the issue of whether the
plaintiffs had standing to sue. In doing so, the justices punted on
the cy pres issue that generated the most interest from observers.

These types of settlements are abuse-prone as they are crafted
largely by plaintiff lawyers, who then take large fees and often
direct money to their alma maters, said James Copland, a senior
fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

And the defendants also benefit because they will settle for a
relatively tiny amount of money and often have their names linked
to charities, Copland said.

"These are for and by the lawyers, and create a perverse
incentive," he added.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion, argued that they
did have standing, and that the settlement agreement in the
underlying case involving Google should should be reversed as it
was unfair and flawed.

The case turned on whether a cy pres-only settlement was "fair,
reasonable, and adequate." Under cy pres, or as close as possible,
settlement, third parties receive the bulk of the money when a
class is so large that it would cost more to deliver any money to a
member than any would receive.

For instance, in the Google case, class members would have received
about $.04 each.

But these type of settlements have provoked criticism from tort
reform groups and other organizations that argue they are designed
to benefit trial lawyers and their chosen charities - and indeed
the defendants.

The Supreme Court was asked by disgruntled members of a class to
reverse the settlement, thereby dealing a serious blow to cy pres.
The high court declined to decide that fundamental question, and
remanded the issue back to the lower courts.

The cause was taken up by Ted Frank, founder of the Center for
Class Action Fairness, and his colleague Melissa Holyoak.

An $8.5 million settlement between Google and three named lead
plaintiffs who represented a class of an estimated tens of
millions, Google was accused of violating the Stored Communications
Act because it stores information of search engine users.

More than $5 million went to charities, including the AARP, and
more than $3 million went to cover attorney costs. The three lead
plaintiffs received $5,000 each.

The cy pres money is supposed to go to entities working in areas
linked to the underlying complaint. Five members of the millions in
the class objected to the settlement.  

"Nothing went to the tens of millions of Google search engine users
whose alleged victimhood formed the basis of the claim," complained
Copland, who recently authored a critical report on cy pres.

Copland, the institute's director of legal policy, said one issue
with cy pres is that it is not covered by statutory authority, but
the rules of state and federal courts.

Copland said the number of cy pres agreements has risen in recent
years, while citing a change by the rules committee of the Supreme
Court dating back to the 1960s as the genesis for them. That rule
essentially introduced opt-out class actions.

In the unsigned Supreme Court opinion, the justices wrote that they
grant review over whether they satisfy the requirement that class
settlements be "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

But they wrote, "Because there remain substantial questions about
whether any of the named plaintiffs has standing to sue in light of
our decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,  we vacate the judgment of
the Ninth Circuit and remand for further proceedings."

They added, "Resolution of the standing question should take place
in the District Court or the Ninth Circuit in the first instance.
We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings. Nothing in
our opinion should be interpreted as expressing a view on any
particular resolution of the standing question."

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, argued the settlement
should be reversed on the basis that the cy pres arrangement was
unfair as it did not obtain any relief for the class.

Thomas argued that this particular settlement failed the Supreme
Court rules on cy pres-only arrangements because "counsel and the
named plaintiffs were willing to settle the class claims without
obtaining any relief for the class — while securing significant
benefits for themselves."

This, he added, "strongly suggests that the interests of the class
were not adequately represented."

"In short, because the class members here received no settlement
fund, no meaningful injunctive relief, and no other benefit
whatsoever in exchange for the settlement of their claims, I would
hold that the class action should not have been certified, and the
settlement should not have been approved." [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Court Tosses Out 4 Claims in Adtrader's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The action styled ADTRADER, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07082-BLF (N.D. Calif.), involves
purported unlawful conduct by Defendant Google LLC in relation to
its online advertisement marketplace services.

Before Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California is Google's motion to
dismiss certain claims in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint
for failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
The Court heard oral argument on Google's motion to dismiss on
March 7, 2019.  Google's motion to dismiss is granted without leave
to amend in part and denied in part.

Specifically, the Court ruled:

   (1) Google's motion to dismiss the second cause of action for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing is
granted without leave to amend.

   (2a) Google's motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action based
on breach of the DoubleClick Ad Exchange Agreement and AdWords
Agreement concerning clicks or impressions Google knew to be
invalid before invoicing is granted without leave to amend.

   (2b) Google's motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action based
on breach of the DoubleClick Ad Exchange Agreement and AdWords
Agreement concerning clicks or impressions Google determined to be
invalid after invoicing is denied.

   (2c) Google's motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action based
on breach of the DBM Agreement is denied.

   (3) Google's motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action based
on breach of the implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing is
granted without leave to amend.

   (4) Google's motion to dismiss the seventh cause of action based
on breach of the implied duty to perform with reasonable care is
granted without leave to amend.

   (5) Google's motion to dismiss the eighth cause of action based
on violation of California's False Advertising Law is denied.

   (6) Google's motion to dismiss the ninth cause of action based
on violation of California's Unfair Competition Law is denied.

A full-text copy of the April 22, 2019, Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4ezc7ce from Leagle.com.

AdTrader, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Flora F. Vigo, Esq. --
fvigo@gawpoe.com -- Gaw Poe LLP, Mark Weylin Poe, Esq. --
mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Samuel S. Song, Esq. --
ssong@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Esq. --
vmeng@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP & Randolph Gaw, Gaw & Poe LLP.

Specialized Collections Bureau, Inc., Classic and Food EOOD, LML
CONSULT Ltd., Fresh Break Ltd. & Ad Crunch Ltd., Plaintiffs,
represented by Flora F. Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel S. Song, Gaw &
Poe LLP & Randolph Gaw, Gaw & Poe LLP.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Gutkin, Esq. --
jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq. --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Audrey Jane Mott-Smith, Esq. --
amottsmith@cooley.com -- cwong@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Kyle
Christopher Wong, Cooley LLP.


GOPRO INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on March 15, 2019, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States
District for the Northern District of California dismissed a
putative class action asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against
a camera technology company (“Company”), along with its
officers and executives.  Park v. GoPro, Inc., et. al.,
18-cv-00193-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019).  Plaintiffs claimed
defendants made false statements during an earnings call following
the announcement of the Company’s results for the third quarter
of the 2017 fiscal year (“Q3 2017”), and engaged in suspicious
stock transactions.  The Court dismissed the action on the ground
that plaintiffs did not adequately plead falsity or scienter.

The Company develops and manufactures wearable and gear-mountable
cameras and accessories.  On November 1, 2017, defendants held an
earnings call to address Q3 2017 results and provide “guidance”
concerning fourth quarter prospects, including that “expected
results for 2017 [were] in line or better than the goals that were
established at the beginning of the year.”  Defendants also
allegedly touted anticipated sales performance of four products and
indicated that the Company was “restor[ing] growth.”  On
January 8, 2018, the Company announced sales results that were
lower than analysts’ projections, which the Company attributed to
the need to cut prices in order to move inventory, including for
the four products mentioned during the third quarter call, and the
stock price fell 12 percent.  Before announcing these results,
certain individual defendants sold, in total, approximately 700,000
shares.  

Relying on confidential witnesses, plaintiffs alleged that
defendants’ statements touting the anticipated strong sales
performance of the products made during the third quarter earnings
call knowingly did not take into account the lack of demand for
certain products and were contrary to the Company’s marketing
strategy of slashing prices and introducing upgraded products that
directly competed with its other products.  Plaintiffs also alleged
that defendants’ stock sales were suspicious and that this
further supported their scienter allegations.

The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Noting that the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) precludes
claims of “impermissible fraud by hindsight,” Fialkov v.
Microsoft Corp., 72 F. Supp. 3d 1220, 1230 (W.D. Wash 2014),
aff’d, 692 F. App’x 491 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court found that
plaintiffs failed to allege adequately that defendants’
statements contained facts that were actually false or misleading
at the time.  The Court concluded that many statements were
inactionable puffery or “mildly optimistic subjective
assessments” about how “strong” or “solid” sales would be
and that plaintiffs failed to allege that any of the sales numbers
provided by the Company were inaccurate.  The Court further held
that defendants’ guidance was forward-looking statements that
were accompanied by “detailed and extensive” disclosures and
therefore protected by the PSLRA Safe Harbor, 15 U.S.C. §
78u-5(i)(1)(A).  The Court rejected claims based on aspects of the
forward-looking statements that referred to then-present conditions
at the Company, such as statements about marketing strategy, on the
ground that the allegation of falsity was “conclusory.”  As to
scienter, the Court held that the confidential witnesses lacked
sufficient personal knowledge such that scienter could be
established or inferred from their statements and that
plaintiffs’ allegations concerning stock sales were inadequate
because the stock sales were small.  See City of Royal Oak Ret.
Sys., 880 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2012). [GN]


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class of Floridians Certified in Jones Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul G. Byron granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit
titled MAURICE JONES, ANTHONY C. COOK and MICAH BELLAMY v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 6:17-cv-00891-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla.).

The Court certifies a class (the "Florida Class") pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of:

     All Florida residents insured for PPA [private passenger
     auto] physical damage coverage by [Geico] who suffered a
     first-party loss of a covered owned (i.e., not leased)
     vehicle at any time during the five (5) years prior to the
     filing of this lawsuit through the date of class
     certification, whose claims were adjusted by a Defendant as
     a total loss claim, whose claims resulted in payment by a
     Defendant of a covered claim, and who were not paid title
     fees and/or license plate transfer fees.

Elizabeth Sullivan, Anthony Cook, Wilson Santos, Maurice Jones,
Anthony Lorenti, and Ashley Barrett are certified as
representatives of the Florida Class.

Bradley W. Pratt, Esq., Pratt Clay, LLC, Tracy L. Markham, Esq.,
Avolio & Hanlon, P.C., Andrew Lampros, Esq., Hall & Lampros, LLP,
Christopher Lynch, Esq., Christopher J. Lynch, P.A., Christopher
Hall, Esq., Hall & Lampros, LLP, Edmund A. Normand, Esq., and
Normand Law PLLC are certified as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule
23(g)(1).

Judge Byron directs the parties to jointly file for approval by the
Court a proposed notice to Florida Class members on or before April
15, 2019; alternatively, if the parties cannot agree on a proposed
notice, the Plaintiffs shall file a proposed notice on or before
[same day], and Defendants shall file any objections within three
(3) days of the filing of Plaintiffs' proposed notice.

In his Order, Judge Byron opines that the Plaintiffs have likewise
failed to show that the numerosity requirement is met as to the
multi-state class.  While the Court suspects numerosity would be
easily met, it is Plaintiffs' burden to affirmatively establish all
Rule 23 prerequisites are satisfied, Judge Byron notes.  The
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a multi-state class is, thus, due to
be denied.[CC]


GRUPO TELEVISA: Buzaco Testimony Enough to Sustain Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
when he implicated six FIFA media partners in 2017, a cooperating
witness in the corruption scandal brought legal trouble to the
doors of the largest mass-media company in the Spanish-speaking
world.

"We had many partners in different parts of the world, such as Fox
Sports in the U.S.; Televisa from Mexico; Media Pro from Spain; TV
Globo from Brazil; Full Play from Buenos Aires, Argentina; Traffic,
which is based in Brazil, but was with a branch in Miami," said
Alejandro Burzaco, the former CEO of Torneos y Competencias SA.

Testifying two years ago in the Brooklyn trial of three FIFA
officials, Burzaco said that "all of the companies" had paid bribes
to secure soccer media rights.

Burzaco's dramatic testimony had been one piece that led to the
convictions of Juan Angel Napout, president of South America's
football governing body Conmebol, and Jose Maria Marin, a former
professional soccer player who went on to serve as president of the
Brazilian football confederation.

Though the global broadcasters were not on trial as well, U.S.
District Judge Louis Stanton decided on March 25 that Buzaco's
testimony is enough to sustain a securities class action led by the
College of Applied Arts & Technology Pension Plan, a Televisa
shareholder.

"Lead plaintiff points to specific evidence admitted in the Napout
trial that directly implicated Televisa in the bribery scheme,"
Stanton wrote.

The trial transcripts, which Stanton called "integral" to the
complaint, show Burzaco saying that "Televisa from Mexico" joined
him and two other partners in an agreement to pay $15 million in
bribes to Argentine FIFA official Julio Humberto Grondana for
broadcast rights to the 2026 and 2030 World Cups.

Televisa is accused of funneling those payments through Mountrigi
Management Group Ltd., their wholly owned Swiss subsidiary.

"Burzaco's testimony that Televisa agreed to and bribed Grondona is
corroborated by the Torneos ledger, which shows that Mountrigi made
a $7.25 million payment for the 2026 and 2030 World Cup rights in a
bank sub-account dedicated to Grondona," the ruling states.

David Rosenfeld, an attorney for the class with the firm Robbins
Geller, and Herbert Wachtell -- HMWachtell@wlrk.com -- an attorney
for Televisa at Wachtell Lipton, did not respond to requests for
comment.

The case is In re GRUPO TELEVISA SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 18 Civ.
1979 (LLS)(S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the March 25, 2019 Opinion & Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y29leff5 from Leagle.com.

Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Pension Plan, Lead
Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonah
H. Goldstein, Esq. -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. -- rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Rachel Cocalis, Esq. --
RCocalis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Melvin Gross, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
-- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Randolph E. Wise Revocable Living Trust, Movant, represented by
Phillip C. Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm
P.A.

Grupo Televisa, S.A.B., Emilio Fernando Azcarraga Jean & Salvi
Rafael Folch Viadero, Defendants, represented by Herbert M.
Wachtell, Esq. -- HMWachtell@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz, Ben M. Germana, Esq. -- BMGermana@wlrk.com -- Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz & David B. Anders, Esq. -- DBAnders@wlrk.com
-- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: May 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Healthcare Services Group Inc. ("Healthcare" or
the "Company") (NYSE: HCSG) in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of the Company between April
11, 2017 and March 4, 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 misled investors by
strategically rounding up the Company's earnings per share ("EPS")
metric for over a decade. On March 4, 2019, Defendants announced
the SEC has been investigating the Company's EPS rounding and
reporting practices since November 2017.

The Complaint also alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company artificially inflated the price of its securities by
misrepresenting the value of the Company's business and prospects,
by overstating its earnings, and by concealing significant defects
in its internal controls.

The Complaint alleges that the truth was revealed to shareholders
on March 4, 2019, when the Company revealed that it had received a
letter in November 2017 from the SEC regarding an inquiry that the
SEC was conducting into EPS calculation practices and requesting
that the Company voluntarily provide certain information and
documents. The Company also revealed that, during the fourth
quarter of 2018, the Company authorized its outside counsel to
conduct an internal investigation, under the direction of the
Company's Audit Committee, into matters related to an SEC subpoena
which the Company had received, and that the Company was unable to
file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2018 on time.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.96 per share, or
13.14%, to close at $32.78 on March 4, 2019.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 21, 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.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


HERTZ CORP: Bradley to Submit Supplemental Expert Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMMA BRADLEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:15-cv-652-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Reona J.
Daly of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Submit
Supplemental Expert Reports.

The case is a proposed consumer class action in which Plaintiff
Bradley alleges that Defendant Hertz engaged in fraudulent business
practices related to the assessment of certain fees for its
automobile rental transactions.
  On Feb. 2, 2018, the Plaintiff disclosed two experts for trial,
Justin Regus and Bobby Calder, Ph. D., and produced their expert
reports.  Said disclosure was timely pursuant to the operative
Scheduling and Discovery Order.  Following the Plaintiff's expert
disclosure, the Court granted her motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint.  Her Third Amended Complaint was filed on June
27, 2018.  The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
pending, as is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.s

In the motion now before the Court, the Plaintiff seeks leave to
supplement her expert reports to address new allegations included
in her Third Amended Complaint.  She contends these new allegations
were based on recently disclosed information by the Defendant
regarding the calculation of the Energy Surcharge and Vehicle
Licensing Cost Recovery ("VLCR") fee.

The Defendant contends that Plaintiff's motion is untimely as it
was filed well after the expert disclosure deadline and the May 18,
2018 discovery deadline.  It further contends that almost all of
the "new allegations" referenced by the Plaintiff are based on
documents and information that were in the record for many months
before Regus and Calder served their expert reports.  In light of
what the Plaintiff characterizes as the disclosure of recently
produced discovery, she represents its experts must supplement the
allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint, which was
filed on June 27, 2018.

In its response to the Plaintiff's motion, the Defendant explains
that each of the allegations identified were not "new" and could
have been included in her initial expert reports based on documents
already in the record or with some minimal investigation by the
Plaintiff.  It also contends that the new opinions appear to be
regurgitations of allegations made by the Plaintiff's counsel.

In her reply, the Plaintiff remarks that from March 2018 to May
2018 Defendant produced 33 Excel spreadsheets containing a total of
132 worksheets, as well as supplemental interrogatory answers with
nine pages of explanations of how the fees were calculated.  She
posits that these additional documents and responses revealed
information that is the basis for the additional opinions and
allegations mentioned.

Insofar as the Defendant contends the additional documents and
discovery responses had already been produced, Judge Daly
disagrees.  In particular, the relevant spreadsheets were produced
in an unprotected format, which, for the first time, provided the
formula Defendant used for its fee calculations.  There is no
indication in the record that these formulas had previously been
produced.  In any event, even if some of the materials had already
been produced, such circumstance does not necessarily mean that
supplementation is inappropriate.

Moreover, he finds that there is good cause to allow the Plaintiff
to supplement her expert reports in the case in light of the filing
of the Third Amended Complaint, which was also allowed after the
close of discovery.  He also finds that the Defendant will not be
prejudiced as its expert will also be provided an opportunity to
supplement.  Because he finds the Plaintiff's request to supplement
to be appropriate in this instance, the Judge declines to require
the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's fees and costs.  Insofar as
the Defendant contends that Mr. Calder's supplemental opinions are
inadmissible, such arguments are better suited for consideration in
a properly filed Daubert motion.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Daly granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Expert Reports.  The
Plaintiff will serve her supplemental reports by April 19, 2019.
Depositions of her experts, limited to their new opinions, must be
taken by May 17, 2019.  The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer
concerning a proposed schedule for the Defendant's expert, Sonya
Kwon, to provide a supplemental report and sit for a deposition.
The parties will submit a proposed schedule by April 19, 2019 to
RJDpd@ilsd.uscourts.gov.  If the parties are unable to agree on a
proposed schedule, they must notify the chambers of the Judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BYWI1w from Leagle.com.

Emma Bradley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning, Jr.,
Bruning Law Firm, Kevin P. Green -- kevinghalaw.com -- Goldenberg
Heller & Antognoli PC, Mark C. Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com --
Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC, Richard S. Cornfeld --
info@cornfeldlegal.com -- Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld, Thomas
P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC,
David G. Bender -- DBENDER@ROSENBLUMGOLDENHERSH.COM -Rosenblum,
Goldenhersh et al., Jessica C. Gittemeier --
JGITTEMEIER@ROSENBLUMGOLDENHERSH.COM -- Rosenblum, Goldenhersh et
al. & Richard S. Bender -- RBENDER@ROSENBLUMGOLDENHERSH.COM -
Rosenblum, Goldenhersh et al..

The Hertz Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Lichtman
-- alichtman@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Daniel J. Weiss --
dweiss@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP, Jacob D. Alderdice --
jalderdice@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, John F. Ward, Jr. --
jward@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP, Ross B. Bricker --
rbricker@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP & William D. Heinz --
wheinz@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP.


HOME DEPOT: Coronado-Picazo Sues over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE CORONADO-PICAZO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.; and DOES
1 thru 50, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00528 (C.D. Cal., March 25,
2019) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson and referred to Magistrate
Shashi H. Kewalramani.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates home improvement retail stores.
The Company offers building materials, home improvement, lawn,
garden, kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design products.
Home Depot U.S.A. serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
         Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
         Justin M. Aufderhar, Esq.
         KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
         16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
         Encino, CA 91436
         Telephone: (818) 990-8300
         Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
         E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                 kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
                 justin@kingsleykingsley.com


HOME/LIFE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Gelin Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROODY GELIN and NEVADA POSLEY, each on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. HOME/LIFE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03066 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant knowingly failed to pay the Plaintiffs and others their
lawfully earned wages at or above the minimum wage, in direct
contravention of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

Home/Life Services, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and
does business in the City and State of New York, including Bronx
County, where the Plaintiffs worked.

The Defendant operates homeless shelters in the City of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Heller, Esq.
          Daniel H. Kovel, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ PERRY & HELLER, LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-6565
          E-mail: bheller@schwartzandperry.com
                  dkovel@sphlegal.com


HUDSONS BAY: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Rudolph Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the motion to intervene in the case,
ALEXANDRIA RUDOLPH, Plaintiff, v. HUDSONS BAY CO., SAKS INC., LORD
$ TAYLOR LLC and SAKS & COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18 cv
8472 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.).

The case is a putative class action brought by Ms. Rudolph relating
to a widely publicized data breach occurring on March 28, 2018
affecting customers of Saks Fifth Avenue, Lord & Taylor, and Saks
OFF 5TH department stores.  The action was commenced in the Central
District of California on June 8, 2018 and transferred to this
District on Sept. 18, 2018.  The Defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which is now fully briefed.

A group of proposed intervenors, who are the plaintiffs in putative
class actions -- Knight v Saks Incorporated, 18 cv 360 (M.D. Tenn.)
and Harris v. Lord & Taylor LLC, 18 cv 521-MN (D. Del.) -- against
the same named Defendants pending in the District of Delaware and
the Middle District of Tennessee, seek to intervene in the action
so that they may move to dismiss, stay or transfer this action to
the District of Delaware.  They assert, among other things, that
that their putative class actions were filed first, encompass all
the claims in the instant action and have more plaintiffs.  They
view Ms. Rudolph's action as a copycat action and suggest that the
parties to the instant action are likely to try to settle the
action to the detriment of the proposed intervenors.  The Court
notes that in both the Delaware and Tennessee actions, the
Defendants have moved for transfer to the District, and that both
motions are sub judice.

By the Court's count, at least eight proposed intervenors were the
plaintiffs in putative class actions previously brought in the
District relating to the data breach, all of which were assigned to
then-Judge Forrest and voluntarily dismissed in August 2018.  Prior
to the actions' voluntary dismissal, the plaintiff in Vains v.
Hudson's Bay Co. et al., 18 Civ. 3366 (KBF), moved under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 to centralize in the District all pretrial proceedings
related to the data breach.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation denied the motion on Aug. 1, 2018.  It reasoned that
transfer to the District pursuant to section 1404 was preferable to
consolidation under the MDL procedure of section 1407, and because
"a reasonable prospect" of transfer existed, centralization under
section 1407 was not needed.   The plaintiffs in the prior New York
case voluntarily dismissed their actions on Aug. 14 and 15, 2018,
and were then named as the plaintiffs in the Saks and L&T actions.

Annexed to the proposed intervenors' pre-motion letter is their
proposed motion to intervene and to dismiss or transfer.  Ms.
Rudolph and the Defendants oppose intervention.

Judge Castel finds that the motion to intervene is untimely, and
"an untimely motion to intervene must be denied."  The present
action was filed on June 8, 2018 and transferred to the District on
Sept. 18, 2018.  There is little doubt that the proposed
intervenors have been aware of the pendency of the action since its
inception but have waited until the filing of a fully-briefed
motion to dismiss to speak up.  Given that the proposed motion
seeks intervention for the purpose of staying, transferring or
dismissing the action, a delay of nearly nine months renders the
motion untimely.  The motion to intervene is therefore denied on
timeliness grounds.

The Judge also finds that he proposed intervenors' case for
intervention, as of right and permissively, is substantially
overblown.  No class has been certified in the instant action, nor
in the Saks Action in Tennessee or the L&T Action in Delaware.  It
is unlikely that the Court (or any other district court) would
certify two substantially overlapping class actions.  The balance
of conveniences also weighs against application of the first-filed
rule.

Judge Castel concludes that intervention will both delay and
prejudice the adjudication of Ms. Rudolph's claim.  Intervention
will not contribute to the just and equitable adjudication of the
legal and factual claims.  Therefore, he denied the proposed
intervenors' application.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/C4Ynuz from Leagle.com.

Alexandria Rudolph, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice,
Joshua Nassir -- jnassir@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP,
Nina Mahesh Varindani -- nvarindani@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP & Timothy J. Peter -- tpeter@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP.

Hudsons Bay Company, a Canadian corporation, Saks Fifth Avenue LLC,
a Massachusetts limited liability company, Saks Incorporated, a
Tennessee corporation & Lord & Taylor LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendants, represented by Ezra Dodd Church,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Gregory T. Parks --
gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Kenneth Ian Schacter -- kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Kristin Mckeon Hadgis --
kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Saks and Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Ezra Dodd Church, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Gregory T. Parks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kenneth Ian
Schacter, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Jawad B. Muaddi, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Kristin Mckeon Hadgis, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Nicolette
Leilani Young, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Margo Kyler Knight, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Latusha Vains, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Jane Lefkowitz, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Greta Moss, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Hope Tafet, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Debbie Carthan, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Jeanne Sacklow, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Erika Targum, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Leslie Levitt-Raschella, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

John Cona, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Cassondra Joseph, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Kelly McGurn, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Wendy Haggarty, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Mark Wade, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Julia Harris, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Larry Payne, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Bernadette Beekman, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Georgina Meduri, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Cassandra Meduri, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.


INLAND PRODUCTS: March 25 Discovery Letter in Fraud Suit Terminated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONGKOL MAHAVONGTRAKUL, Plaintiff, v. INLAND PRODUCTS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-07261-HSG (KAW) (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California has issued an order terminating
the Defendant's March 25, 2019 Discovery Letter.

On March 25, 2019, the Defendant filed a discovery letter before
the district court concerning the scope of discovery appropriate
for the limited purpose of determining whether the amount in
controversy is met to confer subject matter jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act.  Therein, it represented that the
Plaintiff refused to provide his portion of the joint letter brief
within a definitive time-frame.

On March 27, 2019, all discovery matters in the case were referred
to the Magistrate Judge.  Accordingly, the discovery letter is
terminated.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer within
seven days of the Order, in person or telephonically, as required
by the Magistrate Judge's standing order.  If the parties' meet and
confer efforts do not completely resolve the dispute, they will
file a joint letter within five business days of the meet and
confer session.  All joint letters must comply with the format
contained in the standing order.  The parties are advised that the
refusal to participate in the joint letter process is tantamount to
consenting to the relief requested.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sBmtDu from Leagle.com.

Mongkol Mahavongtrakul, individually and on behlaf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence
D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Douglas Gregory Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP., pro hac
vice, Jean M. Sedlak -- jsedlak@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson Garber, LLP & Mario Man-Lung Choi --
mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Inland Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Irwin
Katz, Greenberg Gross LLP & Tyson Keith Hottinger --
thottinger@mabr.com -- Maschoff Brennan.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Class of Employees Certified in Arroyo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part the
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled ELISA ARROYO
v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-cv-06211-BLF (N.D.
Cal.).

Class certification is granted as to Claims 2 and 4, to the extent
those claims are based on wage statements generated by the
Workbrain system, and otherwise is denied.

Accordingly, this class is certified:

     All non-exempt employees who were employed by International
     Paper Company, a New York corporation, in the State of
     California and who were provided wage statements containing
     payment for overtime wages which were created from data from
     the Workbrain system at any time from January 27, 2017,
     through the present.

The Court concludes, among other things, that Ms. Arroyo has not
satisfied the commonality requirement as to Claim 1.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff claims that IPC
violates California laws governing wage statements and
reimbursement of necessary business expenses.  Specifically, she
asserts that when employees work overtime, IPC's wage statements do
not accurately reflect the overtime rate of pay or the total hours
worked.[CC]


IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties in Ryan-Nielson Suit Reach Initial Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case styled, Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson v.
iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC, has reached a preliminary
agreement to settle the lawsuit for US$1,500,000, according to iPic
Entertainment Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The iPic Entertainment currently is a defendant in the class action
lawsuit captioned Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class
Entertainment, LLC, Case # BC 688633, which was filed in Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on
December 29, 2017.  This lawsuit asserts failure to pay minimum
wage, pay overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, and
provide accurate itemized wage statements with respect to certain
workers.

On February 6, 2019, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the lawsuit for US$1,500,000.  The parties are in the
process of negotiating a settlement agreement for submission to the
court for preliminary approval of the settlement.  For the year
ended December 31, 2018 the legal settlement expense has been
recorded in the consolidated statement of operations and recorded
as part of accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets.  

iPic Entertainment Inc. operates restaurants and theaters in the
United States.  The company operates casual restaurants,
farm-to-glass full-service bars, and theater auditoriums with
in-theater dining.  It operates restaurants under the City Perch
Kitchen + Bar, Tanzy, The Tuck Room, The Tuck Room Tavern, and iPic
Express brands.  The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


IQVIA INC: Sued by Fischbein Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, MD, individually and as the representatives
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. IQVIA, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00373 (M.D.N.C., April 5, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
sent unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the Plaintiff and
others in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, including regulations of the Federal Communications
Commission, and in violation of the North Carolina Unsolicited
Facsimile Act.

IQVIA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Durham, North Carolina.

IQVIA is engaged in data mining for the healthcare industry.  IQVIA
collects human health data for its customers and to add to its
commercially-available database.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan S. Luft, Esq.
          RYAN S. LUFT, PLLC
          3125 Kathleen Ave., #116
          Greensboro, NC 27408
          Telephone: (336) 638-1789
          E-mail: ryan@luftlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (800) 601-0808
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


ITC: Class Action Among Options for People Affected by Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Marshall and Lisa Carter, writing for KHOU11, report that a
Harris County family filed the first of potentially hundreds of
lawsuits on March 25 against ITC and its spokesperson for exposure
to toxic chemicals.

The March 17 fire and subsequent flare-ups over 5 days has caused
physical injuries and mental anguish to Harris County residents,
according to the lawsuit filed by Benny Agosto, Jr., of Abraham,
Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz.

The lawsuit claims residents have suffered numerous types of
injuries, including upper respiratory infections, bronchitis,
pneumonia, itchy, burning eyes and tight, burning throats.

According to the lawsuit, ITC has a history of state and federal
violations, including valve failure in 2008 that resulted in a
release of butadiene, which is used to make plastics. It also
claims ITC was fined in 2009 for failing to prevent overloading a
railcar, resulting in a release toluene, a hazardous air
pollutant.

The lawsuit also cites three water violations against ITC from 2015
to 2017 and ITC's failure to report on its chemical services in
2017.

KHOU 11 News legal expert Gerald Treece warns families affected by
the ITC fire of class-action lawsuits.

More than 1,000 people sought free check-ups from Harris County
Public Heath during a three-day mobile health outreach program.
Many people complained of coughing, nausea and headaches from
exposure to the ITC fire.

"Class-action allows strength in numbers," Treece said. "People
with a common claim have their case handled by a set of lawyers at
one time."

A class-action lawsuit may be good for some people suffering
ailments after the fire. However, Treece said people should
consider all options before jumping into a class-action lawsuit.

"My biggest concern is that they may get a claim, settle really
quickly, but I'm certain the real problem isn't nausea and loss of
sleep. It's the possible exposure," Treece said.

Under a class-action lawsuit, people might not be compensated for
long-term health effects that lead to ailments like leukemia and
different cancers. If people settle early, they won't be able to
claim those long-term effects later.

"So be cautious, try to not overreact, be prudent and talk to
lawyers," Treece said.

He said in personal injury cases like those possibly connected to
ITC, lawyers won't charge you to talk and find out your best
option. [GN]


JACKSON HEWITT: Illegally Sent Unsolicited Texts, Hancock Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF HANCOCK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02602
(C.D. Cal., April 5, 2019), alleges that in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Plaintiff received
unsolicited, autodialed text message/calls over the past several
years, urging him to have the Defendant do his taxes.

Jackson Hewitt is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Jersey
City, New Jersey.  The Company provides tax preparation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1401 Dove St., Suite 540
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (323) 510-4060
          E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Certify Benecol Mislabeling Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Suzanna Bowling, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson and
McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Defendants, No. 17-cv-3982
(AJN)(S.D.N.Y.), Plaintiff Suzannah Bowling brings this suit
against McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, the distributor of the butter
alternative spread Benecol, and Johnson & Johnson, its parent
company.

Bowling alleges that the statement "No Trans Fat," which appeared
on Benecol's labeling until 2011, was false and misleading, and
brings claims for unjust emichment, violation of New York General
Bus Law ("NYGBL") Sections 349 and 350, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud.

Now before the Court is Bowling's motion to certify a class of
persons who purchased Benecol in New York from January 1, 2008 to
December 31, 2011.

Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied Bowling's motion for class
certification.

Bowling seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which authorizes
class certification if "questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members," and "a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

The Court concludes that the Defendants have made a sufficiently
clear showing that Bowling is subject to a covenant not to sue that
may be a defense to her claims.  In addition, the Defendants have
raised credible concerns about the central factual predicate of
Bowling's claim—that she purchased Benecol during the relevant
period.  These defenses are "meritorious enough to require the
plaintiff to devote considerable time" to rebut them.  The
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) are not
satisfied here, the Court adds.

For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Rule 23(a)
prerequisites are not met, and therefore that Bowling's motion for
class certification must be denied. Accordingly, the Court does not
reach the question of whether Bowling has met the Rule 23(b)
requirements.

A full-text copy of the April 22, 2019 Opinion & Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yxa2fgt9 from Leagle.com.

Suzanna Bowling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick John Klorczyk, Esq.
-- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Joseph Ignatius
Marchese, Esq. -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.,
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A. & Neal Jamison Deckant, Esq. -- ndeckant@bursor.com --
Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Carlos M. Lazatin,  Esq. -- clazatin@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.


JONES SWEET: Migrant Workers Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR MIGUEL GONZALEZ-AHUMADA and ERNESTO ALONSO GODINEZ-ABREGO,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v.
JONES SWEET POTATO EQUIPMENT, INC., JIMMY D. JONES, JR., and
BARBARA D. JONES, Case No. 5:19-cv-00133-H (E.D.N.C., April 6,
2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and liquidated damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act.

The Plaintiffs are migrant farmworkers, who were jointly employed
by the Defendants through the H-2A program to perform various
agricultural duties related to the sweet potato growing and
harvesting operation of the Defendants in or around Bailey, North
Carolina.

Jones Sweet Potato Equipment, Inc., is a for profit, closely held
corporation that is organized under the laws of the state of North
Carolina, for the purpose of, among others, growing, producing,
harvesting, and marketing of flue-cured tobacco, sweet potatoes and
other agricultural products within Nash County, North Carolina.
The Individual Defendants are principals of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1828
          Pittsboro, NC 27312
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821-1764
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


JUICE BEAUTY: Figueroa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juice Beauty, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Juice Beauty, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03208 (S.D. N.Y., Apr. 10, 2019).

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

Juice Beauty Inc. provides organic beauty solutions to people
worldwide.[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


KIMBALL TIREY: Scott Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kimball, Tirey and
St. John LLP. The case is styled as Patrice Scott On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Kimball,
Tirey and St. John LLP, Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00697-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2019).

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

Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP, KTS, provides legal representation
in a wide range of business and real estate matters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq.
     Law Office of Andrew P Rundquist
     501 W Broadway Suite A144
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 992-9148
     Email: andrew@rundquistlaw.com


KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Class Action in California Continues
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. remains ongoing,
according to the Form 10-K of Kirkland's, Inc. filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2019.  The parties had previously
agreed to a mediation to be held on April 1, 2019.  No further
updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California,
Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to
Federal Court, Central District of California, and trial is not yet
set.  The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other
hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour
violations.

"We deny the material allegations in the complaint and believe that
our employment policies are generally compliant with California
law.  The parties have agreed to a mediation to be held on April 1,
2019, and to date have exchanged the court mandated initial
disclosures.  We believe the case is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations."

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States.  The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


KIRKLAND'S INC: To Seek Dismissal of Gennock Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that it will "now move to once
again dismiss" the Gennock's Complaint after the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its March 8, 2019 Opinion in a
related class action appeal.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc.
The complaint alleges that we, in violation of federal law,
published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card
number on customers' receipts.  We deny the material allegations of
the complaint.

"On January 9, 2018, the District Court denied our motion to
dismiss this matter.  On January 31, 2018, the Court granted our
motion to stay the proceedings in its case pending the Third
Circuit's decision in Kamal v. J.  Crew Group, Inc., No. 17-2345
(3d.  Cir.).

"On March 8, 2019, the Third Circuit issued its opinion in the J.
Crew case, and ruled that the plaintiff did not have standing in
that case without the showing of a concrete injury.

"The J.  Crew ruling is binding on the Court in the Kirkland's
case, and we will now move to once again dismiss Gennock's
Complaint.  We continue to believe that the case is without merit
and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against the
allegations.  The matter is covered by insurance, and we do not
believe that the case will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash
flows."

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States.  The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


L.L. BEAN: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Footwear Warranty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge again dismissed a complaint accusing L.L. Bean Inc.
of misrepresenting the expected lifespan of its iconic boots.

In an opinion issued March 20, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman
echoed his June 28 dismissal of plaintiff Victor Bondi's five-count
class-action complaint accusing the Freeport, Maine-based retailer
of allegedly violating state and federal warranty and consumer
protection laws.

The complaint would have included customers who bought boots prior
to Feb. 9, 2018, which is the date L.L. Bean issued a statement
altering its warranty terms to one year after purchase and
requiring proof of purchase. Bondi said he only bought his boots
because of the company's prior "100 percent satisfaction guarantee"
and that L.L. Bean's century-old terms were inherent to the value
of the products and his relationship with the company.

Last year, and again, Bean said Bondi lacked standing because he
failed to allege trying to return a product he bought before the
Feb. 9 warranty shift announcement, let alone any complications
with such an attempt.

"Nothing much has changed," Gettleman wrote in March about Bondi's
amended complaint. "The instant complaint has added nothing to
establish that plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact. His claims
remain based on the remote possibility that at some unknown time in
the future he might become dissatisfied with a purchase, and that
defendant might deny him a refund. In particular, he still fails to
allege that defendant will not honor his guarantee should he become
dissatisfied with a purchase. He does not allege that he is
dissatisfied, and has alleged no facts to suggest that he is likely
to become dissatisfied in the future."

Gettleman said the only difference in Bondi's amended complaint is
an allegation that L.L. Bean's new return policy is "dramatically
different and less valuable" than what was in place at the time he
bought boots in 2011 and 2017, and that it's only designed so L.L.
Bean can save money.

"Of course," Gettleman wrote, "(L.L. Bean's) motive in adopting a
new guarantee or return policy is irrelevant to whether (Bondi) has
suffered an injury."

Bondi claimed L.L. Bean's new policy is to accept as returns only
products it can resell, and said the legal injury arises from a
policy that doesn't weigh his satisfaction, but only
profitability.

"The documents he cites to, however, do not support this strained
construction of defendant's 'new' return policy," Gettleman wrote.
"The documents indicate only that employees should reject a return
within one year of purchase for excessive wear and tear if the
product is returned beyond its useful life — meaning in a
condition that 'is not sellable through any liquidation channel
(i.e. outlets), otherwise known as destroy/trash.' Nothing in the
documents indicates that a return based on dissatisfaction is
assessed only on whether defendant can resell the product."

Bondi cited a 2018 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Dubuisson
v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., saying that plaintiff's injury
was having her policy diminished after purchase. But Gettleman
explained the issue in Dubuisson was policies were voided because
they weren't filed properly with the state.

"Paying premiums for illegal policies was sufficient to show a
concrete injury," Gettleman wrote, but Bondi got exactly what he
paid for: Boots he has never said are unsatisfactory and hasn't
tried to return.

Saying every other court faced with claims like Bondi's were
dismissed for lack of standing, Gettleman rendered the same fate,
granting L.L. Bean's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Bondi has been represented by Erich Schork and Anthony Parkhill of
Barnow and Associates of Chicago.

L.L. Bean has been defended by Anthony Anscombe, Meegan Bay Brooks,
Darlene Kay Alt and Mary Buckley of Steptoe & Johnson LLP of
Chicago. [GN]


L.L. BEAN: Massachusetts Court Dismisses B. Pershouse's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN T. PERSHOUSE, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. L.L. BEAN, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-10800-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (i) allowed the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and
(ii) denied as moot the Defendant's motion to strike the nationwide
class claims.

Pershouse brings the putative class action against L.L. Bean.
Pershouse alleges that L.L. Bean rescinded its well-known "100%
Satisfaction Guarantee" by inserting new conditions for its return
policy and then applying them retroactively to purchases made under
the original policy.  He claims, among other things, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and unfair or deceptive practices in
violation of M.G.L. c. 93A.  He also seeks to certify a nationwide
class of similarly situated individuals, as well as a subclass of
individuals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

For decades, L.L. Bean has publicized and been renowned for its
Satisfaction Guarantee, which promised that if something's not
working or fitting or standing up to its task or lasting as long as
one thinks it should, they'll take it back.  This return and
exchange policy contained no explicit time limits or other
conditions, and the Plaintiff asserts that it formed part of the
benefit of the bargain for purchasers of L.L. Bean products and has
become almost entirely intertwined with the L.L. Bean brand.

In April, 2018, Pershouse filed a class action complaint in the
Court claiming 1) breach of contract (on behalf of a nationwide
class); 2) unjust enrichment (on behalf of a nationwide class); 3)
violation of M.G.L. c. 93A (on behalf of the Massachusetts
subclass); and 4) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq. (on behalf of a nationwide class).  In
addition, he seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2201 that 5) L.L. Bean's letter in February 2018,
constitutes a violation of law and a breach of warranty; 6) L.L.
Bean be required to honor the Guarantee with no end date for goods
purchased before the publication of the letter; and 7) L.L. Bean
provide notice to past and future customers regarding the terms of
the new return and exchange policy.

Pershouse contends that he and members of the purported classes
have not received what was promised to them when they bought the
L.L. Bean products and thus overpaid for them.  Specifically, he
asserts that he and members of the purported classes paid a premium
for a "100% Satisfaction Guarantee" when they were actually buying
products that would become subject to an exceptionally limited
warranty.  He concludes that he and others were, therefore,
deprived of "the benefit of the bargain."  Pershouse maintains that
the Defendant's rescission of the Guarantee constitutes both a
breach of contract and unfair or deceptive conduct in violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

In May, 2018, L.L. Bean filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, as well as a motion to strike the nationwide class
claims in the Plaintiff's class action complaint. Defendant
maintains that 1) the Pplaintiff has failed to state a claim for
each count in the complaint and 2) even if some of his claims
survive the motion to dismiss, they cannot be brought on behalf of
a nationwide class because disparate state common law and consumer
protection laws apply to those claims.

As to Motion to Dismiss, Judge Gorton finds that (i) Pershouse has
failed to allege facts sufficient to support a plausible claim for
breach of contract; (ii) the availability of an adequate remedy at
law, even if ultimately unviable, precludes the claim for unjust
enrichment; (iii) the mere fact that the Plaintiff may have been
deceived when he bought the slippers does not establish a
cognizable injury without some proof of a distinct harm; (iv)
Pershouse does not explain how such notification was inadequate
under Section 2302 or what other terms or conditions should have
been included that were not; and (v) because Pershouse has failed
to state a plausible claim for relief under any of the substantive
counts in the complaint, Count V of the complaint for declaratory
relief will also be dismissed.

As a result of the allowance of the Defendant's motion to dismiss,
the Judge finds it unnecessary to address its separate motion to
strike the nationwide class claims from the complaint.  That motion
will be denied as moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gorton (i) allowed the Defendant's
motion to dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the Defendant's motion
to strike the nationwide class claims.

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

Benjamin T Pershouse, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. Parkhill
-- aparkhill@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates, P.C., pro hac
vice, Ben Barnow -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow & Associates,
P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Liskow, The Sultzer Law Group, P.C.,
pro hac vice & David Pastor -- dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com --
Pastor Law Office, LLP.

L.L. Bean, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J. Anscombe ,
Steptoe & Johnson, pro hac vice, Daniel Raymond , Steptoe &
Johnson, LLP, pro hac vice, Darlene K. Alt -- dalt@eapdlaw.com --
Edwards & Angell, pro hac vice, Jeremy S. Goldkind --
jgoldkind@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP, pro hac vice, Mary
E. Buckley -- mbuckley@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, pro hac
vice, Stephanie A. Sheridan -- ssheridan@steptoe.com -- Steptoe &
Johnson, pro hac vice, Peter J. Brann -- pbrann@brannlaw.com --
Brann & Isaacson & Stacy O. Stitham -- sstitham@brannlaw.com --
Brann & Isaacson.


LAMPS PLUS: SCOTUS Limits Classwide Arbitration in Varela
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, 17-988 (U.S.), the
U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, an
ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis
for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class
arbitration.

In 2016, a hacker tricked an employee of Lamps Plus into disclosing
tax information of about 1,300 company employees.  After a
fraudulent federal income tax return was filed in the name of Frank
Varela, a Lamps Plus employee, Varela filed a putative class action
against the company in Federal District Court on behalf of
employees whose information had been compromised.  Relying on the
arbitration agreement in Varela's employment contract, Lamps Plus
sought to compel arbitration -- on an individual rather than a
classwide basis -- and to dismiss the suit.  The District Court
rejected the individual arbitration request, but authorized class
arbitration and dismissed Varela's claims.  Lamps Plus appealed,
arguing that the District Court erred by compelling class
arbitration, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Voting 5-4, on April 24, 2019, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by
Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, reversed and
remanded.  In Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559
U. S. 662, the Supreme Court ruled that a court may not compel
classwide arbitration when an agreement is silent on the
availability of that arbitration. The Ninth Circuit ruled that
Stolt-Nielsen was not controlling because the agreement in this
case was ambiguous rather than silent on the issue of class
arbitration.

Chief Justice Roberts, citing Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v.
Randolph, 531 U. S. 79, 89, held that an order that both compels
arbitration and dismisses the underlying claims qualifies as "a
final decision with respect to an arbitration" within the meaning
of 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(3), the jurisdictional provision on which
Lamps Plus relies.

Varela attempts to distinguish Randolph on the ground that the
appeal here was taken by the party who had already secured the
relief it requested, i.e., Lamps Plus had already obtained an order
dismissing the claim and compelling arbitration.  But Lamps Plus
did not secure the relief it requested, since it sought individual
rather than class arbitration.  The shift from individual to class
arbitration is a "fundamental" change, Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at
686, that "sacrifices the principal advantage of arbitration" and
"greatly increases risks to defendants," the Court said, citing
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333, 348, 350.

Avoiding these consequences gives Lamps Plus the "necessary
personal stake" to appeal, the Chief Justice said, citing Camreta
v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 702. Pp. 3-5.

The Chief Justice also held that under the FAA, an ambiguous
agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for
concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.

"Arbitration is strictly a matter of consent," the Court said,
citing Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U. S. 287, 299, and the
task for courts and arbitrators is "to give effect to the intent of
the parties," citing Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., 684.  In carrying
out that responsibility, the Supreme Court said it is important to
recognize the "fundamental" difference between class arbitration
and the individualized form of arbitration envisioned by the FAA.

Class arbitration "sacrifices the principal advantage of
arbitration -- its informality -- and makes the process slower,
more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass than
final judgment," the Court said, citing Concepcion, 563 U. S., at
348.  Because of such "crucial differences," the Court has held
that courts may not infer consent to participate in class
arbitration absent an affirmative "contractual basis for concluding
that the party agreed to do so."  The Court held that "[s]ilence is
not enough," and that, like silence, ambiguity does not provide a
sufficient basis to conclude that parties to an arbitration
agreement agreed to "sacrifice[ ] the principal advantage of
arbitration."

This conclusion aligns with the Court's refusal to infer consent
when it comes to other fundamental arbitration questions.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that the Ninth Circuit's
contrary conclusion was based on the state law contra proferentem
doctrine, which counsels that contractual ambiguities should be
construed against the drafter.  That default rule is based on
public policy considerations and seeks ends other than the intent
of the parties.  Such an approach is flatly inconsistent with "the
foundational FAA principle that arbitration is a matter of
consent," the Court said.  Varela claims that the rule is
nondiscriminatory and gives equal treatment to arbitration
agreements and other contracts alike, but an equal treatment
principle cannot save from preemption general rules "that target
arbitration either by name or by more subtle methods, such as by
'interfer[ing] with fundamental attributes of arbitration,'" the
Court added, citing Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S. ___,
___. This conclusion is consistent with the Court's precedents
holding that the FAA provides the default rule for resolving
certain ambiguities in arbitration agreements.

Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices
Breyer and Sotomayor joined.

Justice Kagan also filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices
Ginsburg and Breyer joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined
as to Part II.

Justice Ginsburg dissented to emphasize once again how
treacherously the Court has strayed from the principle that
"arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion."  According to
Justice Ginsburg, Congress enacted the FAA in 1925 "to enable
merchants of roughly equal bargaining power to enter into binding
agreements to arbitrate commercial disputes."  The Act, Justice
Ginsburg pointed out, was not designed to govern contracts "in
which one of the parties characteristically has little bargaining
power."

Justice Ginsburg further held that employees and consumers forced
to arbitrate solo face severe impediments to the "vindication of
their rights."  Respondent Frank Varela sought redress for
negligence by his employer leading to a data breach affecting 1,300
employees.

The widely experienced neglect he identified cries out for
collective treatment, Justice Ginsburg said.  Blocking Varela's
path to concerted action, the Court aims to ensure the authenticity
of consent to class procedures in arbitration.  Shut from the
Court's sight is the "Hobson's choice" employees face: "accept
arbitration on their employer's terms or give up their jobs."

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Opinion dated April 24,
2019, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyd75sah from
Leagle.com.

Lamps Plus Centennial, Inc., Lamps Plus Holdings, Inc., and Lamps
Plus, Inc., are represented by:

     Michael Keith Grimaldi, Esq.
     Zourik Zarifian, Esq.
     Eric Y Kizirian, Esq.
     LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
     Tel: (213) 250-1800
     Email: michael.grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com
            zourik.zarifian@lewisbrisbois.com
            eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com

Frank Varela is represented by:

     Marcio William Valladares, Esq.
     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     Patrick A. Barthle, III, Esq.
     MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     Tel: (813) 223-5505
     Email: mvalladares@forthepeople.com
            jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
            pbarthle@forthepeople.com

        --  and --

     David C. Wright, Esq.
     Michele Marie Vercoski, Esq.
     Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
     Tel: (909) 557-1250
     Email: dcw@mccunewright.com
            mmv@mccunewright.com
            rdm@mccunewright.com

          - and -

     Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
     RHINE LAW FIRM PC
     Tel: (910) 772-9960
     Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com

Thomas Ryan McCarthy, Esq. -- tom@consovoymccarthy.com -- Consovoy
McCarthy Park, PLLC, for Chamber of Commerce of the United States
America.

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

Deepak Gupta, Esq. -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler
PLLC, for American Association for Justice.

Mary Massaron, Esq. -- mmassaron@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett &
Cooney, P.C., for DRI—The Voice of the Defense Bar.

Benjamin G. Robbins, New England Legal Foundation, for New England
Legal Foundation.

Matthew Adam Seligman, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, for
Contract Law Scholars.

Adam G. Unikowsky, Esq. -- aunikowsky@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block
LLP, for Retail Litigation Center, Inc.


LELAND STANFORD: Langlands ERISA Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled SARA LANGLANDS and
LEIGHLAND HOOKS, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY; and DOES 1
to 20, inclusive, Case No. 19CV343871, was removed on April 4,
2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01828 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs filed the State Action on March 6, 2019, asserting
causes of action for violations of the California Labor Code and
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.[BN]

Plaintiff Sara Langlands is represented by:

          Cary Kletter, Esq.
          Rachel Hallam, Esq.
          KLETTER LAW
          1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (415) 434-3400
          E-mail: ckletter@kletterlaw.com

Plaintiff Leighland Hooks is represented by:

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Chad Saunders, Esq.
          HUNTER PYLE LAW
          428 13th Street, 11th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-4400
          E-mail: csaunders@hunterpylelaw.com

Defendant THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY is represented by:

          Mollie M. Burks, Esq.
          Sat Sang S. Khalsa, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (510) 463-8668
          Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
          E-mail: mburks@grsm.com
                  skhalsa@grsm.com


LOUISIANA: Act 131 Unconstitutionality Judgment in Ulrich Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN ULRICH, GWEN ULRICH, RAYMOND AND PAM ALLEMAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
KIMBERLY ROBINSON, SECRETARY LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Case
No. 2018-CA-0534 (La.), Judge Greg G. Guidry of the Supreme Court
of Louisiana reversed the district court's judgment overruling the
exception of mootness and declaring Act 131 unconstitutional.

In May and June of 2015, Plaintiffs Justin and Gwen Ulrich and
Raymond and Pam Alleman purchased and installed residential solar
systems with the expectation of receiving an income tax credit of
up to $12,500 pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. 47:6030 (B)(1).  In 2016,
when they filed their Louisiana income tax returns for the 2015 tax
year, asserting entitlement to the solar electric system tax
credits under La. Rev. Stat. 47:6030, the tax credits were denied
or reduced by the Department of Revenue, citing Acts 2015, No. 131,
which limited the maximum amount of solar tax credits to be granted
by the Department of Revenue to $25 million.  In letters sent by
the Department of Revenue to the Plaintiffs in August of 2016, they
were informed that Act 131 of the 2015 Regular Session had amended
La. Rev. Stat. 47:6030 to establish the maximum amount of solar tax
credits that may be granted; that for fiscal years 2015-2016 and
2016-2017, the cap limit was $10,000,000 per year; that t]he
credits are required to be granted based on a first-come, first
served basis; and that the cap limits were met prior to their claim
being filed.

Essentially then, prior to the 2015 amendment, a residential solar
tax credit of $12,500 was available on a $25,000 solar electric
system purchased and installed before Jan. 1, 2018.  After the 2015
amendment, the tax credit, though still available to some extent,
would be granted only on a first-come, first-served basis, and
would be limited to an aggregate amount of $25 million, which
limitation was to be applied on a staggered basis.

The Plaintiffs filed separate appeals to the Board of Tax Appeals
pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. 47:1625, which appeals remain pending,
and made both appeals individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.  On the same day, they jointly filed the
instant class action suit against Kimberly Robinson, in her
capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue,
seeking a declaration that Act 131 is unconstitutional pursuant to
La. Const. art. I, Section 2 to the extent that it deprived the
Plaintiffs of a vested property right.

In response to the class action filed in the district court, the
Department of Revenue filed declinatory exceptions of lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and lis pendens, dilatory exceptions of
prematurity and lack of procedural capacity, and peremptory
exceptions of improper use of class action procedure.  The district
court overruled these exceptions, and the Department of Revenue's
application for writs from the court of appeal was ultimately
denied.

However, in its March 27, 2017 judgment overruling the Department
of Revenue's exceptions, the district court's judgment stated that
at the Jan. 23, 2017 hearing, the parties agreed that the named
putative class representatives have standing to contest the
constitutionality of 2015 La. Act 131.  The parties also agreed
that the only relief that the Plaintiffs are seeking in the matter
is for the Court to declare 2015 La. Act 131 unconstitutional.

The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class was subsequently
granted by the district court, which defined the class as
consisting of Louisiana taxpayers that qualified for the La. R.S.
47:6030 Solar Credit between Jan. 1, 2013, and June 18, 2015, and
were denied the Solar Credit due to 2015 La. Act 131.  The
Department of Revenue appealed that ruling to the First Circuit
Court of Appeal, which reversed the district court's decision to
certify the class and remanded for further proceedings.

The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment on the
basis of their original allegations of unconstitutionality as to
Act 131, and additionally pleading that Act 131 violates their due
process rights, and impairs the obligations of contracts.  The
district court denied the motion, and a case management schedule
was entered for a bench trial to be conducted on Nov. 29, 2017.

In the meantime, the Louisiana Legislature enacted 2017 La. Acts to
provide additional funding for solar tax credits.  The Department
of Revenue issued letters to the Plaintiffs in July 2017 stating in
part that Act 413 was intended to provide additional funding for
certain solar energy credit claims, that the Plaintiffs' claims
were verified or approved for payment or would be reviewed for
qualification for additional funding under Act 413, and that there
was no need to file a new claim or submit any additional
documentation unless requested.  The letter explained Act 413
provided that all eligible taxpayers would be paid in three equal
installments over three fiscal years, commencing with fiscal year
2017-2018 and ending with fiscal year 2019-2020, but limited
funding to $5 million per fiscal year.

The Department of Revenue thereafter filed peremptory exceptions of
no right of action and mootness, contending that, under Act 413,
the Plaintiffs will obtain the exact relief they are seeking
through the instant constitutional challenge in that they would
receive their entire tax credit, with an initial payment to occur
as early as December 2017.  The exceptions were referred to the
trial on the merits.

The matter proceeded to a bench trial on the issues of
constitutionality, as well as the Department of Revenue's
peremptory exceptions of no right of action and mootness. The
district court granted the Plaintiffs' petition for declaratory
judgment and declared 2015 La. Act 131 unconstitutional, adopting
the Plaintiffs' pretrial and post-trial briefs as its reasons for
judgment.  

The Department of Revenue has appealed the district court's
declaration of unconstitutionality to the Court under the Appellate
jurisdiction under La. Const. art. V, Section 5(D), which provides
in part that a case will be appealable to the Court if a law or
ordinance has been declared unconstitutional.  

In its assignments of error, the Department of Revenue asserts the
district court erred in finding Act 131 unconstitutional because:
(1) the plaintiffs lack standing and no justiciable controversy was
presented to the court, in light of the remedial effect of 2017 La.
Acts, No. 413, Section 1; (2) Act 131 does not apply retroactively,
so it was unnecessary to reach the constitutional substantive due
process issue; (3) the Plaintiffs did not submit clear and
convincing proof that Act 131 is unconstitutional; (4) La. Rev.
Stat. 47:6030 does not provide taxpayers with a vested property
right to the tax credit on the purchase and installation of a solar
energy system; (5) any retroactive effect of Act 131 is
constitutionally permissible because it is supported by a
legitimate legislative purpose and furthered by rational means; (6)
La. Rev. Stat. 47:6030 does not constitute a contract between the
State and the Plaintiffs; and (7) tax legislation affects only
incidentally the obligations of private contracts and does not
destroy or impair the means or remedy for their enforcement.

Judge Guidry finds no justiciable controversy exists because Act
413 intended to, and did in fact, remediate the allegedly
unconstitutional aspect of Act 131, i.e., the Plaintiffs' claim
that imposition of a $25 million aggregate cap eliminated their
right to receive a solar tax credit by providing for full repayment
of the tax credit albeit over a three or four-year period.
Accordingly, he pretermits review of the Department of Revenue's
remaining assignments of error.

The Judge concludes that the district court erred in overruling the
Department of Revenue's peremptory exception of mootness.  Because
the 2017 amendment to La. Rev. Stat. 47:6030 by Act 413 cured the
alleged constitutional issue created by the 2015 amendment to the
solar tax credit statute, the instant controversy is moot.  In the
absence of an applicable exception to the mootness doctrine, the
case no longer presents a justiciable controversy.  Accordingly,
the district court's judgment overruling the exception of mootness
and declaring Act 131 unconstitutional is reversed.

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


LOWE'S HOME: $250K Settlement in Saenz Suit Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH SAENZ, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North
Carolina limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-08758-ODW (PLA) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

Saenz brought the wage-and-hour class action suit against the
Defendant, on behalf of non-exempt employees alleging that the
Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to
the Plaintiff and the proposed class in violation of California
Labor Code section 226.  The parties reached a settlement on behalf
of the class.

The Settlement Agreement defines the proposed class as all
non-exempt employees of Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC who
received a wage statement at the time of the in-store termination
during the Class Period and who worked overtime in the period
covered by that wage statement. The Class Period is July 15, 2016,
to Jan. 31, 2018.  The Defendant estimates that there are
approximately 2323 potential members of the class.

In full settlement of the claims asserted in the lawsuit, the
Defendant agrees to pay up to $250,000.  The Gross Settlement
Amount includes any statutory and civil penalties, damages, or
other relief arising from its provision of allegedly inaccurate
wage statements; interest, attorneys' fees and costs, the fees and
costs of the Administrator, including any fees and costs in
connection with notice and the exclusion process, up to a maximum
of $30,000; settlement payments; and the incentive award.  If the
Class Size increases by 15% or more, the Gross Settlement Amount
will increase by $107.66 per additional class member.

The Settlement Agreement authorizes the Plaintiff's counsel to
petition the Court for approval of attorneys' fees in an amount not
to exceed one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount (currently at
$83,333.33 based on the current Class Size) and reimbursement of
costs not to exceed $25,000 in litigating the case.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Plaintiff's counsel will
petition the Court for approval of an incentive award for the
Plaintiff in an amount not to exceed $5,000.

The Settlement Agreement requires the Plaintiff to apply to the
Court for its approval of payments to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") pursuant to PAGA. The parties
agreed to allocate $25,000 of the Gross Settlement Agreement for
PAGA penalties, $18,750 (75% of $25,000) of which will be paid to
the LWDA, with the remaining $6250 to be distributed to the
settling class members on a pro rata basis.

Within 14 days of the Order, the Defendant will provide the
Administrator with the contact information of the potential class
members.  Within 30 days of the Order, the Administrator will
provide notice of the settlement to the potential class members and
an exclusion form.  The Administrator's costs and expenses in
carrying out its duties are capped at $30,000.

Judge Wright finds that the proposed class meets all of the Rule
23(a) Requirements and the coomonality requirement of Rule
23(b)(3).  As each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at
least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) are met, the class may
be provisionally certified for settlement purposes.  As to the
Settlement terms, he finds that the settlement negotiations appear
fair and adequate and the proposed settlement terms appear to come
within the range of possible judicial approval.  There are no
obvious deficiencies in the amount and allocations of settlement
funds.  Finally, he finds that the notice is sufficient.

For these reasons, Judge Wright granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The final
approval hearing will be held on July 29, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. at the
United States Courthouse, 350 West First Street, Courtroom 5D, Los
Angeles, CA 90012.

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

Joseph Saenz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel A. Wong, Aegis Law Firm
PC, Ali Sarah Carlsen, Aegis Law Firm PC, Jessica L. Campbell,
Aegis Law Firm PC, Kashif Haque, Aegis Law Firm PC, Marta Manus --
mmanus@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Samantha A. Smith,
Aegis Law Firm PC.

Lowes Home Centers, LLC, a North Carolina limited liablity company,
Defendant, represented by Kirk A. Hornbeck, Jr. --
khornbeck@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Phillip J.
Eskenazi -- peskenazi@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP &
Megan Lorenzen -- mlorenzen@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth
LLP.


M&T BANK: Workers Ask NY Court to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a group of M&T Bank Corp. workers asked a New
York federal judge to certify as a class action their suit relating
to their 401(k) plan. [GN]

MDL 2741: 14 Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal. for Roundup Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen lawsuits were transferred on April 4, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco):

    (1) Maestas v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00361.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01749-VC;

    (2) Irvin, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00360.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01748-VC;

    (3) Dillard v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00356.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01745-VC;

    (4) Davis, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00355.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01744-VC;

    (5) Beasley v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00383.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01768-VC;

    (6) Arriola, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00368.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01758-VC;

    (7) Manresa, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00388.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01774-VC;

    (8) Schwartz v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00406.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01775-VC;

    (9) Sander, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00387.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01773-VC;

   (10) Rowell v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00354.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01743-VC;

   (11) Rice, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00384.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01769-VC;

   (12) Navarro v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00358.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01747-VC;

   (13) McCoy v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00357.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01746-VC; and

   (14) Seeger v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00385.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01772-VC.

The lawsuits are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:16-md-02741-VC.

The lawsuits arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related
injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they
allegedly suffered 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(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) 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.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs, except for Timothy Schwartz, 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

Plaintiff Timothy Schwartz is represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Megan Myers Arvola, Esq.
          GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  marvola@gorijulianlaw.com


MDL 2741: 38 Suits Transferred to N.D. Calif. in Roundup Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-eight lawsuits have been transferred on April 3, 2019, or
April 4, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco):

    (1) Aldridge, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00378.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01761-VC;

    (2) Brown v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00339.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01733-VC;

    (3) Baucom, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00380.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01762-VC;

    (4) Baggett v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00381.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01766-VC;

    (5) Allen v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00330.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01726-VC;

    (6) Bryant v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00382.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01767-VC;

    (7) Corbett v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00247.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01619-VC;

    (8) Clark, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00450.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01781-VC;

    (9) Christian v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00366.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01756-VC;

   (10) Carter v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00362.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01750-VC;

   (11) Capps v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00329.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01725-VC;

   (12) Cantu, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00331.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01727-VC;

   (13) Culbertson v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00449.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01780-VC;

   (14) Johnson v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00269.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01720-VC;

   (15) Jackson, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00334.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01728-VC;

   (16) Gattuccio v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00370.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01760-VC;

   (17) Fellows v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00365.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01754-VC;

   (18) Emeterio, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00348.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01738-VC;

   (19) Driscoll v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00335.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01729-VC;

   (20) Kennedy v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00448.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01779-VC;

   (21) Morris, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00341.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01734-VC;

   (22) McRight v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00407.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01776-VC;

   (23) Lutz, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00336.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01730-VC;

   (24) Lundy, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00342.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01735-VC;

   (25) Lewis, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00344.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01736-VC;

   (26) Moul v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00337.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01731-VC;

   (27) Schmitt, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00364.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01753-VC;

   (28) Robbins v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00338.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01732-VC;

   (29) Ribar v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00447.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01778-VC;

   (30) Reed, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00324.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01721-VC;

   (31) Pippin v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00325-CAS.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01722-VC;

   (32) Pickett v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00367.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01757-VC;

   (33) Supinski v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00347.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01737-VC;

   (34) Wingfield v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00363.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01752-VC;

   (35) Welch v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00442.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01777-VC;

   (36) Webb v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00327-PLC.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01723-VC;

   (37) Walker, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
        4:19-cv-00328-DDN.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01724-VC; and

   (38) Wright, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00369.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01759-VC.

The lawsuits are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
titled In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:16-md-02741-VC.

The lawsuits arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged Roundup(R)-related
injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the injuries they
allegedly suffered 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(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) 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.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.  The Company advertises and sells goods,
specifically Roundup, in the state of Missouri.[BN]

Plaintiffs David Culbertson; Cindy Clark on behalf of Stephen A.
Clark, deceased; Edward Kennedy; WILLIAM MCRIGHT; and DAVID RIBAR
are represented by:

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

The other 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


MEDLEY LLC: 2 Class Actions in New York vs. MCC Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation ("MCC"), among other defendants, faces
two class actions in New York, according to Medley LLC's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.  A preliminary
conference was scheduled to take place on April 16, 2019.

On January 25, 2019, two purported class actions were commenced in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by
alleged stockholders of Medley Capital Corporation, captioned,
respectively, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No.
650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al.  v. Brook Taube, et
al., Index No. 650510/2019 (together with the Lax Action, the "New
York Actions").

Named as defendants in each complaint are Brook Taube, Seth Taube,
Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S.  Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T.  Allorto, Jr., Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Sierra Income Corporation, and
Sierra Management, Inc.

The complaints in each of the New York Actions allege that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger of Medley Capital Corporation
("MCC") with and into Sierra Income Corporation ("Sierra"), and
that the other defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.  Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts
are sought.

On February 27, 2019, the Court entered a stipulated scheduling
order requiring that defendants respond to the complaints 45 days
following the later of (a) the stockholder vote on the proposed
merger and (b) plaintiffs' filing of a consolidated, amended
complaint.

Medley LLC said, "The defendants believe the claims asserted in the
New York Actions are without merit and they intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously.  At this time, we are unable to determine
whether an unfavorable outcome from these matters is probable or
remote or to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if
any."

Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield
solutions to retail and institutional investors.  The company
focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily
originating senior secured loans to private middle market companies
in the United States that have revenues between US$50 million and
US$1 billion.


MEDLEY LLC: Corrective Disclosure Required in MCC-Sierra Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the FrontFour class action, the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware held a trial on the plaintiffs' claims on March 6-7,
2019 and issued a Memorandum Opinion (the "Decision") on March 11,
2019, Medley LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.

Specifically, the Court denied the plaintiffs' requests to (i)
permanently enjoin the proposed merger and (ii) require Medley
Capital Corporation ("MCC") to conduct a "shopping process" for MCC
on terms proposed by the plaintiffs in their complaint.  The Court
held that MCC's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
entering into the proposed merger, but rejected the plaintiffs'
claim that Sierra aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The Court ordered the defendants to issue corrective
disclosures consistent with the Decision, and enjoined a vote of
MCC stockholders on the proposed merger until such disclosures have
been made and stockholders have had the opportunity to assimilate
this information.

On February 11, 2019, the purported stockholder class action was
commenced in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by
FrontFour Capital Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd.,
captioned FrontFour Capital Group LLC, et al.  v. Brook Taube, et
al., Case No. 2019-0100 (the "Delaware Action"), against defendants
Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin
Hirtler-Garvey, John E.  Mack, Arthur S.  Ainsberg, Medley
Management Inc. ("MDLY"), Sierra Income Corporation ("Sierra"),
Medley Capital Corporation ("MCC"), MCC Advisors LLC ("MCC
Advisors"), Medley Group LLC ("Medley Group"), and Medley LLC.

The complaint, as amended on February 12, 2019, alleged that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
MCC stockholders in connection with the proposed merger of MCC with
Sierra, and that MDLY, Sierra, MCC Advisors, Medley Group, and
Medley LLC aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint sought to enjoin the vote of MCC
stockholders on the proposed merger and enjoin enforcement of
certain provisions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
August 9, 2018, by and between MCC and Sierra (the "MCC Merger
Agreement").

The Company is considering all available options, including appeal,
with respect to the Decision.

Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield
solutions to retail and institutional investors.  The company
focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily
originating senior secured loans to private middle market companies
in the United States that have revenues between US$50 million and
US$1 billion.


MEDLEY LLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medley LLC still defends itself against a consolidated class action
currently pending in Virginia, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley Management Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and
Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15,
2017 and amended on March 9, 2018, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division,
as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No.
3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy,
Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and
Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the
"Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class
Actions, the "Class Action Complaints").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.

The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended);
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in
Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants
in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan.  The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP in 2011.  American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1
year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by
American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in
Class Action 1.

In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.
In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives
claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various
times from February 2015 through April 2018.

In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff
representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan
in 2017.

By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes.

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of their claims, without prejudice, against
Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP and Medley Capital Corporation.

On October 22, 2018, the parties to Class Action 2 settled.  On
October 29, 2018, the plaintiffs in Class Action 2 stipulated to
the dismissal of their claims against all defendants in Class
Action 2 (including Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley
Capital Corporation), with prejudice.

Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube never made any loans
or provided financing to, or had any other relationship with,
American Web Loan.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification from American Web
Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with respect to the
claims in the Class Action Complaints.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, and Seth Taube believe the alleged claims in the Class
Action Complaints are without merit and they intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously.

Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield
solutions to retail and institutional investors.  The company
focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily
originating senior secured loans to private middle market companies
in the United States that have revenues between US$50 million and
US$1 billion.


MEMORIAL HEALTH: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Myers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LYNNETT MYERS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. MEMORIAL HEALTH
SYSTEM MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al Defendants, Case No.
2:15-CV-2956 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Plaintiffs Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther are former nurses
at Defendant Marietta Memorial Hospital, which is operated by
Memorial Health System.  Memorial Health System also operates
Defendants Selby General Hospital and Marietta Health Care, Inc.,
and all of these entities function as joint employers of Memorial
Health System's employees and operate as a single integrated
system.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' policy of automatically
deducting 30 minutes for a meal break for nurses and patient care
technicians violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio
wage laws because employees are routinely prohibited from either
taking an uninterrupted meal break or canceling the automatic
deduction.  They commenced the collective and class action against
the Defendants in October 2015.  They bring causes of action under
the FLSA and related Ohio laws.

In August 2016, the Court certified conditionally the class, under
the FLSA, of all of the Defendants' current and former hourly
employees who were responsible for direct patient care and were
subject to the Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy at any
time during the three years prior to the granting of the motion for
conditional certification to the present.

After the case was conditionally certified as a collective action,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order,
alleging that the Defendants coerced, intimidated and harassed
absent class members and created an "atmosphere of fear" such that
class members were afraid to opt in to the lawsuit.  The Court
granted the Plaintiffs' motion and granted in part their subsequent
motion for a preliminary injunction.

In granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction,
the Court re-opened the opt-in period for the class of nearly 2000
individuals through May 1, 2017, and permitted the Plaintiffs to
reissue the previously-approved notice to the entire class.  The
Defendants were also enjoined and restrained from communicating
directly or indirectly with the putative class members about the
lawsuit, with the injunction to remain in place until the Court
issues a ruling on the instant motion.

In September 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.   The Defendants had earlier filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment which was fully briefed before the Defendants'
Motion was dismissed without prejudice after the Defendants filed a
Motion indicating that merits discovery was incomplete.  The
Plaintiffs also filed a Motion which in part opposes the
Defendants' now-dismissed Motion for Summary Judgment and in part
requests Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs first request summary judgment on the issue of FLSA
liability, arguing there is no genuine dispute of material fact
that Defendants violated the wage provisions of the FLSA.  Judge
Marbley holds the motion must be denied because genuine disputes of
material fact remain.  

In White v. Baptist Memorial Health Corp., the Sixth Circuit,
reviewing the grant of summary judgment, saw "no evidence" that the
employer "discouraged employees" from accurately recording when
they worked during lunch, and no evidence that the employer
generally knew that the nurses were failing to report time worked
during lunch despite the automatic meal deduction.  By contrast,
there is evidence to this effect in the record in the instant case.
Several Plaintiffs have testified that they brought the issue to
the attention of their supervisors, and some also testify they were
reprimanded for doing so.  This indicates that there is evidence
both that the Defendants "discouraged employees" and that they were
"otherwise notified" that the Plaintiffs were failing to report
time worked.  This factually distinguishes White from the instant
case.  The question of when the Defendants knew about the
apparently systematic failure to cancel the lunch deduction is a
disputed question of material fact.  As such, the Plaintiffs'
motion is not barred by White, as the Defendants argue, but neither
is summary judgment appropriate at this time.

The Plaintiffs also request summary judgment on their Ohio state
law claims.  These Ohio statutes are interpreted in tandem with the
Federal FLSA.  As a result, for the foregoing reasons, summary
judgment is not appropriate at this time because there remain
genuine disputes of material fact.

Next, they request summary judgment that the Defendants are in
violation of the FLSA's record-keeping requirements.  The Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs may submit evidence about the Defendants'
alleged record-keeping violations to a jury at a trial to support
their argument that the Defendants acted willfully, but the
Plaintiffs may not maintain a separate cause of action alleging
violations of Section 211(c).  As to this count, summary judgment
is denied.

The Plaintiffs' final argument is that there is no genuine dispute
that the Defendants' violations of the FLSA were willful.  This
question depends in substantial part on the evidence about the
Defendants' knowledge.  As a result, summary judgment is not
appropriate at this time.  Because a determination of the
Defendants' willfulness will also affect the determination of
damages, the Judge will not address the issue of damages at this
time.  As to this count, summary judgment is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Marbley holds there remains a
genuine dispute of material fact such that summary judgment would
be inappropriate at this time.  Accordingly, he denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/qSBLt7 from Leagle.com.

Lynnett Myers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lance Chapin --
lchapin@chapinlegal.com -- Chapin Legal Group, LLC, David P. Meyer
-- dmeyer@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, John C.
Camillus -- jcamillus@camilluslaw.com -- Law Offices of John C.
Camillus, LLC, Matthew R. Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com --
Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, Michael J. Boyle, Jr. --
mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson, LPA & Steven Charles Babin,
Jr. -- sbabin@chapinlegal.com -- Babin Law, LLC.

Carol Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Arva Lowther, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lance Chapin, Chapin
Legal Group, LLC, David P. Meyer, Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, Matthew R.
Wilson, Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Meyer Wilson,
LPA & Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Babin Law, LLC.

Marietta Memorial Hospital & Marietta Health Care Inc, doing
business as Memorial Health System, Defendants, represented by
James Edward Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller
LLP, Catherine L. Strauss -- catherine.strauss@icemiller.com -- Ice
Miller LLP & Daniel Culicover, Ice Miller LLP.

Selby General Hospital, Scott J. Cantley & Eric Young, Defendants,
represented by James Edward Davidson, Ice Miller LLP & Catherine L.
Strauss, Ice Miller LLP.


MERIDIAN CORP: Bid for Collective Status Pending in Jordan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, Juan Jordan et al.  v. Meridian Bank, et al.,
the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the case as a
collective action remains pending, according to Meridian
Corporation's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 1, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2018.

On November 21, 2017 several former employees of the
mortgage-banking division of Meridian Bank filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Juan Jordan et al.  v. Meridian Bank, et al.,
purporting to be a class and collective action seeking unpaid and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of
1968 on behalf of similarly situated plaintiffs.

On June 4, 2018 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which
Meridian answered, denying the claims and presenting affirmative
defenses.

Presently before the court is plaintiffs' motion to conditionally
certify the case as a collective action, which preliminary motion
Meridian has opposed, and which motion remains pending.

The Company said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, success on the merits, the Bank has
recorded a US$200 thousand reserve as a reasonable estimate for
possible losses that may result from this action.  This estimate
may change from time to time, and actual losses, if any, could
vary."

Meridian Corporation operates as the bank holding for Meridian Bank
that provides commercial banking products and services for retail
and commercial customers primarily in southeastern Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and south New Jersey.  The Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


MGT CAPITAL: Class Suits in New Jersey & New York Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
MGT Capital Investments, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend class action suits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

In September 2018 and October 2018, various shareholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company,
its former Chief Executive Officer and certain of its individual
officers and shareholders, alleging violations of federal
securities laws and seeking damages (the "2018 Securities Class
Actions").

The 2018 Securities Class Action followed and referenced the
allegations made against the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer and others in the SEC Action.

The first putative class action lawsuit was filed on September 28,
2018, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, and alleges that the named defendants engaged in a
pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's stock and that, as a result, defendants' statements about
the Company's business and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at relevant times.

The second putative class action was filed on October 9, 2018, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and makes similar allegations.

The Company intends to defend against the 2018 Securities Class
Actions vigorously.

MGT Capital Investments, Inc. engages in bitcoin mining operations
in the Wenatchee Valley area of central Washington. At March 30,
2018, it owned and operated approximately 500 miners located in a
leased facility in Quincy, Washington; and 4,200 miners located in
a leased facility in Sweden, as well as operated approximately
2,100 miners in the Sweden location. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Debt Collection Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Midland
Credit Management Inc. lost its bid to send a consumer debt
collection practices class action to arbitration March 22.

The debt collector bought the plaintiffs' credit card account but
provided no evidence that it also bought the right to arbitrate
disputes about the account, Judge Mark A. Kearney wrote for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

"Midland needs to show us what it purchased. As of March 26, it has
not done so," the court said. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Regan FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Patrick Regan, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 621974/2018, was removed on April 5,
2019, from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01976 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          Matthew B. Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULLERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6229
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: esilverman@hinshawlaw.com
                  mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Young Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as June L Young Gonzales
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02161-SJF-ARL (E.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Court Drops 2 OvaScience Merger Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court dismissed on
March 18, 2019, the Cuenca Aubets and Kim lawsuits over a merger
transaction for failure to serve.

Between October 16, 2018 and November 21, 2018, five putative class
action lawsuits were filed in various federal District Courts
against OvaScience and the OvaScience Board of Directors related to
OvaScience's proposed reverse merger with Millendo Therapeutics,
Inc.:

  * Cunningham v. Kroeger, et al., No. 1:18-cv-01595 (D.  Del.
filed Oct.  16, 2018);
  * Adlard v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-12332 (D.
Mass.  filed Nov.  6, 2018);
  * Wheby v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-1811 (D.  Del.
filed Nov.  16, 2018);
  * Cuenca Aubets v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-10882
(S.D.N.Y.  filed Nov.  20, 2018); and
  * Kim v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-10939 (S.D.N.Y.
filed Nov.  21, 2018).

The Complaints each alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and as against the individual defendants, violations of
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Cunningham plaintiff alleged that OvaScience's Form S-4
Registration Statement filed on September 26, 2018 omitted or
misrepresented material information regarding OvaScience's proposed
reverse merger with Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. The Adlard, Whelby,
Cuenca Aubets and Kim plaintiffs alleged that OvaScience's
Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed on November 6,
2018, omitted or misrepresented material information regarding
OvaScience's proposed reverse merger with Millendo Therapeutics,
Inc. OvaScience subsequently supplemented its disclosures.

The Company said, "The Cunningham plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
his complaint on December 10, 2018, and the Wheby, Jr.  plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed his complaint on February 28, 2019.  On March
18, 2019, the court dismissed the Cuenca Aubets and Kim actions for
failure to serve.  We are currently in negotiation with counsel for
the plaintiffs regarding their demands for attorneys' fees.  There
can be no assurance that the negotiations will be successful.  If
the negotiations are not successful, we may be required to litigate
the fee applications and/or the underlying actions."

Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of various treatments for
orphan endocrine diseases in the United States.  The company's lead
drug candidates include livoletide, an unacylated ghrelin analogue
to treat for Prader-Willi syndrome; and nevanimibe, which is in
Phase 2b clinical development for the treatment of congenital
adrenal hyperplasia and endogenous Cushing's syndrome.  The Company
is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Freedman Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the parties in a purported shareholder
class action suit led by Freedman Family Investments LLC, are
presently engaged in discovery.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D.  Mass.))
against certain former officers and directors of OvaScience and one
of the Company's current directors (a former director of
OvaScience) alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, or the Dahhan Action.

On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the
appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff,
the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the
Law Office of Alan L.  Kovacs as local counsel.  Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 25, 2017.

The Company said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which the court denied on July 31, 2018.  On August 14,
2018, we answered the amended complaint.  The parties presently are
engaged in discovery.  We believe that the amended complaint is
without merit and we intend to defend against the litigation.
There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful.  A
resolution of this lawsuit adverse to us or the other defendants
could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position
and results of operations.  At present, we are unable to estimate
potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit."

Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of various treatments for
orphan endocrine diseases in the United States.  The company's lead
drug candidates include livoletide, an unacylated ghrelin analogue
to treat for Prader-Willi syndrome; and nevanimibe, which is in
Phase 2b clinical development for the treatment of congenital
adrenal hyperplasia and endogenous Cushing's syndrome.  The Company
is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


MONSANTO CO: Faces Schafer Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SCHAFER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02292 (N.D.
Ill., April 4, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff's herbicide
Roundup(R)-related injuries, like those striking thousands of
similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The action seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by
the Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful
conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          Ken Moll, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com
                  kmoll@molllawgroup.com


MONSANTO CO: Fails to Give Proper Roundup(R) Warnings, Erb Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ERB v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02282 (N.D. Ill.,
April 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendant fails to provide
adequate warnings and precautions that would have enabled the
Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, to utilize its
herbicide Roundup(R) safely and with adequate protection.

The action seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by
the Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful
conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          Ken Moll, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com
                  kmoll@molllawgroup.com


MONSANTO CO: Roundup Had No Adequate Warnings, Batherson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARLAND BATHERSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02285 (N.D.
Ill., April 4, 2019), alleges that Defendant's Roundup(R) herbicide
did not contain adequate warnings and precautions that would have
enabled the Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, to
utilize the product safely and with adequate protection.

The action seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by
the Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful
conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          Ken Moll, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com
                  kmoll@molllawgroup.com


MONSANTO CO: Smith Files Suit Over Roundup-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY A. SMITH v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 5:19-cv-00157-JMH
(E.D. Ky., April 5, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff's
Roundup(R)-related injuries, like those striking thousands of
similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The action is brought for damages allegedly 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(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.  The
Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) 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.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.  The Company advertises and sells goods,
specifically Roundup(R), in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 South 4th Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
                  ashton@moorelawgroup.com


MONSANTO CO: Smith Seeks to Recover Damages for Roundup(R) Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY SMITH v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02289 (N.D. Ill.,
April 4, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained
by Plaintiff, like other similarly situated victims, as the direct
and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the
Defendant in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant's herbicide Roundup(R)
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.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          Ken Moll, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com
                  kmoll@molllawgroup.com


MONSANTO CO: Sued by Chatman Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANEIL CHATMAN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293 (N.D.
Ill., April 4, 2019), arises from Roundup(R)-related injuries, like
those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country.

The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant's herbicide Roundup(R)
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.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          Ken Moll, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com
                  kmoll@molllawgroup.com


MONSANTO CO: Sued by Shultz Over Inadequate Roundup(R) Warnings
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE SHULTZ v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02304 (N.D.
Ill., April 4, 2019), alleges that Defendant's herbicide Roundup(R)
did not contain adequate warnings and precautions that would have
enabled the Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, to
utilize the product safely and with adequate protection.

The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant's herbicide Roundup(R)
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.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          Ken Moll, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com
                  kmoll@molllawgroup.com


MOVIEPASS: Faces Class Action Over Subscription Service
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Chmura, Christine Roher, Joe Rojas, and James Jackson,
writing for NBC Bay Area, report that frustrated film fans say they
paid for a service they didn't get, and that the company behind it
is ignoring them.

MoviePass saw its subscription numbers soar above 3 million when it
launched a plan in 2017 letting moviegoers watch one flick each day
for $9.95 per month.  Since then, the troubled movie ticket service
has repeatedly changed pricing plans, strictly limited the number
of films users can see each month, and endured technical problems.

Some of its remaining customers are fed up.

"It's frustrating," said Catherine Berry, a MoviePass subscriber.
"I feel like I've been cheated."

MoviePass Parent Company Lost $100 Million in the Second Quarter

Berry paid $90 for a yearlong MoviePass subscription. It originally
let her watch one movie a day in select theaters. She says she
loved it for about a month -- before available movies stopped
showing up in the MoviePass phone app.

"I was lucky to get maybe one a month in," Berry said.

David Silver shares Berry's dismay at the box office dud. He lives
walking distance from his favorite cinema, but he says frequent
visits show "no screenings at this theater."

New York AG Launches Probe Into MoviePass Parent Company

"Boom. No movies available," Silver said, demonstrating the lack of
showings on his MoviePass app.

Silver says the poor response from company representatives makes
the experience even worse.

"I might as well start a fire and try to send customer service
smoke signals," he said. "They're more likely to answer that, than
their phone or the email I sent."

MoviePass to Be Spun Off From Parent Company
NBC Responds has received dozens of MoviePass complaints from
viewers since early 2018, including 15 in the Bay Area.  Customer
complaints also got the attention of San Francisco attorney David
Rosenberg-Wohl.

"It's very, very frustrating," he said.

Rosenberg-Wohl has filed a federal lawsuit against MoviePass. He's
framed the case as a national class action.

"This is MoviePass," Rosenberg-Wohl said. "This is not, 'come and
see an occasional movie when we say so and when we want to.'"

NBC Bay Area contacted MoviePass about the case.  It directed us to
its contract with members, and told us they can't sue -- neither
individually, nor as an ensemble.

In a statement, MoviePass told us:

"The claims asserted in this action are covered by an arbitration
provision and a class action waiver in MoviePass' Terms of Use,
which all of the Plaintiffs were required to accept before they
could begin using the MoviePass service. On March 8, 2019,
MoviePass and its parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics
Inc., moved the Court to compel arbitration of each Plaintiff's
claims on an individual (i.e., non-class) basis. That motion is
currently pending, and we await the Court's decision. Because
arbitration is a confidential process, we cannot comment further on
the merits of the underlying disputes at this time."

Rosenberg-Wohl says a jury should decide if MoviePass is a bad
actor, and whether it actually delivered the access it touts as
"Uncapped, unrivaled, and unbelievable" that subscribers paid
nearly $10 per month to get.

"We're not talking about great amounts of money on a monthly basis,
or even an annual basis," Rosenberg-Wohl said. "It's the principle
of the thing."

The lawsuit is Tabas v. MoviePass, Inc. 18-7087, filed in the U.S.
District Court, Northern District Court of California. [GN]


NANTHEALTH INC: Employees Retirement Fund Class Suit Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action complaint of Bucks County Employees
Retirement Fund against NantHealth, Inc. remains stayed, according
to the NantHealth's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

In May 2017, the putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to
those in Deora.  That case is captioned Bucks County Employees
Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330.  The parties have
agreed to stay the case until the next case management conference,
scheduled for September 17, 2019.

The Company said it believes that the claims lack merit and intends
to vigorously defend the litigation.

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
evidence-based personalized healthcare company in the United States
and internationally.  The company engages in converging science and
technology through an integrated clinical platform to provide
health information at the point of care.  The company was founded
in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California.
NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NANTHEALTH INC: Motion to Certify 2 Classes in Deora Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the Deora class action suit against NantHealth, Inc., the lead
plaintiffs' motion for certification of two plaintiff classes
remains pending, according to the NantHealth's Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its current or former executive officers and directors.
These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case
captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825.

In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's IPO registration statement and in subsequent public
statements.  In particular, the complaint refers to various
third-party articles in alleging that defendants misrepresented
NantHealth's business with the University of Utah, donations to the
university by non-profit entities associated with the Company's
founder Dr.  Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer.  The lead
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of
putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired NantHealth
securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1, 2016
through May 1, 2017.

In March 2018, the court largely denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  In September 2018, the
lead plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two plaintiff
classes.

The Company said it believes that the claims lack merit and intends
to vigorously defend the litigation.

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
evidence-based personalized healthcare company in the United States
and internationally.  The company engages in converging science and
technology through an integrated clinical platform to provide
health information at the point of care.  The company was founded
in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California.
NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NASCAR HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over ISC Buyout Offer
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Jordan, writing for Kickin'the Tires, reports that
information contained in the annual report for International
Speedway Corporation has revealed the company, NASCAR Holdings Inc.
and others including Lesa France Kennedy, James "Jim" France and
Brian France are facing a class-action lawsuit for alleged breach
of fiduciary duty and other allegations by the Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis and "others similarly situated."

The lawsuit filed on Dec. 14, 2018, in Volusia County, Florida.
came a little more than a month after NASCAR and ISC announced on
Nov. 9 that NASCAR was seeking to buy out ISC shareholders at a
price of $42 per share and take the now-publicly-traded company
private. The offer was valued at approximately $1.9 billion,
according to Bloomberg.

"Plaintiff, The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, on behalf
of itself and a class of all other similarly situated public
stockholders of International Speedway Corporation, brings the
following class action complaint against members of ISC's
controlling stockholder, ISC's board of directors, and ISC's Chief
Financial Officer, for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection
with the proposed acquisition of ISC by NASCAR Holdings, Inc.,
which the France Family also controls," states the complaint filed
by Philip J. Snyderburn, Esq. with the law firm of Snyderburn,
Rishoi & Swann, on behalf of the plaintiffs. "Plaintiff also brings
this Complaint against NASCAR for aiding and abetting these
breaches of fiduciary duty. The allegations in this Complaint are
based upon the knowledge of Plaintiff as to itself, and on
information and belief, including an investigation by Plaintiff's
counsel and review of publicly available information."

The lawsuit claims the $42 per share price is "wholly inadequate"
and, as such, the France Family "has deliberately caused the stock
price of the company to collapse." The lawsuit claims that ISC
stock had consistently traded within a few dollars of the $42 per
share offer prior to the third quarter's earnings report on October
4 but that the France Family, "did not want ISC' s stock price to
rise in October 2018, because it would make their effort, through
NASCAR, to take ISC private much more expensive."

"Instead, to drive down ISC's stock price in advance of NASCAR's
offer to buy ISC's minority shares, defendants James France and
Lesa France Kennedy used their positions as ISC's controlling
stockholders and Company directors and officers to cause ISC to
announce substantially reduced guidance for ISC's fiscal year on
October 4, 2018," the lawsuit states. "Predictably, ISC's stock
price fell substantially and closed at $35.30 on Oct. 4, 2018. The
stock price remained in the $30s per share for the next twenty-five
trading days, through Nov. 8, 2018.

On Nov. 8, 2018, James France and Lesa France Kennedy caused NASCAR
to send a proposal to the Board offering to acquire all of ISC's
outstanding shares that the France Family does not already own for
$42 per share (the "Proposal"). James France and Lesa France
Kennedy touted the Proposal as a 14% premium to ISC's 30-day volume
weighted average price ("VWAP") per share. Of course, that
statement ignores that the stock had consistently closed above $40
since April 2018, all the way up to the misleading October
Guidance. The day after receiving the Proposal, the Board publicly
announced that it had formed a four-member special committee of
so-called "independent directors" to "consider" NASCAR's Proposal.
The Proposal pointedly did not suggest that the Special Committee
should have the ability to "negotiate" alternative terms; rather,
the Proposal merely authorized the Special Committee to "consider"
the Proposal, and to "make a recommendation to the Company's Board
of Directors." Of course, ISC's Board is controlled by the France
Family, so the Board's freedom to reject any such "recommendation"
is illusory."

Kickin' the Tires reported on the day of the merger the stock price
for ISC closed down 44-cents at $39.06 per share – one minute
before the announcement of NASCAR's intention was made public.
However, with news of the potential buyout the stock rebounded over
the next several weeks.

In the initial announcement from Nov. 9, following the stock
market's closure, NASCAR released a statement with similar wording
to that of a filing from ISC that, "NASCAR's offer will be reviewed
by a special committee of independent ISC board members advised by
independent legal and financial advisors. In the interim, NASCAR
and ISC will continue to operate separately as independent entities
working to deliver great racing experiences to our fans everywhere.
The outcome of this prospective offer will not impact the France
family's long-term commitment to the sport, nor its interest in
maintaining its current ownership in ISC, as the France family is
not interested in selling its shares of ISC at this time."

In the ISC filing at approximately the same time, the company
confirmed the independent committee stating, "The ISC Board has
formed a special committee (the "Special Committee") comprised of
J. Hyatt Brown, Larry Aiello, Jr., Larree Renda and William Graves
, each of whom is an independent director of the Company, to act on
behalf of the Company to consider this proposal. Mr. Brown, the
Company's lead independent director, will serve as Chairman of the
Special Committee. The Special Committee will be advised by
independent legal and financial advisors. NASCAR's offer will be
reviewed by the Special Committee and will be subject to the
approval of the holders of a majority of the Company's outstanding
common stock, other than the common stock held by the France
family. In the interim, NASCAR and ISC will continue to operate as
separate and independent entities.

"The Company cautions shareholders and others considering trading
in its securities that the Board just received the non-binding
proposal letter from NASCAR and no decisions have been made with
respect to the Company's response to the proposal. There can be no
assurance that any definitive offer will be made, that any
agreement will be executed or that this or any other transaction
will be approved or consummated."

The lawsuit also alleges that two of the four members of the
special committee (all have been named as defendants in the
lawsuit) are closely tied to France Family. The lawsuit suggests
those close personal and/or professional relationships "cripples
their ability to consider the Proposal impartially and protect the
interests of ISC' s minority stockholders. And all four members of
the Special Committee served on ISC's audit committee that,
according to its charter, was responsible for approving the October
Guidance.

"Thus, not only did James France and Lesa France Kennedy manipulate
ISC's stock price, and initiate, structure and opportunistically
time the Proposal to create the illusion that the $42 per share
price was a premium offer, but the Proposal is now in the hands of
a Special Committee whose members the France Family and NASCAR know
lack independence and have no genuine ability to negotiate fair
buyout terms for ISC's minority stockholders."

The lawsuit claims the reason that NASCAR is attempting to buy ISC
and, more importantly, its assets in the form of its 13 racetracks,
is to make NASCAR more attractive to a potential buyer. In May
2018, the lawsuit states, that the France Family initiated a
"strategic review" to sell a large stake of NASCAR.

When asked about the lawsuit a representative of NASCAR and ISC
said the two companies had "no comment" on the pending litigation.

A statement was made about the lawsuit in ISC's annual report. The
company does not believe there will be any adverse outcome and
discusses the indemnity of its corporate officers.

"From time to time, we are a party to ordinary routine litigation
incidental to our business. We do not believe that the resolution
of any or all of such litigation will have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition or results of operations," reads
the statement in the annual report. "Mergers, such as the one
proposed in the NASCAR Offer, often attract litigation from
minority shareholders. On December 14, 2018, a putative
class-action shareholder lawsuit was filed in the Seventh Judicial
Circuit of Volusia County, Florida by attorneys on behalf of the
Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis related to the NASCAR
Offer. The complaint names as defendants the Company, its
directors, its CFO, NASCAR Holdings, and certain of the Family
Stockholders, and alleges bread of fiduciary duty and for aiding
and abetting those breaches. The Company currently maintains
Directors & Officers Insurance Applicable insurance policies
contain certain customary limitations, conditions and exclusions
and are subject to a self-insured retention amount."

Further, the report mentions that the France Family's control of
NASCAR may create conflicts of interest but does not mention the
issues brought forth in the lawsuit; instead focusing on how family
members interact with each company.

"Members of the France Family Group own and control NASCAR. James
C. France, our Chairman of the Board, and Lesa France Kennedy, our
Vice Chairwoman and Chief Executive Officer, are both members of
the France Family Group in addition to holding positions with
NASCAR. Each of them, as well as our general counsel, chief
innovation and development officer, chief communications officer,
senior vice president of human resources and chief marketing
officer, spends part of his or her time on NASCAR's business.
Because of these relationships, even though all related party
transactions are approved by our Audit Committee, certain potential
conflicts of interest between us and NASCAR exist with respect to,
among other things:

   -- The terms of any sanctioning agreements that may be awarded
to us by NASCAR;
   -- The amount of time the employees mentioned above and certain
of our other employees devote to NASCAR's affairs;
   -- and the amounts charged or paid to NASCAR for office rental,
transportation costs, shared executives, administrative expenses
and similar items."

It should be noted that although ISC stock closed below $40 per
share on the day the buyout plan was announced, the stock has
continued to climb and at the time of publication, is currently
trading at $43.06 per share -- more than a $1 above the $42 offer,
according to the NASDAQ. Additionally, Q4 financial earnings were
strong and the company's annual report lays out a positive
outlook.

For the fifth year in a row, ISC increased its annual dividend paid
to shareholders, which was 47-cents per share, up from 43-cents per
share in 2017. The 2018 dividend was more than double the dividend
paid in 2014 of 22-cents per share. Revenue from the Hollywood
Casino at Kansas Speedway contributed to more than $26 million to
ISC's bottom line and the continued growth of One Daytona is
benefitting the company, as well, with many new venues now open.
The company also benefitted significantly from the Tax Cut and Jobs
Act of 2017 resulting in a tax adjustment of $145.1 million,
according to its annual report.

"During the first quarter of fiscal 2018, as a result of the Tax
Act, we incurred a material, non-cash reduction of our deferred
income tax liabilities and a corresponding material income tax
benefit of approximately $143.9 million primarily due to the
Federal income tax rate reduction from 35.0 percent to 21.0
percent," the report states.

ISC came off 2018 with the sale of all of its entitlement
sponsorships for NASCAR Cup and Xfinity Series races and achieved a
sales revenue goal of 95-percent of what they were expecting. Going
into 2019, as of January, the company had sold all but two
entitlement sponsorships for each of its top two racing series.

The plaintiffs do not list a damage amount being sought from the
lawsuit. [GN]


NCAA: Feldman Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned CHET FELDMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00729,
was transferred on April 3, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02061
to the proceeding.

Chet Feldman brings the Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury
Trial against the Defendant to obtain redress for injuries
sustained a result of its alleged reckless disregard for the health
and safety of generations of Ohio University student-athletes.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at OU.  According to the NCAA, more than 1,200 schools,
conferences and affiliate organizations collectively invest in
improving the experiences of athletes--on the field, in the
classroom, and in life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NECA/IBEW FAMILY: Bid to Certify Class in Mental Health Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, D.T. by and through his parents and guardians, K.T.
and W.T., individually, on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, and on behalf of the NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care
Plan Plaintiff, v. NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE NECA/IBEW FAMLY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, SALVATORE J.
CHILIA, ROBERT P. KLEIN, DARRELL L. MCCUBBINS, GEARY HIGGINS,
LAWRENCE J. MOTER, JR., KEVIN TIGHE, JERRY SIMS, AND ANY OTHER
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NECA/IBEW FAMILY
MEDICAL CARE PLAN, Defendants, Case No. C17-00004 RAJ (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

Plaintiff D.T., a three-year-old dependent on his parent's
NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, was diagnosed with a
developmental mental health condition.  Defendant FMCP is a
multiemployer health and welfare plan within the meaning of Section
3(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), that has been established pursuant to an agreement
entered into between the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers ("IBEW") and the National Electrical Contractors
Association ("NECA") for the purpose of providing major medical
benefits to covered employees.

Under the Plan, the Defendants, who also comprise the Board of
Trustees for the Plan, cover mental health services to treat mental
health conditions.  The Plan covers certain mental health or
nervous disorder benefits. The definition of "mental or nervous
disorder" is broadly defined: A neurosis, psychoneurosis,
psychopathy, psychosis or mental or emotional disease or disorder
of any kind, regardless of whether such condition, disease or
disorder has causes or origins which are organic, physiological,
traumatic or functional.  It is unclear whether autism spectrum
disorder ("ASD") falls within the definition. Plaintiff claims that
it does.  The Plan excludes coverage for benefits related to
development delays.  

D.T. sought coverage for either neurodevelopmental therapies
("NDT") or Applied Behavior Analysis ("ABA") therapy but was denied
under his Plan's Development Delay Exclusion.  The Plaintiff
alleges this exclusion is a uniform policy excluding all coverage
for NDT and ABA therapies to treat developmental mental health
conditions like ASD, even when medically necessary.  The Plaintiff
claims that the Plan covers other benefits associated with
developmental mental health conditions, and therefore the uniform
exclusion of coverage for NDT and ABA therapy is a violation of the
Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act of 2008.

The Defendants argue that the Plan legitimately excludes coverage
for any developmental mental health conditions, and therefore there
is no Parity Act violation for its refusal to cover NDT or ABA
therapy benefits.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on Jan. 4, 2017.   The Plaintiff
asserted three ERISA claims against the Defendants: (1) recovery of
benefits; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) equitable relief.
On March 10, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims, which the Court denied.

On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Class
Certification, which is now before the Court.  The Plaintiffs seek
to certify the prospective class defined as all individuals who (i)
have been, are or will be participants or beneficiaries under the
NECA-IBEW Family Medical Care Plan at any time on or after Jan. 4,
2011; and (ii) require neurodevelopmental therapy (speech,
occupational or physical therapy) or applied behavior analysis
therapy to treat a qualified mental health condition.

The Defendants assert two main objections to the Plaintiff's
proposed class definition.  The Defendants first contend that the
Plaintiff's proposed class is "overly broad and not ascertainable."
They next argue that the proposed class should not include those
who "will require" NDT therapies because there is "no legal mandate
to provide coverage to future participants."

Judge Jones holds he has little problem ascertaining the scope of
the Plaintiff's proposed class.  Even if he did, however, a lack of
ascertainability alone will not defeat class certification, he
would still continue to analyze whether the requirements of Rule 23
have been met.  Also, as the Plaintiff rightly observes, the
Defendants' argument echoes the arguments set forth in their motion
to dismiss.  The Court denied Defendants' motion then, reasoning
that if the Plan covers certain benefits for beneficiaries
diagnosed with ASD but refuses to cover ABA therapy, then this may
be a violation of the Parity Act.  He also sees little reason to
change that ruling at this stage, particularly because a defendant
cannot defeat class certification by arguing that it will win on
the merits, which is what the Defendants seemingly attempt to do.

Having rejected the Defendant's threshold arguments against the
Plaintiff's proposed class definition, the Judge next turns to
whether the proposed class meets the four requirements of Rule
23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.  He finds
that the Plaintiff has satisfied these requirements.  Class
certification under 23(b)(2) is therefore appropriate.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jones granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

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

D. T., by and through his parents and guardians, K.T. and W.T.,
individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and on
behalf of the NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, Plaintiff,
represented by Richard E. Spoonemore -- rspoonemore@sylaw.com --
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER & Eleanor Hamburger --
ehamburger@sylaw.com -- SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER.

NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, The Board of Trustees of the
NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, Salvatore J. Chilia, Robert P.
Klein, Darrell L. McCubbins, Geary Higgins, Lawrence J. Moter, Jr.,
Kevin Tighe & Jerry Simms, Defendants, represented by Katie M.
Burch -- kburch@phk-law.com -- POTTS-DUPRE, HAWKINS & KRAMER CHTD,
pro hac vice, Tiffany D. Downs -- tdowns@fordharrison.com -- FORD
HARRISON LLP, pro hac vice & Kristina Detwiler, ROBBLEE DETWILER &
BLACK.

Any other individual member of the Board of Trustees of NECA/IBEW
Family Medical Care Plan, Defendant, pro se.


NEW TECH: Decertification Bid in M. Clay Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In MICHAEL D. CLAY, ET AL., v. NEW TECH GLOBAL VENTURES, LLC, Civil
Action No. 16-296-JWD-CBW (W.D. La.), District Judge John W.
DeGravelles ordered:

   (1) New Tech's Motion to Sever Claims by Plaintiff Gene Holbrook
is granted, and Holbrook's claims are dismissed without prejudice;

   (2) New Tech's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted in
part and denied in part;

   (3) New Tech's Motion for Decertification is granted in part and
denied in part, and the claims of opt-in Plaintiffs Joshua William
Warren, Joseph LaVelle Anderson, and John Robertson Harvey are
dismissed without prejudice;

   (4) New Tech's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Gene
Holbrook is denied as moot; and

   (5) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

With respect to New Tech's decertification motion, after
preliminary certification was granted in September 2016, New Tech
seeks to decertify the class of plaintiffs as not sufficiently
similarly situated for FLSA purposes to proceed as a collective.
As they have maintained throughout this lawsuit and their motions
practice, the plaintiffs contend that they are similarly situated
and warrant class treatment.

The Court held that the common thread in all of these cases is that
the application of the economic realities test will invariably
require different proof -- and could produce different outcomes --
for each of the plaintiffs in the ultimate determination of whether
each plaintiff was properly classified as an independent contractor
under the FLSA.  Thus, despite being jointly subject to an alleged
misclassification and (in many cases) signing the same agreement,
if the economic realities test requires different proof and is
unlikely to produce the same result for each plaintiff in the
collective, certification is not appropriate.

A full-text copy of the March 4, 2019 Order and Ruling is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yxk6hs55 from Leagle.com.

Michael D. Clay, Larre G Butler & Clayton Shamsie, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kenneth D. St Pe, Law Office of Kenneth D. St. Pe &
Matthew Scott Parmet, Parmet PC.

New Tech Global Ventures LLC, Defendant, represented by Annette A.
Idalski, Esq. -- annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com -- Chamberlain
Hrdlicka, pro hac vice, David S. O'Neil, New Tech Global Ventures,
pro hac vice, Donna P. Currault, Esq. -- dcurrault@gamb.law --
Gordon Arata, Kyle D. Winnick, Esq. --
Kyle.Winnick@Chamberlainlaw.com -- Chamberlain Hrdlicka, pro hac
vice, Peter N. Hall, Esq. -- peter.hall@chamberlainlaw.com --
Chamberlain Hrdlicka, pro hac vice & Ryan Philip McAlister, Esq. --
rmcalister@gamb.law -- Gordon Arata.


NEWPARK DRILLING: Golsborough Sues Over Mud Engineers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM A. GOLSBOROUGH v. NEWPARK DRILLING FLUIDS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00309-GJF-GBW (D.N.M., April 4, 2019), is brought as an
opt-out Rule 23 class action against the Defendant pursuant to the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure brought on behalf of similarly situated mud
engineers.

The Defendant paid Mud Engineers on a salary basis subject to its
"OT Misclassification Policy" that paid them on a day rate basis
and denied them overtime for all hours worked over 40 per workweek,
the Plaintiff contends.

Newpark is a limited liability company doing business in New
Mexico.  Newpark is a company that provides drilling fluids
products and drilling fluid services to wells located in New Mexico
and the Permian Basin.  To provide these products and services, the
Defendant employed the Plaintiff and other "Mud Engineers."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: Jack@siegellawgroup.biz

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          5438 Rutherglenn Drive
          Houston, TX 77096
          Telephone: (512) 417-5716
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com


NIAGARA BOTTLING: Class Certification Sought in Frompovicz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Stanley F. Frompovicz d/b/a
Far Away Springs, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Niagara Bottling, LLC; Ice River Springs Water Co.
Inc.; Crossroads Beverage Group; and James J. Land, Jr. d/b/a MC
Resource Development a/k/a Pine Valley Farms Springs, Case No.
2:18-cv-00054-WB (E.D. Pa.), moves for class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  dstanoch@golombhonik.com


NIO INC: Jeon Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
Markus Jeon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NIO INC., BIN "WILLIAM" LI, and LOUIS T.
HSIEH a/k/a TUNG-JUNG HSIEH, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01644-LHK
(N.D. Cal., March 29, 2019) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") of NIO between September 12, 2018 and
March 5, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").

In September 2018, NIO became the first Chinese all-electric car
company to debut on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"). On
September 11, 2018, NIO closed its initial public offering ("IPO")
of 160 million ADSs at an offering price of $6.26 per ADS, raising
over $1 billion. The Company estimated that it would receive net
proceeds of approximately $955 million from the offering. In
December 2018, the Company launched a five-seater ES6, with
delivery expected to begin in late March 2019, and a six-seater
version of the ES8. However, unknown to investors, demand for NIO's
vehicles was materially declining and the Company was experiencing
material adverse trends that were negatively affecting the
Company's sales and revenue. The Defendants' representations
through the Class Period caused NIO ADSs to trade at artificially
inflated prices.

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

Plaintiff purchased NIO ADSs and was damaged thereby.

NIO designs, manufactures and sells electric vehicles in the
People's Republic of China ("PRC"), the U.S., Germany and the
United Kingdom ("U.K."). The Company reportedly has been compared
to Tesla Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 405-7190
     Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Hernandez et al. Sue over Xtronic CVT Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA A. PEREZ HERNANDEZ; and HERBERT A. RECINOS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
BC69951 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for selling and manufacturing a
defective Xtronic Continuously Variable Transmissions installed in
2013-2017 Nissan Versa Note and 2013-2017 Nissan Juke.

The Xtronic CVT is defective in that it causes sudden, unexpected
shaking and violent jerking during acceleration; it causes the
vehicle to lag or delay when the driver attempts to accelerate; it
exhibits a hard deceleration or "clunk" when drivers decelerate or
accelerate at low speeds; and complete transmission failure even
during operation.

Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. Nissan North America, Inc. was formerly known as Nissan
Motor Corporation USA, Inc. and changed its name to Nissan North
America, Inc. in January 1999. The company was founded in 1960 and
is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee with subsidiaries in
Mississauga, Canada; San Diego, California; and Mexico. It has
production plants in Smyrna and Decherd, Tennessee; and Canton,
Mississippi. Nissan North America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Mikhov, Esq.
          Amy Morse, Esq.
          KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-2250
          Facsimile: (310) 552-7973
          E-mail: steven@knightlaw.com
                  amym@knightlaw.com


NISSAN: Quebec Court Grants Discontinuance of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Fasken Martineau, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
February 26, 2019, in the case of Levesque c. Nissan, the
Honourable Justice Donald Bisson of the Quebec Superior Court
granted an application by Francis Levesque (the "Applicant") to
discontinue his Application for Authorization to Institute a Class
Action (the "Authorization Application").

In a detailed 23-page judgment, Justice Bisson described the
application for discontinuance as late and issued detailed reasons,
in obiter, concluding that the Court would have dismissed the
Authorization Application even if the action had not been
discontinued. The Court provided its obiter reasons as an exercise
in persuasion should anyone attempt to bring another such a class
action against the Nissan Defendants in the Province of Quebec.

The Authorization Application, filed on January 17, 2017, sought
authorization to institute a class action against Nissan Canada
Inc., Nissan North America Inc., and Nissan Motor Co.,
(collectively "Nissan") on behalf of all persons in Quebec who own
or have owned, lease or have leased, one or more of 23 Nissan
models identified by the Applicant as having an alleged defect in
their timing chain systems.

Discontinuance and Additional "Last Minute" Evidence

The hearing on the Authorization Application was scheduled for
February 18, 2019. On February 14, 2019, after the parties had
already exchanged and filed their respective plans of argument, the
Applicant attempted to file a sworn statement and two new exhibits
in order to supplement his evidentiary record, which the defence
had argued was inadequate. The next day, on the last business day
before the authorization hearing was scheduled to proceed and more
than two years after the Authorization Application was filed,
counsel for the Applicant informed the Court that Mr. Levesque no
longer wanted to act as the proposed class representative and would
therefore be filing an application to discontinue the Application
for Authorization.

In describing the events as a "coup de theatre", Justice Bisson
granted the Applicant's request to discontinue the Authorization
Application, which was not contested by Nissan. However, he also
took the opportunity to provide detailed reasons why he would not
have allowed the Applicant's new evidence to be adduced, and
criticized this method of proceeding, which he described as "last
minute" unfair to the defendants, whom he said were taken by
surprise and not in a position to contest the new evidence in a
timely manner. Justice Bisson also that it was necessary to seek
the Court's approval in order to file any new evidence, which the
Applicant HAD failed to do.

Hypothetical and Speculative Statements Without a Sufficient
Factual Basis
In analyzing the criteria for the authorization of a class action,
and specifically the second paragraph of article 575 of the Code of
Civil Procedure ("CCP"), Justice Bisson questioned whether the
Applicant had demonstrated an arguable case or an appearance of
right as required. The Applicant alleged that the timing chain
system in the relevant Nissan vehicles was affected by a
latent/safety defect. In support of this allegation, Mr. Levesque
invoked his own personal case which can be summarized as follows:

   -- In March 2014, he bought on the Kijiji website a used 2005
Nissan Frontier, which had been previously seriously damaged in an
accident and had been rebuilt;
   -- In April 2015, while he was driving on a highway in Quebec,
he heard a noise emanating from his vehicle's engine, had to stop
on the service road and had his vehicle towed;
   -- He noticed that the timing chain in his vehicle was
defective;
   -- His vehicle's mileage at the time was approximately 120,000
km;
   -- He contacted Nissan which informed him that the warranty
period had expired and that the repair was thus not covered under
the applicable warranty;
   -- He paid the costs of replacing and repairing the timing chain
system and engine in his vehicle and incurred resulting damages.

In support of these arguments, the Applicant filed incomplete
maintenance manuals and a Nissan technical bulletin intended for
dealers that described the proper procedure to follow if "a noise"
was discovered in the timing chain system. Based on this evidence,
none of which mentioned anything about replacing or servicing the
timing chain system, the Applicant concluded that the timing chain
system should last the entire useful life of the vehicle.

The Court summarized the Applicant's legal syllogism as follows: my
vehicle had a problem with the timing chain system that I consider
premature, and so I conclude that it is a latent defect known to
the manufacturer and hidden by it for years, and I conclude that
this defect is present in all of the manufacturer's vehicles.

As a result, and in the absence of any factual evidence of a defect
or premature degradation, the Court was of the view that the
Applicant's proposed legal syllogism was flawed, amounting TO
unsupported inferences and speculation, and could not be accepted.
As Justice Bisson concludes, it cannot be the case that every time
an automobile part breaks, there is automatically a latent defect
or safety flaw, without at least some factual evidence or basis to
support such a conclusion.

Establishing the Existence of a Class: Still an Essential
Criterion
Justice Bisson then assessed the criterion in article 575(3) CCP to
determine whether the Applicant had demonstrated that the existence
of a class as proposed. The Applicant alleged that the proposed
class could potentially include thousands of people, but the Court
proceeded to analyze whether this statement could be accepted as
true.

On this, the Court concluded that the Applicant had failed to
establish that there was even one other potential class member in a
similar situation. In fact, the allegations refer only to the
Applicant's purely personal case, from which he deduced that there
was a class of potential members. His allegations were general and
did not establish the existence of a class of persons who were
victims of a latent defect and/or faults alleged against Nissan.
The mere fact that thousands of people in Quebec have bought and
leased Nissan vehicles is not sufficient to satisfy the criterion
under article 575(3) CCP. In short, the Applicant could not infer,
without any evidence whatsoever, that a class of potential members
existed as a result of his personal experience.

The Court then addressed the criterion of proper representation
under article 575 (4) CCP and concluded that the Applicant had not
even discharged the "minimum" burden of proving that he could
properly represent the class. The Applicant had no personal cause
of action against Nissan, and therefore no sufficient interest to
bring the action at all. Moreover, the fact that the Applicant had
not taken any steps to find another class member established that
the Applicant was not a proper or competent representative and thus
would have also failed to meet the criteria at article 575(4) CCP.

Conclusion: The Importance of Some Factual Evidence in Support of
the Allegations
This decision reminds us of the fundamental principles of an
applicant's burden when requesting authorization to institute a
class action. Even though the applicant's allegations are to be
taken as true at the authorization stage, these allegations must be
supported by some factual evidence (as the Supreme Court of Canada
noted in Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs). An
applicant cannot simply allege vague, imprecise facts or mere
hypotheses. Further, despite the fact that certain recent decisions
have indicated that it is possible to presume the existence of a
class in certain situations, the Court has issued a reminder that
an applicant must nonetheless take some positive steps to establish
that he is not the only one in his situation, if he wishes to be
accepted as an adequate representative.

This decision is important for all companies facing class actions
in Quebec and serves to demonstrate that, despite the low threshold
for the authorization of a class action in the Province of Quebec,
the Court will not authorize a class on the sole basis of general
statements or the personal opinions and hypotheses of one person
without having some tangible evidence to support an arguable case.
[GN]


NORTH BRONX ISLAMIC: Faces Luthfur Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Bronx Islamic
Center Inc. The case is captioned as LUTHFUR RAHMAN; SHAHEEN AHMED;
ANSAR H CHOWDHURY; MOIZ UDDIN AHMED; MOHAMMED ABDUR ROUF; MOHAMMED
SHAMIM; SIRAZUL ISLAM; NAZRUL I KHAN; MONJUR H CHOUDHURY; ANWAR
ULLAH; FAISAL ABEDIN; MD A RAHIM; RAHAT MOZUMDER; SYED T HUSSAIN;
MD ABDUS SALAM; MD OLIUR RAHMAN; ABUL HUSSAIN; MASQURUL HAQUE;
MUSLEH U ALAMIN; ABDUL MUSSABBIR; SAIF ALA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTH BRONX
ISLAMIC CENTER INC.; SYED JAMIN ALI; and MOHAMMED IQBAL HUSSAIN,
Defendants, Case No. 21141/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Bronx Cty., March 25,
2019). The case is assigned to Judge Norma Ruiz.

North Bronx Islamic Center Inc. is a non-profit organization. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Hoch, Esq.
          Two William Street-Ste 406
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 421-1900


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Baker Sterchi Discusses High Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas P. Hill, Esq. -- dhill@bscr-law.com -- of Baker Sterchi
Cowden & Rice LLC, in an article for Lexology, reports that the
deadline to appeal an order granting or denying class certification
is a rigid one that is not subject to equitable tolling, according
to a unanimous United States Supreme Court. Reversing the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the high court found that lower courts
lack the power to relax the 14-day deadline for filing a petition
for permission to appeal class-certification rulings.

Nutraceutical Corporation v. Lambert arose from a putative consumer
class action filed against the maker of a dietary supplement.
Although the Central District of California initially certified a
class of similarly situated plaintiffs, it later changed its
decision and entered an order decertifying the class. Rule 23(f) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for
permission to appeal that order had to be filed with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals within 14 days.

However, 10 days after the ruling, the plaintiffs' lawyers informed
the district court at a status hearing that they intended to file a
motion for reconsideration of the order decertifying the class. The
district judge instructed them to do so within 10 days of the
hearing -- 20 days from the decertification order -- which they
did. Several months later, the trial court denied the motion for
reconsideration, and the plaintiffs' lawyers then filed their
petition for permission to appeal. While the petition for
permission to appeal was filed within 14 days of the order denying
reconsideration, it was more than four months after the initial
order decertifying the class action.

Notwithstanding this apparent procedural defect, the Ninth Circuit
accepted the appeal. It rejected the manufacturer's argument that
the appeal was untimely, primarily because the plaintiffs' lawyers
had told the trial court of their intention to seek reconsideration
within the initial 14-day window and then sought permission to
appeal within 14 days of the denial of that motion for
reconsideration. To reach this result, it invoked the doctrine of
equitable tolling to "soften" the deadline and permit the appeal.
True to its reputation as a judicial outlier, the Ninth Circuit
acknowledged contrary authority from the Second, Third, Fourth,
Fifth and Seventh Circuits and admitted those courts "would likely
not toll the Rule 26(f) deadline" under these circumstances.  

The United States Supreme Court took a far more rigid view of the
14-day deadline imposed by Rule 26(f), describing it as
"purposefully unforgiving." Writing for a unanimous court, Justice
Sonia Sotomayor framed the issue as whether the text of the rules
left room for flexibility in how this deadline is imposed. Although
appellate courts have very broad authority under the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure to "suspend any provision of these rules in
a particular case," that flexibility comes with an important
caveat: Appellate Rule 26 expressly provides that courts of appeals
"may not extend the time to file [. . .] a petition for permission
to appeal." The court found that this language shows "a clear
intent to compel rigorous enforcement" of the 14-day deadline to
file with the appellate court. "Courts may not," Justice Sotomayor
concluded, "disregard a properly raised procedural rule's plain
import any more than they may a statute's."

The plaintiffs' lawyers tried to draw a distinction between
"extending the time to file" a petition to appeal, which Appellate
Rule 26 expressly forbids, with a decision "to excuse late filings
on equitable grounds after the fact." Relying on prior Supreme
Court precedent under the analogous rules of criminal procedure,
the high court rejected this type of hair-splitting. No matter how
it is described, the acceptance of a late filing is a de facto
extension of time.

But this opinion does not completely dash these plaintiffs'
attorneys' hopes of appealing the decertification of their class.
The Supreme Court declined to weigh in on two of their primary
arguments for certification, because those were not addressed by
the underlying court of appeals opinion. This leaves the Ninth
Circuit free to revive those arguments on remand.

First, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that regardless of whether
the deadline for a petition for permission to appeal could be
extended, the trial court could extend the time to file a motion
for reconsideration, and they claimed the district court did just
that when it instructed them to file their motion for
reconsideration within 10 days of the hearing.  Alternatively, they
argued that the order denying reconsideration was itself an "order
granting or denying class-action certification," starting a new
14-day window in which to file a petition to appeal, even if they
had blown the initial deadline. In either case, the crux of the
argument is that the deadline to file a petition for permission to
appeal should have been calculated from the date the motion for
reconsideration was denied, not the date of the initial class
decertification.

And these arguments might have some legs, too. The Supreme Court
carefully confined its analysis to the narrow issue of whether
equitable tolling could be applied to the deadline to appeal class
certification orders, since that was the sole basis for the Ninth
Circuit's ruling. Justice Sotomayor even acknowledged that a timely
motion for reconsideration can render an otherwise final decision
not final for appeal purposes.  The question of whether the motion
for reconsideration was timely and, if so, its effect remains
unanswered. This means the parties' appellate battle is not over,
with the next round back before the Ninth Circuit. And regardless
of how that court rules, a second appeal to the Supreme Court may
be necessary to untie the rest of this procedural knot. [GN]


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Garaygordobil Seeks to Enjoin NeuBase Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
PILAR GARAYGORDOBIL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. OHR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., MICHAEL FERGUSON,
JASON S. SLAKTER, ORIN HIRSCHMAN, THOMAS M. RIEDHAMMER, and JUNE S.
ALMENOFF, Case No. 1:19-cv-03006 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2019), seeks
to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Ohr
will merge with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., through Ohr's wholly
owned subsidiary Ohr Acquisition Corp.

On January 3, 2019, Ohr and NeuBase issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
and Reorganization dated January 2, 2019, pursuant to which Merger
Sub will merge with and into NeuBase, with NeuBase surviving as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Ohr.  Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each issued and outstanding share of NeuBase common
stock will be converted into the right to receive 1.019055643
shares of Ohr common stock subject to adjustment to account for a
reverse stock split of Ohr common stock to be implemented prior to
the consummation of the merger.

The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement, which
recommends that Ohr stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the financial projections for
Ohr and NeuBase, relied upon by Ohr's financial advisor, Roth
Capital Markets, LLC, in its financial analyses, and the Board in
connection with its decision to recommend Ohr stockholders approve
the Proposed Transaction; (ii) the inputs and assumptions
underlying Roth's financial analyses; and (iii) the background
process leading to the Proposed Transaction.

Ohr is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices
located in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Ohr is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development of novel
therapeutics and delivery technologies for the treatment of ocular
disease.

NeuBase is a Delaware corporation that is developing its modular
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide ("PATrOL") platform
to address genetic diseases caused by mutant proteins with a
single, cohesive approach.  NeuBase's principal executive offices
are located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  NeuBase is currently a
private company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


OMNI LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
RENE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI LOGISTICS, LLC; OMNI LOGISTICS OF
TEXAS, LLC; EMPLOYER FLEXIBLE HR, LLC; EMPLOYER FLEXIBLE HR
INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 19 STCV09986
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2019) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid
employee.

Omni Logistics Inc. provides logistics services. The Company offers
transportation, warehousing, distribution, brokerage, freight
forwarding, storage, and supply chain management services. Omni
Logistics serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         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


ONE NEVADA: Settlement in Smith FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joseph J. Smith, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. One Nevada Credit Union,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02156-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Gloria
M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

On Oct. 6, 2017, after extensive arms-length negotiations, and
private mediation conducted before Hon. Jackie Glass (Ret.), the
Plaintiff and the Defendant entered in to a Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for
monetary damages as set forth in the Agreement.

On Dec. 4, 2017, the Parties filed the Agreement, along with a
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
Agreement.  On Sept. 16, 2018, upon consideration of the Agreement,
Preliminary Approval Motion, and the record, the Court entered an
Order of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  Pursuant
to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, among other things,
(i) preliminarily approved the proposed settlement; (ii) approved
the Notice and instructed its mailing; and (iii) set the date and
time of the Final Approval Hearing.

On Feb. 5, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Final Approval Motion,
pursuant to which the parties requests final approval of the
proposed Class Action Settlement.  

Judge Navarro has read and considered the Agreement, Final Approval
Motion, and the record.  She finds that the claim process set forth
in the Agreement was followed and that the process was the best
practicable procedure under the circumstances.  She granted the
Final Approval Motion.

The Judge ordered the Defendant to pay each of the 13,069 claimants
that made a valid claim, by 12:00 p.m. on March 5, 2019, $20.66.
The Defendant will pay to the Class Counsel the sum of $171,490.33
as attorneys' fees and $8,509.67 as costs incurred in litigating
the action.  The Defendant will pay to the Plaintiff $5,000 as an
incentive award.

The Lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice in all respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Final Judgment and
Order is available at https://is.gd/DQPrUG from Leagle.com.

Joseph J. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC, pro hac vice, David H. Krieger, Haines &
Krieger, LLC & Michael Kind, Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

One Nevada Credit Union, Defendant, represented by James E.
Whitmire, III -- jwhitmire@santoronevada.com -- at Santoro
Whitmire.


OTIS ELEVATOR: Gorss Motels' Bid for Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kari A. Dooley denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01781-KAD (D. Conn.).

"In sum, it is clear to this Court that the individualized inquiry
that would need to be undertaken by the Court is precisely the type
of inquiry that makes this putative class unsuitable for
certification.  I therefore join my colleagues who have recently
reached the same conclusion," Judge Dooley wrote in the Court's
memorandum of decision.

The case, initiated by the Plaintiff, is one of several putative
class actions brought against product suppliers to Wyndham Hotel
Group and its franchisees.  Gorss brings claims arising out of the
Defendant Otis Elevator Company's alleged sending of an unsolicited
facsimile to Wyndham franchisees under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005.[CC]


OXY USA: Royalty Owners' Suit Remains in Kansas District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John W. Broomes of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case, COOPER
CLARK FOUNDATION, On behalf of itself and All others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OXY USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
18-1222-JWB (D. Kan.).

In 2016, the Plaintiffs filed three putative class actions in the
state courts of Kansas: Cooper Clark Foundation v. Oxy USA Inc.,
No. 2016-cv-000039 (Grant County); Cooper Clark Foundation v. Oxy
USA Inc., No. 2016-cv-000017 (Haskell County); and Phillip Fink v.
Oxy USA Inc., No. 2016-cv-000013 (Morton County).  All the three
actions allege improper deductions and fees related to processing
and marketing natural gas under three different gas agreements.
Each separate action brings a suit on behalf of a specified class
under K.S.A. 60-223(a) and (b)(3) alleging a breach of implied
covenants of oil and gas lease agreements to which Oxy and the
putative class members were parties.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Oxy entered into oil and gas leases to obtain the best reasonable
price for the gas products but failed to pay on the full volume of
gas products.

The Grant County action was filed by Plaintiff Cooper Clark
Foundation on Dec. 20, 2016.  The putative class is defined as all
royalty owners [in] Kansas wells: (a) where OXY USA Inc. was the
operator (or, as a non-operator, separately marketed gas); (b) who
were paid royalties for production of gas, NGLs, or Helium from
July 1, 2007 to April 30, 2014; and (c) whose gas was originally
marketed by OXY USA Inc. under the Aug. 1, 2005 gas contract, as
amended.

The Haskell County action was filed by Plaintiff Cooper Clark
Foundation one day later on Dec. 21, 2016.  The putative class is
defined as all royalty owners [in] Kansas wells: (a) where OXY USA
Inc. was the operator (or, as a non-operator, separately marketed
gas); (b) who were paid royalties for production of gas, NGLs, or
Helium from July 1, 2007 to April 30, 2014; and (c) whose gas was
originally marketed by OXY USA Inc. under the Dec. 1, 2005 gas
contract, as amended.

The Morton County action was filed by Phillip Fink on Nov. 15,
2016.  The putative class was originally defined as all royalty
owners in Morton County, Kansas wells: (a) where OXY USA Inc. was
the operator (or, as a non-operator, separately marketed gas); (b)
who were paid royalties for gas, NGLs, or Helium from July 1, 2007
to April 30, 2014; and (c) whose gas was marketed by OXY USA Inc.
under the Sept. 1. 2003 gas contract, as amended.

In all three actions, the petitions reference a prior class action,
Littell, et al. v. OXY USA, Inc., No. 98-CV-51 (Kan. Dist. Ct.
Stevens Cty), which previously settled claims regarding the
deductions of midstream gathering, compression, dehydration, and
treatment ("GCDT") costs incurred before the processing plant.  The
Plaintiffs' current claims are based on deductions after the
processing plant inlet.  Moreover, their petitions also reference a
previous class action that was originally filed in Kearny County
and then removed to this court, Wallace B. Roderick Revocable
Living Trust v. OXY USA, Inc., No. 12-cv-01215-EFM-GEB.

The Plaintiffs represent that the three actions are the result of
Judge Melgren's decision decertifying the Roderick case, in which
Judge Melgren suggested that the case might have to be certified on
a gas contract-by-gas contract basis.  Their petitions state that
Judge Melgren's decision to decertify resulted in the Plaintiffs
filing a dismissal without prejudice of the Roderick action and
then filing separate actions in state court.  They contend that the
state cases were filed on a gas contract-by-gas contract basis
"following Judge Melgren's lead.

The three actions had been pending for some time in state court
and, in early 2018, the Plaintiffs moved to consolidate the three
actions pursuant to K.S.A. 60-242(a).  Oxy opposed the motion to
consolidate.

On Aug. 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the class
action petitions for the Morton County and Grant County cases.
They did not move to amend the Haskell County petition because that
petition had been amended prior to consolidation.  Notably, the
motion to amend states that the Plaintiffs sought to amend the
Morton and Grant County petitions in order to conform the
allegations to those in the Haskell County amended petition.

Oxy filed a notice of removal on Aug. 9, 2018.  Oxy alleged that
this court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA").  The Plaintiffs have now filed a motion to remand.
They contend that the amount in controversy does not exceed $5
million unless the Court considers the total amount for all three
actions that were consolidated by the state court.

After reviewing the briefs in the matter, the Court held a motion
hearing.  At the hearing, it concluded, and the parties agreed,
that the key issue in evaluating subject matter jurisdiction in the
case is whether consolidation of these cases in Kansas state court
resulted in a merger of the consolidated cases.  The Court allowed
the parties to file supplemental briefs to address the issue.
Those briefs have now been filed.

Judge Broomes oncludes that, in order to avoid imposing the
requirement that trial courts apportion class-wide awards across
constituent cases in order to enter separate judgments in
consolidated class actions, and in order to be consistent with
existing and historical Kansas practice, the Kansas Supreme Court
would likely find that consolidation of class actions under K.S.A.
60-242(a)(2) merges those cases into a single case.  The Plaintiffs
may object that in this particular action they have defined the
relevant classes to be discrete in a temporal sense, each being
defined in terms of a particular gas contract.

However, as a practical matter, the Judge notes that the actual
composition of each class is almost certainly nearly the same as
the other classes, with the only differences being those class
members who first bought into, or completely divested themselves
of, mineral or royalty interests in the affected minerals during
the duration of one of the three underlying gas contracts.
Moreover, the claims and the Defendants are identical in each
case.

For all the reasons discussed, he concludes that where a plaintiff
obtains consolidation under K.S.A. 60-242(a)(2) of putative class
actions with overlapping claims, classes, and defendants,
consolidation results in merger and CAFA jurisdiction is therefore
evaluated based on the amount in controversy in the merged case.

Because it is undisputed that the amount in controversy is met if
the underlying actions were merged into a single action upon
consolidation, and because he has concluded that these three
actions were merged under Kansas law, Judge Broomes holds that the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA.

Accordingly, he denied (i) the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, and
(ii) Oxy's motion to transfer.  He will retain the action on his
docket.

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

Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland
-- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Scott B. Goodger, Rex
A. Sharp, PA.

OXY USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Aurra Fellows, Vinson &
Elkins LLP, pro hac vice, James M. Armstrong --
jarmstrong@foulston.com -- Foulston Siefkin LLP, Mark C. Rodriguez,
Vinson & Elkins LLP, pro hac vice & Mikel L. Stout --
mstout@foulston.com -- Foulston Siefkin LLP.


PACIFIC, MO: Employees Class Certified Under FLSA in Donoho Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nannette A. Baker granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action, to Order Disclosure
of Contact Information for Similarly Situated Individuals, and to
Approve Notice for Dissemination to those Similarly Situated in the
lawsuit captioned DEBORAH DONOHO, et al. v. CITY OF PACIFIC,
MISSOURI, Case No. 4:19-cv-00186-NAB (E.D. Mo.).

The Defendant shall, no later than April 18, 2019, provide the
Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of the Pacific Police Department
dispatchers' full names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail
addresses, and dates of service in a readable electronic data file
format.

The proposed notice and consent form submitted by the Plaintiffs is
approved.

The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of the City, worked as
dispatchers for the City of Pacific Police Department.  They filed
this action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  They allege that the Defendant failed to compensate
dispatchers at the rate of one-and one-half times the regular rate
of pay for all time worked in excess of forty hours per workweek.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant had a policy that only paid
dispatchers for the hours they were scheduled for work but failed
to pay them for the time working before the start of shifts, after
shifts ended, and time on duty for the entirety of their shift.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the dispatchers share the same or
similar job duties.  The Defendant consents to Plaintiffs' motion
and consents to the form of Notice.[CC]


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Appeal from Settlement Approval Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras disclosed in its Form 20-F
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that one appeal
remains pending related to the District Court's final decision to
approve a class action settlement.

The Company said, "At the end of 2017, we signed an agreement to
settle the Consolidated Securities Class Action that had been filed
against us and certain other defendants.  As previously reported,
between December 8, 2014 and January 7, 2015, five putative
securities class action complaints were filed against us, Petrobras
International Finance Company S.A.  ("PifCo"), which has since
merged into Petrobras Global Finance B.V.  ("PGF"), PGF, and
certain underwriters of debt securities, among other defendants, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York ("SDNY" or the "District Court").  These actions were
consolidated on February 17, 2015 (the "Consolidated Securities
Class Action" or "Class Action").  The Court appointed a lead
plaintiff, Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited ("USS"), on
March 4, 2015.

"In sum and substance, the complaints in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, alleging that in our press releases, filings with the
SEC and other communications, we made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the value of our
assets, the amounts of our expenses and net income, the
effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting,
and our anti-corruption policies.

"On June 22, 2018, the District Court granted final approval of the
agreement to settle the Consolidated Securities Class Action
("Class Action Settlement"), rejecting challenges that had been
raised by objectors.

"The Class Action Settlement is intended to resolve all pending and
prospective claims by purchasers of Petrobras securities, including
debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF, in the United States,
and by purchasers of Petrobras securities that are listed for
trading on the NYSE or pursuant to other covered transactions, or
that clear or settle through the Depository Trust Company.
Excluded from the definition of "covered transaction" are purchases
of any Petrobras securities on the B3.

"The Class Action Settlement was entered into to eliminate the risk
of an adverse judgment which, as we have previously reported, could
have a material adverse effect on Petrobras and its financial
situation, and puts an end to the uncertainties, burdens and costs
of protracted litigation.

"Under the Class Action Settlement, we (together with our
subsidiary PGF) have agreed to pay US$ 2,950 million to resolve the
claims in two installments of US$ 983 million and a further
installment of US$ 984 million.  Accordingly, we charged US$ 3,449
million to our statement of income for the last quarter of 2017 as
other income and expenses, taking into account the gross up of tax
related to our portion of the settlement.  On March 1, 2018, we,
along with PGF disbursed the first installment into an escrow
account designated by the lead plaintiff and accounted for it as
other current assets.  The second installment was deposited on July
2, 2018, 10 days after the final approval of the Class Action
Settlement by the District Court.  Foreign exchange losses on the
provision amounted to US$452 million at December 31, 2018 and were
accounted for as other income and expenses.  The third installment
was deposited on January 15, 2019.

"Certain objectors have appealed the District Court's final
decision to approve the Class Action Settlement, and one such
appeal remains pending.  In the event that a higher court annuls
the agreement, or if the agreement does not become final for other
reasons, we will return to our position prior to the Class Action
Settlement and, depending on the outcome of the subsequent
litigation, we might be required to pay substantial amounts, which
could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
our consolidated results of operations or our consolidated cash
flows for an individual reporting period.

"A petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Petrobras to the
United States Supreme Court on August 30, 2017 remains under
consideration by the United States Supreme Court pending final
approval of the Class Action Settlement.  If the Class Action
Settlement becomes final, we will dismiss the petition for writ of
certiorari.

"Individuals are seeking measures against Petrobras in Brazil to
annul and/or suspend the Class Action Settlement.  No adverse
measure has been granted to date against the settlement.

"In addition to the Consolidated Securities Class Action, 33
lawsuits were filed by individual investors before the same judge
in the SDNY, and one was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (together, the "Individual
Actions"), consisting of allegations similar to those in the
Consolidated Securities Class Action.  All of these Individual
Actions have been resolved, either because the individual
plaintiffs voluntarily joined the Class Action, or through
settlements.  The terms of such settlements are confidential and we
deny all allegations of wrongdoing.  The settlements are aimed at
eliminating the uncertainties, burdens and expense of ongoing
litigation.

"In connection with consummated settlements of Individual Actions,
we charged US$456 million to the statement of income as other
income and expenses (US$8 million in 2018, US$76 million in 2017
and US$372 million in 2016)."

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras operates in the oil, natural
gas, and energy industries in Brazil and internationally.  It
engages in prospecting, drilling, refining, processing, trading,
and transporting crude oil from producing onshore and offshore oil
fields and shale or other rocks, as well as oil products, natural
gas, and other liquid hydrocarbons.  The Company was founded in
1953 and is headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Still Faces Collective Action in Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras continues to face a
collective action pending in the Netherlands, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 1, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2018.

On January 23, 2017, the Stichting Petrobras Compensation
Foundation ("Foundation") filed a collective action before the
district court in Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, against the
Company and its subsidiaries PIBBV and PGF, joint venture PO&G, and
some of its former managers.

The Foundation allegedly represents the interests of an
unidentified group of investors and alleges that as a result of the
facts uncovered by the Lava Jato investigation, the defendants
acted unlawfully toward investors.  Based on the allegations, the
Foundation seeks a number of declaratory reliefs from the Dutch
court.

The Company filed its first response to the claim on May 3, 2017
(first docket date) presenting the law firms that would defend it
and requesting a hearing to discuss some aspects of the case.  On
August 23, 2017, a hearing was held at the District Court in
Rotterdam to establish the timeframe for proceedings.  The Company
(and other defendants) presented preliminary defenses on November
29, 2017 and the Foundation presented its response on March 28,
2018.

On June 28, 2018, a hearing was held for the parties to present
oral arguments.  On September 19, 2018, the District Court rendered
its interim decision on the motion proceedings, in which it
accepted jurisdiction over most of the Foundation's seven claims,
without any assessment on the merits of the case.

On December 18, 2018, a hearing was held before the District Court
and the schedule of the next phases of the collective action was
defined.  The District Court determined that the current phase is
limited to two topics: the Foundation's standing and the applicable
law.  Petrobras filed its submission on those topics on 13 March
2019.

The hearing on these topics was held on April 16, 2019.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.--Petrobras operates in the oil, natural
gas, and energy industries in Brazil and internationally.  It
engages in prospecting, drilling, refining, processing, trading,
and transporting crude oil from producing onshore and offshore oil
fields and shale or other rocks, as well as oil products, natural
gas, and other liquid hydrocarbons.  The Company was founded in
1953 and is headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.


PFIZER INC: NY Suit Stayed Pending Cert Ruling Illinois Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY A. WOODHAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-3990 (JPO) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge J.
Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the Plaintiffs move to stay the action pending
resolution of a class certification motion in a substantially
similar case in the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs Woodhams, Elizabeth Hinz, Ronald de Clue, John Covello,
Joshua Hoaglund, Oscar De Leon, Cynthia Carrillo, Daniel Paul,
Robert Trepper, and Daniel Utterback bring the action on behalf of
themselves and a putative nationwide class against Pfizer, which
markets and distributes Robitussin cough syrup.  The Plaintiffs
claim that Pfizer deceived consumers by charging more for a
"Maximum Strength" Robitussin that contained a lower amount of an
essential active ingredient than does "Regular Strength"
Robitussin.

On Sept. 18, 2017, Plaintiff Woodhams and Karmel Al Haj, another
individual not a party to the suit, filed a class action complaint
against Pfizer in the Northern District of Illinois, Al Haj v.
Pfizer Inc., No. 17 Civ. 6730 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2017),
asserting consumer fraud claims arising from their purchases of
Maximum Strength Robitussin.  The plaintiffs in the Illinois Action
sought to represent a nationwide class of all persons that paid for
Maximum Strength Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM for personal,
family or household uses.

In the Illinois Action, Pfizer moved to dismiss Woodhams' claims
for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 12(b)(2), to dismiss Al Haj's claims for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and to strike the class claims
under Rule 12(f).  The Illinois court granted Pfizer's motion to
dismiss Woodhams' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and
denied the other two motions.  It also denied Pfizer's renewed
motion to strike the nationwide class allegations.

On Jan. 11, 2019, Al Haj moved to certify a nationwide class in the
Illinois Action.  In addition, Pfizer has moved for summary
judgment with respect to Al Haj's consumer protection and unjust
enrichment claims that are governed by Illinois law.  That motion,
which has been fully briefed and argued, remains pending.

After Woodhams' claims in the Illinois Action were dismissed for
lack for personal jurisdiction, he and nine other individuals who
had also purchased Maximum Strength Robitussin filed the instant
action against Pfizer in the District.  As in the Illinois Action,
the Plaintiffs in the case seek to represent all persons that paid
for Maximum Strength Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM for
personal, family or household uses.  The complaint alleges that
Pfizer has violated the consumer protection and unjust enrichment
laws in all fifty states.

Pfizer has moved to dismiss and to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations.  The Plaintiffs opposed Pfizer's motions and filed a
motion to stay the present action.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
present action should be stayed under the first-filed rule because
the Illinois Action was filed first, has a more advanced procedural
posture, and involves substantially similar parties and identical
claims.  In response, Pfizer argues that the  Plaintiffs have
engaged in gamesmanship that warrants denial of their motion to
stay.

Judge Oetken is not persuaded by Pfizer's arguments.  As a
threshold matter, the first-filed rule applies because the present
action and the Illinois Action each involve "identical or
substantially similar parties and claims."  Having determined that
the first-filed rule's presumption applies, the burden falls to
Pfizer to demonstrate that "equitable considerations recommend the
later action."  Pfizer fails to establish that any exception to the
first-filed rule ought to dictate such an outcome.

First, with respect to the "balance of convenience" exception,
Pfizer does not present any reason why the Court is a relatively
more convenient forum than the Northern District of Illinois.
Pfizer also argues that now that the briefing on its motions to
dismiss and to strike is already completed, judicial economy favors
resolution of these pending motions.  This argument is not
persuasive in view of the even more advanced procedural posture of
the Illinois Action.  Finally, with respect to the "special
circumstances" exception, Pfizer contends that the Plaintiffs have
"manipulated the Court," and therefore "equities weigh against
issuing a stay.  Mindful of the Second Circuit's caution that
"special circumstances" warranting departure from the first-filed
rule "are quite rare," the Judge concludes that no such special
circumstances are to be found in the present case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Oetken granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to stay.  The Plaintiffs will notify the Court within 14
days of any disposition of the class certification motion pending
in the Illinois Action.  The pending motion to dismiss and motion
to strike are dismissed without prejudice to reactivation in the
event that the stay is lifted.  The Clerk of Court is directed to
close the motion at Docket Numbers 19, 23, and 36 and to mark the
case as stayed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ReCmsW from Leagle.com.

Timothy A. Woodhams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Elizebeth Hinz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Ronald De Clue, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, John Covello, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Cynthia Carrillo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Oscar
De Leon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Daniel Paul, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Robert Trepper, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
Kurowski -- dank@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth A. Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jason Allen Zweig --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Joshua Hoaglund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Daniel Utterback, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Kurowski,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Pfizer Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Fox --
thomas.fox@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
Jessica D. Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & John H. Beisner --
john.beisner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP.


PHARMACIE TANIA: Can Appeal Ruling in Billing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Noah Boudreau, Esq. -- nboudreau@fasken.com -- Chris Semerjian,
Esq. -- csemerjian@fasken.com -- and Christine Provencher, Esq. --
cprovencher@fasken.com -- of Fasken, in an article for Mondaq,
report that on March 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal granted a request
by the defendant pharmacies for leave to appeal from the decision
by the Superior Court in the matter of Pharmacie Tania Kanou (Jean
Coutu) v. Cote (french only), which authorized the filing of a
class action against them.

In the class action, the Applicant alleged that the defendant
pharmacy owners, operating under various banners, had engaged in
certain over-billing practices and had also failed to disclose the
details of their fees to their patients in Quebec. According to the
Applicant, the defendants billed patients with private health
insurance for professional fees and charges that were
disproportionate, unreasonable and inequitable compared to those
fees billed to patients benefiting from public healthcare drug
coverage.

Although leave to appeal from a judgment granting the authorization
of a class action is rarely granted in Quebec, as a result of the
strict test laid out by the Court of Appeal in Centrale des
syndicats du Quebec v. Allen,(the "Allen Decision")[1], Justice
Marie-Josee Hogue was persuaded by the appellant pharmacies'
arguments that the first-instance judgment contained an apparent
error in the interpretation of the criteria for the authorization
of a class action.

Addressing the grounds for appeal, Justice Hogue notes that while
the first-instance judge conceded that the evidence presented at
the authorization stage did not demonstrate that the plaintiff had
paid more for his prescriptions than patients under the public
healthcare system, she nonetheless authorized the class action on
the basis of statistical evidence showing that, on average,
patients with private health insurance reportedly paid more for
their prescriptions. As the Appellants plead, [translation:]
"having no personal remedy against any of the petitioners,
particularly given the absence of fault on their part and the
absence of injury, the Judge could not conclude that an arguable
cause of action existed within the meaning of Section 575 (2) CCP,
nor could the respondent be an adequate representative.[2]"

Justice Hogue also agreed with the second argument presented by the
appellant pharmacies that the class action proposed by the
respondent constitutes a collateral attack on the legislative
system in Quebec, which expressly allows Quebec pharmacists to
charge different fees to patients covered by private insurance
plans.

Acknowledging that the first-instance judgment was affected by an
apparent error, Justice Hogue determined that the strict test
established by the Court of Appeal in Allen Decision was met and
granted the request for leave to appeal. The ruling of the Court of
Appeal on the merits will no doubt provide further clarification
regarding the requirement that a plaintiff requesting leave to
bring a class action must demonstrate prima facie the he has a
personal cause of action that is valid. This is a case to follow
closely in the coming months. [GN]


PLACER COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Bangert Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEAU BANGERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF PLACER,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01667-KJN (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Kindall J. Newman of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Final Judgment, and Dismissal with Prejudice.

The matter having come before the Court by application of the
Plaintiffs for preliminary approval of the class action settlement
agreement between the Parties, set forth in the Class Action
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release; the Court having
previously entered the Preliminary Approval Order: (1)
preliminarily approving the Settlement; (2) provisionally
certifying the Settlement Class; (3) approving the proposed form
and dissemination of Class Notice and Claim Form; and (4) setting a
hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement.

The Plaintiffs having now demonstrated compliance with the
Preliminary Approval Order, and now requesting that the Settlement
should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and
good cause appearing therefore, Magistrate Judge Newman now makes
the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in her Final
Approval Order, Order of Dismissal, and Judgement, which
constitutes a final adjudication of the action on the merits.

She approved the Settlement set forth in the Final Approval Order
and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable, adequate and in compliance with all applicable
requirements Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
California and United States Constitutions (including the Due
Process Clause), and all other applicable laws, and in the best
interests of the parties and the Settlement Class.  Accordingly,
she directed the parties and their counsel to implement and
consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms and
conditions of all portions of the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Jail Changes Settlement Class, as defined in the
Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order, consists
of all individuals incarcerated in Placer County Jail at any point
during the CLASS PERIOD (Aug. 11, 2015 through Aug. 14, 2018).

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Force Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement
and the Preliminary Approval Order, consists of all individuals,
except for the Related Actions Plaintiffs, incarcerated in Placer
County Jail at any point during the Class Period (Aug. 11, 2015
through Aug. 14, 2018) who submitted a Claim Form.  Pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Force
Settlement Award Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and
the Preliminary Approval Order, consists of those Force Settlement
Class Members whose Claim was deemed Compensable under the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.

The members of the Settlement Class who have submitted a
Compensable Claim pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, and who
are therefore members of the Force Settlement Award Class, will be
entitled to a Settlement Award, calculated pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, including pursuant to the Award
Calculation Methodology, and the Force Dispute Resolution Process.
Within 30 days of the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator
will mail Settlement Award checks to each Force Settlement Award
Class Member.

If the total amount of the Settlement Awards exceeds the available
balance in the Settlement Fund, following deduction of the
Incentive Fee, Fee and Expense Award, Administration Costs, and Tax
Expenses, each Settlement Award will be reduced proportionately so
that the total amount of Settlement Awards does not exceed the
available funds in the Settlement Fund.  Should the total amount of
the Settlement Awards, Fee and Expense Award, Incentive Fee,
Administration Costs, and Tax Expenses paid by the Settlement
Administrator be less than $1,449,700, all remaining amounts, plus
accrued interest thereon, will revert back to Placer County --
i.e., to be returned by the Settlement Administrator to Placer
County.  This residue, if any, will be returned to Placer County
within 210 days following the Effective Date.

The Class Counsel are awarded the sum of $478,401.00 in legal fees
and costs.  The fee and expense amounts will be paid by check to
Law Office of Mark E. Merin and delivered to the Law Office of Mark
E. Merin, 1010 F Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814, from the
Settlement Fund within 30 days after the Effective Date.  The Fee
and Expense Award will then be allocated among the Class Counsel by
Law Office of Mark E. Merin in a fashion which, in the sole opinion
of Class Counsel, fairly compensates Class Counsel for their
respective contributions to the prosecution of, and results
obtained in, the Action.

The Plaintiffs will also be paid by check made payable to Beau
Bangert and delivered to the Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 1010 F
Street, Suite, 300, Sacramento, CA 95814, an Incentive Fee of
$50,000 from the Settlement Fund, with payment to be made within 30
days after the Effective Date.

Except as expressly provided in the Order, all Parties are to bear
their own costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sIEPtZ from Leagle.com.

Beau Bangert, Plaintiff, represented by Mark E. Merin --
mark@markmerin.com -- Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Paul Hajime
Masuhara, III, Law Office of Mark E. Merin & Patrick H. Dwyer,
Attorney at Law.

County of Placer, Placer County Sheriff's Office & Devon M. Bell,
Defendants, represented by Blake Phillip Loebs, Meyers Nave Riback
Silver & Wilson, Julia Reeves -- jreeves@placer.ca.gov -- Placer
County Counsel, David Mehretu -- dmehretu@meyersnave.com -- Meyers
Nave & Robert S. Moutr ie -- rmoutrie@meyersnave.com -- Meyers Nave
Riback Silver & Wilson.

Robert L. Madden, Defendant, represented by Bruce Alan Kilday --
bkilday@akk-law.com -- Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP.

Megan C. Yaws, Defendant, represented by Jonathan B. Paul --
thefirm@jmr-law.net -- Rivera & Associates.


POLK COUNTY, FL: Case Sues Over Denied Promotions
-------------------------------------------------
Conrad Case and Clyde Nichols, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Grady Judd, in his official capacity
as Polk County Sheriff, Case No. 8:19-cv-00607 (M.D. Fla., March
11, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the
Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the express
mandate and purpose of USERRA by denying the Plaintiffs and class
members promotions based on their service in the uniformed
services. The Defendant did not apply Florida's veteran preference
to the Plaintiffs when they applied for promotions and did not
treat military-related absence from work as continuous employment.

Plaintiff Conrad Case, is an adult resident of Polk County,
Florida. The Plaintiff was a "uniformed service member" as a member
of the United States Army, Army National Guard, and as a reservist
in the United States Army. At all times material, the Plaintiff
Case was an employee of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff Clyde Nichols, Jr., is an adult resident of Gilchrist
County, Florida. The Plaintiff was a "uniformed service member" as
a member of the United States Army and United States Navy. At all
times material, the Plaintiff Nichols was an "employee" of the
Defendant.

The Defendant was and is the duly elected Sheriff of Polk County,
Florida. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendant
operated the Polk County Sheriff’s Office in his official
capacity. The Polk County Sheriff's Office is an organization
formed pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, is located
within the confines of Polk County, Florida, operates within the
State of Florida, and is a citizen of the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
      FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC.
      16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
      Lutz, FL 33558
      Tel: (727) 254-5255
      Fax: (727) 483-7942
      E-mail: greg@fgbolaw.com


POTPOURRI GROUP: Figueroa Files ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Potpourri Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Potpourri Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03207 (S.D. N.Y., Apr. 10, 2019).

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

Potpourri Group, Inc. operates as a multi-title catalog company in
the United States.[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



POWERHOUSE TITLE: Piper Suit Removed to Maryland District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled LEO ALBERT PIPER, JR. v.
POWERHOUSE TITLE GROUP, Case No. 03-C-19-000709 OC, was removed on
April 4, 2019, from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01020 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court on January
23, 2019, alleging two causes of action based on alleged violations
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.[BN]

Defendants Powerhouse Title Group, LLC, and Michael Charlow are
represented by:

          J. Steven Lovejoy, Esq.
          Michael E. Rowan, Esq.
          SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C.
          901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 610
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825-5223
          Facsimile: (410) 825-5426
          E-mail: slovejoy@shumakerwilliams.com
                  rowan@shumakerwilliams.com


PROSHARES TRUST II: Bittner Securities Suit Hits Fund Devaluation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bittner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Proshares Trust II, Proshare Capital
Management LLC, Todd B. Johnson, Edward Karpowicz, Michael L.
Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg, ABN AMRO Clearing Chicago LLC, Banca IMI
Securities Corp., Barclays Capital Inc., BNP Paribas Securities
Corp., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HRT Financial LLC, Jefferies LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Knight Execution & Clearing Services, LLC,
Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Mizuho Securities USA
LLC., Newedge USA LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities, LLC, Timber Hill,
LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Virtu Financial BD LLC, and Wedbush
Securities, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01840 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 27, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Bittner purchased shares of ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures
exchange traded funds (ETF). ETF shares trade on stock exchanges
and holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds. It is
benchmarked to the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index, a
benchmark index created by CBOE Exchange, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of CBOE Global Markets, Inc. It purports to measure the
implied volatility of large cap U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the
future.

Said Trust's May 2017 Registration Statement failed to disclose
that the Fund was susceptible to losses when faced with significant
market turbulence as a result of the low-volatility environment and
acute liquidity risks. On February 5, 2018, the Fund lost
essentially its entire returns over the preceding six-and-a-half
years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garam Choe, Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 292-5690
      Fax: (212) 602-1592
      scotth@johnsonfistel.com

             - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Fax: (619) 255-1856
      Email: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com


QIKIQTANI GENERAL: Racism Class Action Mulled on Behalf of Inuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that lawyers known for their representation of
Indigenous northerners are preparing a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of Inuit who have faced discrimination in Canada's
health-care system.

If the lawsuit proceeds, it is expected to seek hundreds of
millions of dollars in damages.

The civil suit would represent Inuit discriminated against while in
care in southern facilities outside Nunavut, and in some cases the
Northwest Territories. The suit may expand to include
discrimination in the Qikiqtani General Hospital in Iqaluit, and
could include First Nations and Metis claimants.

"Racism is alive and well and always was in Canada," said lawyer
Steven Cooper in a CBC interview.

"It may be a little less obvious and a little less frequent than we
see in places like the United States."

But Cooper said this treatment of Inuit by government and
health-care representatives "is nothing new."

Grieving Inuit families blame racism of health-care workers for
deaths of loved ones

Cooper Regal lawyers, members of Masuch Law LLP, have won
high-profile cases in the North. Most recently, they were legal
counsel for Nunavut Ahiarmiut, who won a cash settlement and
apology from the federal government over their forced relocation
decades ago.

But Cooper said this lawsuit is inspired by accounts of
contemporary discrimination.

"We're talking right now, right here," he said.

Examples of discrimination collected include the horrific. In one
case, Cooper described a five-month-old aborted fetus being "cut up
and thrown away in sight of the mother."

"The fact that is happening now in Canada is a problem and it
screams for legal attention," Cooper said.

"It screams for condemnation and this is a really good example of
where class actions are used not only to redeem the parties in
terms of what they've already done but to be a reason why
governments and institutions change their behaviour."

Hundreds expected to tell their stories
Cooper said so far dozens of people have come forward to share
their stories, but he expects the number to climb into the hundreds
once word of the lawsuit gets out.

It will be a few months, he said, before anything is filed in
court. Potential representative claimants have been identified, as
have potential defendants in the case.

"It will involve the government of Canada," Cooper said in an
email. "It may also involve a number of provincial governments
administering health care under contract to either the territory,
Canada or both, and it may include health-care institutions who
employed those who we say participated in discriminatory delivery
of services."

Cooper said it's too early to say definitively the lawsuit will
proceed.

"Establishing the circumstance of class action do not always mean
that the class action will proceed [and] if it does proceed,
whether in fact it will be certified."

Cooper's law office is now looking for stories of discrimination in
health care experienced by Inuit inside or outside Nunavut. [GN]


QUDIAN INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F 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 continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Qudian Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA
(S.D.N.Y.).

The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as
defendants in four putative securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York:
Ramnath v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA
(S.D.N.Y.), Maia v. Min Luo et al., Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-09796-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Foat v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-09875-RA (S.D.N.Y.), and Perez v. Qudian Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09903-RA (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively,
the "Federal Actions").

The Federal Actions purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering
(IPO), allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the United States
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's disclosure
of business and regulatory risks.

On March 16, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Federal Actions under master caption In re Qudian Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.) and
appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated
case. On May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, and, on July 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint. On October 12, 2018, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws.

On December 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion
to dismiss, along with a motion to strike certain material in the
motion to dismiss, and, on January 11, 2019, the company filed a
reply in support of the motion to dismiss and an opposition to the
motion to strike. A hearing date on the pending motions has not yet
been set.

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


QUDIAN INC: Securities Suit in New York Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case entitled, In re
Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Index No. 651804/2018, is still
stayed.

The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as
defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in New
York Supreme Court, Panther Partners Inc. v. Qudian Inc., Index No.
651804/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), and The Morrow Property
Trust v. Qudian Inc., Index No. 653047/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cty.) (collectively, the "New York State Actions").

The New York State Actions, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their purchase of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering
(IPO), similarly allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the United States Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
company's disclosure of business and regulatory risks.

On August 15, 2018, the two putative securities class actions were
consolidated by joint stipulation under the master caption In re
Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Index No. 651804/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty.). On June 1, 2018, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the actions for failure to state a claim or, alternatively,
to stay the actions in light of the Federal Actions. On August 24,
2018, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion to
dismiss or stay, and we filed a reply on October 5, 2018. A hearing
was held on November 8, 2018. On November 14, 2018, the court
granted the company's motion to stay.

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


QUDIAN INC: Song Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to stay filed
in the case, Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., has been granted.

The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as
defendants in Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., Case No. 18CIV01425 (Cal.
Supr. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), a putative securities class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo (the
"California Action").

The California Action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering
(IPO), alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
United States Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
company's disclosure of business and regulatory risks.

On May 15, 2018, the company filed a motion to stay the action in
light of, inter alia, the Federal Actions. Plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to stay on June 8, 2018, and we filed a
reply on June 22, 2018. A hearing on the motion to stay was held on
September 14, 2018.

On December 21, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to
stay.

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


RAINBOW USA: Brewer Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Shakina Brewer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Rainbow USA, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01390 (E.D. N.Y.,
March 11, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the Defendant's policy,
pattern, and practice, the Plaintiff was not paid for about 10-15
overtime hours she worked per week as a store manager.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in Columbus, Ohio from
January 2017 to May 2017 as a non-exempt classified Store Manager.

The Defendant operates a retail store throughout the United States.
Its principal place of business is in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (800) 616-4000
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


RED LOBSTER: Block Sues Over Wheelchair Inaccessibility at Restos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Block and Michael G. Murphy, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Red Lobster
Management LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01434, (N.D. Ill.,
February 27, 2019), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, expenses and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Red Lobster Hospitality LLC is a casual dining restaurant chain
headquartered in Orlando, Florida. Block and Murphy are confined to
a wheelchair and claims that they had difficulty in accessing Red
Lobster's facilities in Littleton, Colorado and Gurnee, Illinois
due to their failure to provide accessible seating at the
bar-counter dining surface. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
      Adam C. York, Esq.
      KAMBERLAW LLC
      220 N Green St.
      Chicago, IL 60607
      Phone: (212) 920-3072
      Fax: (212) 202-6364
      Email: masch@kamberlaw.com
             ayork@kamberlaw.com

             - and -

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      THE SWEET LAW FIRM, PC
      186 Mohawk Drive
      Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15228
      Phone: (412) 742-0631


ROBERTSON'S READY: Soriano Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled FERNANDO SORIANO, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD, a California Limited Partnership;
and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01045061-CU-OE-CXC, was
removed on April 4, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00651-JLS-ADS to
the proceeding.

On January 18, 2019, Fernando Soriano filed an unverified proposed
class action complaint in the Superior Court.  In the Complaint,
the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to pay him, and
the group of persons he seeks to represent, all wages owed in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Defendant ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD., is represented by:

          Stephen L. Berry, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          695 Town Center Drive, Seventeenth Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924
          Telephone: (714) 668-6200
          Facsimile: (714) 979-1921
          E-mail: stephenberry@paulhastings.com


ROSSINI'S PLACE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Juarez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE JUAREZ, JORGE MOLINA, ROMEL ARGULEO, RUBEN FLORES and WILSON
ROJAS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
ROSSINI'S PLACE INC., RAYMOND BERNAZ, GERRY BERNAZ, and JOSIP
CERNJUL, Case No. 507379/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., April 3,
2019), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, including failure to pay proper overtime.

Rossini's Place Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and
operates Rossini's restaurant in midtown Manhattan.  The Individual
Defendants own Rossini's Place Inc.

According to Rossini's Web site, "Rossini's success and longevity
are due to the family's constant presence and their philosophy of
serving true Italian Cuisine in an evolving and interesting
fashion."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
                  denise@jhllp.com


ROTHMANS BENSON: Gets Creditor Protection After Tobacco Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Philip Morris International Inc. said its
Canadian unit, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc (RBH), was granted
creditor protection, following a tobacco class action ruling in
Quebec in March.

The company said it would deconsolidate RBH from its financial
statements, and it cut its full-year 2019 diluted earnings per
share forecast to at least US$4.90 at prevailing exchange rates,
from at least US$5.28 in the forecast it made on March 4, shortly
after the ruling in Quebec.

The Court of Appeal of Quebec upheld the bulk of a 2015 decision
that awarded about $15 billion (US$11.19 billion) to smokers in the
Canadian province, a blow to several big tobacco companies,
including RBH.

Some observers criticized the creditor protection calling it an
attempt to avoid making payments.

"The company's strategy is to obtain a sweetheart settlement of all
tobacco lawsuits in Canada, and then to carry on business as
normal," said Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst from the
Canadian Cancer Society.

"The company is highly profitable and is not anywhere close to
bankruptcy."

On an adjusted basis, the current forecast for full-year 2019
represents earnings per share growth of at least 8 per cent over
last year, the Marlboro cigarette maker said.

The deconsolidation, which will not have an impact on the company's
current annualized dividend rate, will result in an estimated
one-time non-cash charge of about US$0.10 per share, it said.

The operating cash flow for full-year 2019 is now estimated to be
about US$9.5 billion, down from "at least US$10 billion" in the
forecast it made on Feb. 7.

The creditor protection process, granted by the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, will allow RBH to carry on its business in the
ordinary course, Philip Morris added. [GN]


ROYAL KATSUEI: Coronel Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
OLGA MARIA CORONEL, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. ROYAL KATSUEI INC., SUSHI KATSUEI INC., and AUNG KO
WIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-03054 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2019), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, she is entitled to
recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Royal Katsuei is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of
business at 357 Avenue of the Americas, in New York City.

Sushi Katsuei is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of
business at 210th Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York.  Aung Ko Win is
the Chief Executive Officer, shareholder, owner, officer, director,
supervisor, managing agent and proprietor of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate Japanese restaurants at their
respective locations each doing business as "Sushi Katsuei."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


ROYAL SEAS: Court Certifies McCurley TCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN McCURLEY, DAN DEFOREST, Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL SEAS
CRUISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion for class certification; and (ii) denied
Royal's Rule 702 motions to exclude the testimony of the
Plaintiffs' experts.

The case stems from telemarketing calls for Defendant Royal's
cruise vacation packages and services allegedly made to cellular
telephone numbers.  The Named Plaintiffs are California residents
who allege that Royal and its agents allegedly made such calls to
the Plaintiffs with the use of an automatic telephone dialing
system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice and without the
Plaintiffs' prior express consent.  On behalf of a putative
nationwide class, McCurley and DeForest bring the consolidated
action against Royal for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs claim that Royal violated
Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA.  They contend that Royal is liable
for negligent and intentional violations of the TCPA.  They seek
damages and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs move for class certification of their TCPA claims
pursuant to Rule 23.  They request certification of Rule 23(b)(2)
and (b)(3) classes.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court certifies:

     a. Narrowed Class: All persons within the United States who
received a telephone call from Prospects, DM, Inc. on behalf of
Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. on said Class Member's cellular telephone
made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice, between November 2016 and June
2018, whose phone number is associated in Prospects DM's records
with either diabeteshealth.info or
www.yourautohealthlifeinsurance.com.

     b. Narrowed Transfer Subclass: All members of the Narrowed
Class whose call resulted in a Transfer to Royal Seas Cruises,
Inc.

Royal opposes class certification.  In connection with its
opposition to the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion, Royal moves to
exclude the testimony of Wesley Weeks and Christina
Peters-Stasiewicz, individuals who the Plaintiffs offer as experts
in support of class certification.  

The Plaintiffs oppose Royal's motions to exclude.

Judge Bashant analyzes the merits of Rule 23 certification based on
the following classes:

     a. Class: All persons within the United States who received a
telephone call (1) from Prospects, DM, Inc. on behalf of Royal Seas
Cruises, Inc. (2) on said Class Member's cellular telephone (3)
made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) between November 2016 and
December 2017, (5) where such calls were placed for the purpose of
marketing, (6) to non-customers of Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. at the
time of the calls, and (7) whose cellular telephone number is
associated in Prospects DM's records with either
diabeteshealth.info or www.yourautohealthlifeinsurance.com.

     b. Transfer Subclass: All members of the Class whose call
resulted in a Transfer to Royal Seas Cruises, Inc.

After careful consideration, Judge Bashant granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion for class
certification.  She (i) denied certification of a Rule 23(b)(2)
TCPA class; and (ii) granted certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) TCPA
class.

She certified the TCPA claims pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) as follows:


     a. Class: All persons within the United States who received a
telephone call (1) from Prospects, DM, Inc. on behalf of Royal Seas
Cruises, Inc. (2) on said Class Member's cellular telephone (3)
made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) between November 2016 and
December 2017, (5) where such calls were placed for the purpose of
marketing, (6) to non-customers of Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. at the
time of the calls, and (7) whose cellular telephone number is
associated in Prospects DM's records with either
diabeteshealth.info or www.yourautohealthlifeinsurance.com.

     b. Transfer Subclass: All members of the Class whose call
resulted in a Transfer to Royal Seas Cruises, Inc.

Further division of the Class and Transfer Subclass based on the
two websites may likely streamline the litigation.  The Judge
advises the parties that, subject to further order, it may be
appropriate for the Court to revise the certification order.

The Judge appointed Plaintiffs McCurley and DeForest as the class
representatives for the Class and the Transfer Subclass presently
certified.  Pursuant to Rule 23(g), she appointed the Plaintiffs'
counsel as the Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), the
parties are ordered to meet and confer, and submit to the Court an
agreed-upon form of class notice that will advise individual
members of, among other things, the nature of the action, the
relief sought, the right of class members to intervene or opt out,
and the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule
23(c)(3).  They will also jointly submit a plan for dissemination
of the proposed notice.  The proposed notice and plan of
dissemination will be filed with the Court no later than April 30,
2019.

The Judge denied Royal's Rule 702 motions.

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

John McCurley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian
Law Group, APC, Joshua B. Swigart -- Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
-- Hyde & Swigart, Kevin Lemieux -- kevin@westcoastlitigation.com
-- The Law Office of Kevin Lemieux, APC, Matthew M. Loker,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C.

Dan Deforest, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian R. Bacon, The Law
Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Kevin Lemieux, The Law Office of
Kevin Lemieux, APC, Matthew M. Loker, Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
Meghan George, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman & Todd M. Friedman,
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anton N. Handal
-- tony.handal@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder LLP, Brian R.
Cummings -- brian.cummings@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder P.A., pro
hac vice, Jeffrey A. Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com --
Greenspoon Marder P.A., pro hac vice, Richard W. Epstein --
Richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac vice
& Lauren Gail Kane -- lauren.kane@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder
LLP.


SAMSONITE COMPANY: Schertzer Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Schertzer v. Samsonite Company Stores, LLC, et
al., Case No. 37-02019-00011100-CU-MC-CTL, was removed on April 3,
2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00639-JLS-MSB to
the proceeding.

Samsonite manufactures luggage, casual bags, backpacks, electronics
carriers, laptop bags, messenger bags, duffle and sport bags, and
travel accessories.  The Company offers its products through its
stores in the United States; dealers; and online.  The Company was
incorporated in 1985 and is based in Mansfield, Massachusetts.
Samsonite Company Stores, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Samsonite
International S.A.[BN]

Plaintiff Kristen Schertzer, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

Defendant Samsonite Company Stores, LLC, an Indiana Limited
Liability Company, is represented by:

          Stephanie A. Sheridan, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          One Market Street
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1008
          Telephone: (415) 365-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
          E-mail: ssheridan@steptoe.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Bail Schedule Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In RIANA BUFFIN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04959-YGR (N.D.
Calif.), the Plaintiffs challenge the use of San Francisco's Felony
and Misdemeanor Bail Schedule as a basis for defendant Sheriff
Vicki Hennessy to release detainees prior to arraignment where
those detainees do not have the means to afford the amounts set
forth therein.

The Plaintiffs argue that plausible alternatives exist which would
allow for their release and that the continued use of such a
schedule violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of
the United States Constitution.  When the Sheriff refused to defend
the use of the Schedule, the Court granted California Bail Agents
Association ("CBAA") limited intervenor status.

Now before the Court are the plaintiffs' motion to revoke CBAA's
intervenor status, and the plaintiffs' and CBAA's cross-motions for
summary judgment on the plaintiffs' Equal Protection and Due
Process claims.

Having carefully considered the pleadings in this action, the
fully-briefed motions, and the hearing held on January 8, 2019, the
Court denies the plaintiffs' motion to revoke CBAA's intervenor
status as it is based on the premature argument that Penal Code
section 1269b has been repealed.

The Court grants the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and
denies CBAA's cross-motion for summary judgment.  The evidence
demonstrates that the Sheriff's use of the Bail Schedule
significantly deprives plaintiffs of their fundamental right to
liberty, and a plausible alternative exists which is at least as
effective and less restrictive for achieving the government's
compelling interests in protecting public safety and assuring
future court appearances.  Operational efficiency based upon a bail
schedule which arbitrarily assigns bail amounts to a list of
offenses without regard to any risk factors or the governmental
goal of ensuring future court appearances is insufficient to
justify a significant deprivation of liberty.

In terms of injunctive relief, the parties have not briefed the
topic. In general, relief must be narrowly tailored to address the
extent of the constitutional violations found. See Dayton Bd. of
Ed. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420 (1977) ("Once a constitutional
violation is found, a federal court is required to tailor the scope
of the remedy to fit the nature and extent of the constitutional
violation."); Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995) ("[T]he
nature of the . . . remedy is to be determined by the nature and
scope of the constitutional violation.") (internal quotation marks
omitted). Accordingly, the Court will issue an injunction enjoining
the Sheriff from using the Bail Schedule as a means of releasing a
detainee who cannot afford the amount but will delay issuing the
injunction pending briefing. A separate scheduling order shall
issue.

A full-text copy of the March 4, 2019 Order penned by Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5lhfaxd from
Leagle.com.

Riana Buffin & Crystal Patterson, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron
T. Chiu, Esq. -- aaron.chiu@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Phil
Telfeyan, Equal Justice Under Law, Ariel E. Rogers, Catherine
Bentley Sevcenko, Equal Justice Under Law, pro hac vice, David
Derrick, Margaret Tough, Latham & Watkins LLP, Robert E. Sims,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Steven Mark Bauer, Latham & Watkins LLP &
Tyler Paul Young, Latham and Watkins LLP.

City and County of San Francisco, Defendant, represented by Jeremy
Michael Goldman, San Francisco City Attorney's Office.

Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, Defendant, represented by Jeremy Michael
Goldman, San Francisco City Attorney's Office, Tara M. Steeley, San
Francisco City Attorney's Office & Neha Gupta, San Francisco City
Attorney's Office.

Attorney General Kamala Harris, Defendant, represented by Jose A.
Zelidon-Zepeda, California State Attorney General's Office.

California Bail Agents Association, Intervenor Dft, represented by
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Brandon D. Baum,
Dhillon Law Group LLC, Gregory Richard Michael, Dhillon Law Group
Inc. & Krista Lee Baughman, Dhillon Law Group Inc.

San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Amicus, represented by Mary
Beth McCord, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.


SAND CASTLE: Fails to Properly Pay Workers Under FLSA, Kaine Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA KAINE, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SAND CASTLE INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00127 (S.D. Tex., April 4, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
knowingly and deliberately failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
the Class Members at the minimum wage rate for all hours worked and
at the rate of time and one half their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sand Castle Investments, LLC, is a Wisconsin for-profit company
doing business in Texas.

The Defendant is a company that provides various home, vehicle, and
property inspections.  As its Web site states, the Defendant's
"field representative completes an occupancy inspection to report
on property type, occupancy status, postings, potential hazards,
damages, detached structures, lawn, and utilities."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Partial Judgment in Securities Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DUANE & VIRGINIA LANIER TRUST, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN TRUST I et al., Defendants, Case No.
CIV-15-634-G (W.D. Okla.), Judge Charles B. Goodwin of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the
Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. explored, developed, and produced natural
gas and oil reserves in, among other locations, the Mississippian
Formation, a geological formation located in northern Oklahoma and
south-central Kansas.  To finance increased capital expenditures
planned for 2011, SandRidge decided to 'monetize' certain of its
existing oil and gas assets in [n]orthern Oklahoma by selling
interests in those assets to the public via a royalty trust.

To this end, SandRidge created Trust I and conveyed to it royalty
interests consisting of a share of SandRidge's revenue from (a)
existing horizontal oil and gas wells in five Oklahoma counties,
collectively referred to as the "Trust I Area of Mutual Interest"
("Trust I AMI"), and (b) specific horizontal oil and gas wells to
be drilled in the Trust I AMI.  To pay for these royalty interests,
Trust I committed to sell common units to investors in an initial
public offering ("Trust I IPO") and transfer the net proceeds of
that sale to SandRidge.

In November 2012, SandRidge made certain statements that concerned
the performance of oil and gas wells in the Mississippian
Formation.  During an earnings call, Defendant Ward, who was
SandRidge's founder and then CEO and chairman of SandRidge's Board
of Directors, disclosed that SandRidge's wells in the Mississippian
Formation consisted of far more gas and far fewer oil deposits than
the market had previously been led to believe.  Following the
disclosures, the prices of SandRidge common stock and Mississippian
Trust units dropped.

On Dec. 5, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Court on behalf of a
putative class of investors in SandRidge common stock, asserting
claims against SandRidge, Ward, Grubb, and Bennett (who was
executive VP of SandRidge and CFO of both SandRidge and the two
Trusts).  Initially, no claims were asserted on behalf of Trust I
or Trust II investors, and neither Trust I nor Trust II was a named
Defendant.  The Complaint alleged that SandRidge, together with its
officers and directors, had violated federal securities laws by
disseminating false and misleading statements concerning
SandRidge's business and operational status and FY 2012 financial
xpectations.  On May 11, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims
brought by Greenberg, Blackburn, and Odell without prejudice for
failure to comply with certain requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On June 9, 2015, immediately after the dismissal of the claims of
Greenberg, Blackburn, and Odell in SandRidge, Lanier brought the
instant action.  A consolidated amended complaint followed on Nov.
11, 2016.  In that pleading, Lanier joined with Nibur and Rath (who
like Lanier had purchased Trust I units) and with Luna and
Willenbucher (who also like Lanier had purchased Trust II units) to
bring claims on behalf of themselves and the individuals and
entities that had purchased or otherwise acquired common units of
(a) Trust I pursuant or traceable to the Trust I IPO, deemed
effective April 5, 2011, and/or at all other times between April 5,
2011, and Nov. 8, 2012, inclusive; and/or (b) Trust II pursuant or
traceable to the Trust II IPO, deemed effective April 17, 2012,
and/or at all other times during the Class Period.

The relief was sought under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the PSLRA.  The Lead
Plaintiffs also sought to hold certain Defendants liable under
sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 claims were asserted against Trust
I and nominal Defendant SandRidge as well as against Defendants
Ward, Bennett, and Grubb.  The Securities Act claims were asserted
against both Trust I and Trust II, SandRidge, Ward, Bennett, and
Grubb. Also named as Defendants were Randall D. Cooley, who served
as SandRidge's senior VP-accounting, members of SandRidge's Board
of Directors (Jim J. Brewer, Everett R. Dobson, William A.
Gilliland, Daniel W. Jordan, Roy T. Oliver, Jr., and Jeffrey S.
Serota), and certain entities that had underwritten the Trusts'
offerings and/or had helped draft and disseminate prospectuses for
the two offerings.

On Aug. 30, 2017, the Court, without objection, dismissed the Lead
Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims.  The judgment on those claims
was thereafter entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) on Dec. 5, 2017.  The Court also dismissed Luna's and
Willenbucher's claims against Trust I on Jan. 18, 2019.  What
remains are the individual claims of Lanier, Nibur, and Rath and
the claims they have asserted on behalf of putative class members
under section 10(b) and/or section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
under Rule 10b-5 against Defendants SandRidge, Ward, Bennett,
Grubb, and Trust I.

Now before the Court is the Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)
by SandRidge, Ward, Bennett, Grubb, and Trust I.  According to
them, because the Lead Plaintiffs' "own dispositive admissions"
show without exception or qualification, that all elements of the
Defendants' fraudulent conduct, including scienter, were revealed
to the investing public, including the Plaintiffs, by Nov. 9, 2012,
the Exchange Act claims filed more than two years later, on June 9,
2015, are time-barred.  Relying on the allegations in both the
original complaint and the amended pleading, the Defendants contend
that the Lead Plaintiffs knew as early as November 2012 about the
nature and extent of the Defendants' fraud.

The Lead Plaintiffs respond that they had not and could not have
discovered by November 2012 (or any time more than two years prior
to June 9, 2015) the facts related to scienter.  They contend that
their Exchange Act claims did not begin to run any earlier than
July 23, 2013, the day the first consolidated amended complaint was
filed in SandRidge.

Judge Goodwin concludes that while a court may dismiss a claim on
the pleadings based on an affirmative defense under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c), it is only appropriate to do so when a
plaintiff's pleadings admit all the elements of the affirmative
defense by alleging the factual basis for those elements.  Because
application of a limitations period is most often a fact-intensive
inquiry, and because the Defendants have not shown at this stage of
the proceeding that the allegations in the Lead Plaintiffs'
pleadings make clear that the right sued upon in the case has been
extinguished, he denied the Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings.  Such denial is without prejudice should
discovery reveal a basis for again challenging the timeliness of
the Lead Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8ks74K from Leagle.com.

Duane and Virginia Lanier Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M.
Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac
vice, Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA,
pro hac vice, Darren B. Derryberry, Derryberry & Naifeh LLP,
Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm PA, Joshua E. Baker --
jbaker@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, Keith
R. Lorenze -- klorenze@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA &
Nicholas G. Farha -- nick@farhalawfirm.com -- Farha Law PLLC.

Matthew Willenbucher, Jase Luna & Ivan Nibur, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm PA, Joshua E.
Baker, The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, Keith R. Lorenze, The
Rosen Law Firm PA, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm PA &
Nicholas G. Farha, Farha Law PLLC.

Reed Romine & Deborah Rath, on behalf of Lawrence Ross, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm PA, Joshua E.
Baker, The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice & Nicholas G. Farha,
Farha Law PLLC.

Sandridge Energy Inc, Defendant, represented by Amy H. Bond --
abond@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, C. Williams Phillips,
Covington & Burling, Christopher Yuk Lun Yeung -- cyeung@cov.com --
Covington & Burling, Jordan S. Joachim -- jjoachim@cov.com --
Covington & Burling, Kiran A. Phansalkar -- kphansalkar@cwlaw.com
-- Conner & Winters, Mark P. Gimbel -- mgimbel@cov.com -- Covington
& Burling, Mitchell D. Blackburn -- mblackburn@cwlaw.com -- Conner
& Winters, Robert A. Nance -- rnance@riggsabney.com -- Riggs Abney
Neal Turpen Orbison Lewis & Swati R. Prakash -- sprakash@cov.com --
Covington & Burling.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I, Defendant, represented by David B.
Springer, Bracewell & Giuliani, Patrick A. Caballero, Bracewell &
Giuliani, Robert A. Nance, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison Lewis,
Ryan S. Wilson, Wilson Law Firm & William S. Benesh, Bracewell &
Giuliani.

Tom L Ward, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Fawal, Latham
& Watkins, David L. Johnson, Latham & Watkins, George S. Corbyn,
Jr., Corbyn Hampton PLLC, James C. Word, Latham & Watkins, Joe M.
Hampton , Hampton Barghols Pierce PLLC, Norman G. Anderson, Latham
& Watkins, Robert A. Nance, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison Lewis,
Stephen P. Barry, Latham & Watkins & Steven M. Bauer, Latham &
Watkins.

James D Bennett & Matthew K Grubb, Defendants, represented by Amy
H. Bond, Covington & Burling, Christopher Yuk Lun Yeung, Covington
& Burling, Evan G.E. Vincent, Crowe & Dunlevy, Jordan S. Joachim,
Covington & Burling, Mark P. Gimbel, Covington & Burling & Robert
A. Nance, Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison Lewis.

Michael F. Davis & Michael A. Pence, Movants, represented by David
A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Evan J. Kaufman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.


SANITARIOS LAMOSA: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Cone Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN CONE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SANITARIOS LAMOSA
S.A. DE C.V., ET AL., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00001
(E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, (i) granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' DTPA, Negligent Failure to Warn, and
Breach of Implied Warranty Claims ("Substantive Claims Motion");
and (ii) denied the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Missing Evidence.

The action arises from alleged manufacturing and/or marketing
defects in certain ceramic Vortens toilet tanks.  The Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint and Class Action is the operative
complaint.  The toilet tanks at issue were manufactured, designed,
produced, and distributed by Sanitarios Lamosa, now known as
Porcelana Corona.  

As a result of their claimed damages, the Plaintiffs have alleged
four causes of action against the Defendant: (1) strict products
liability; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) negligence; and (4)
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA").
They seek injunctive relief and monetary damages, including
exemplary damages, treble damages under the DTPA, and attorneys'
fees.  They also seek to represent a putative class defined as all
owners of Vortens toilet tank models #3464, #3412, #3404, #3425,
and #3436, manufactured by the Defendant between 2004-2012, and the
Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Class Certification is currently
pending before the Court.

Came on for consideration the report of the United States
Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore
referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On
March 13, 2019, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered
containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that the
Defendant's Substantive Claims Motion be denied in part and granted
in part, and the Defendant's Missing Evidence Motion be denied.

The Defendant filed objections to the Report.  Judge Mazzant has
made a de novo review of the objections raised by the Defendant and
is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and the Objections are without merit
as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge.

He finds that the Defendant's Objections merely reassert the same
arguments already addressed by the Magistrate Judge in her Report,
and the Defendant fails to provide any new information or legal
arguments to establish that it is entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law.  Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the
evidence and all justifiable inferences in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Defendant first objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that
Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
DTPA claim.  The Judge finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's
conclusion that there's no need to distinguish between the UCC and
DTPA because the product's merchantability was a necessary part of
the warranty and thus necessary to prove or disprove the warranty
under both the UCC and the DTPA.

The Defendant next objects to the Report's finding that, in light
of the Plaintiffs' broad-ranging allegations of negligence,
disposing of the narrow issue of whether Defendant undertook a duty
to warn and then failed in that duty is not a proper use of the
summary judgment mechanism.  The Judge agrees this is a question
that should be presented to the factfinder, and thus, the Defendant
is not entitled to summary judgment of the Plaintiffs' negligent
failure to warn claim on this basis.  Therefore, its Objection as
it pertains to the Plaintiffs' negligent failure-towarn claim is
overruled.

Finally, it objects to the Report's finding with respect to the
missing toilet tanks and tank parts.  However, the Defendant's
Objection merely reargues the reasons it believes the evidence
offered by the Plaintiffs in lieu of the missing tanks is
insufficient.  The Defendant's complaints merely go to the weight
of the evidence, which, as the Magistrate Judge explained,
demonstrates the existence of genuine issues of material fact.  The
Judge agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the
Plaintiffs' evidence is not so "wholly inadequate" that a fact
finder could not conclude that a product defect was responsible for
the Plaintiffs' damages.  Accordingly, summary judgment is improper
on this basis.

For these reasons, Judge Mazzant findsno error in the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations, and overruled the Defendant's Objections.
He denied the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding Missing Evidence.  He granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding
Plaintiffs' DTPA, Negligent Failure to Warn, and Breach of Implied
Warranty as follows: (i) summary judgment of the Plaintiffs' DTPA
and negligent failure-to-warn claims is denied as to all the
Plaintiffs, and those claims should proceed at this time; (ii)
granted summary judgment of the Plaintiffs' UCC breach of warranty
claims as to Plaintiffs Hocker, Carreras, Reuss, the Fessler
Plaintiffs, and the Stone Plaintiffs, as these claims are time
barred; and (iii) summary judgment of the Plaintiffs' UCC breach of
warranty claims are DENIED as to the Handly Plaintiffs and the
Sousa Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/iS14rL from Leagle.com.

Mark Fessler, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated,
Amber Fessler, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly
Situated, Andrew Hocker, on Behalf of Themselves and Those
Similarly Situated, Kevin Reuss, on Behalf of Themselves and Those
Similarly Situated, Matthew Carreras, on Behalf of Themselves and
Those Similarly Situated, Aaron Stone, Stacey Stone, Charles
Handly, Michelle Handly, Daniel Sousa & Sharon Sousa, Plaintiffs,
represented by Nathan Scott Carpenter , Carpenter & Schumacher PC &
Rebecca Elizabeth Bell Stanton , Carpenter & Schumacher PC.

Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. & Vortens, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Darrell Lee Barger -- dbarger@hdbdlaw.com --
Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP & Melissa Dorman Matthews --
mdorman@hdbdlaw.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, LLP.

Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., Defendant, represented by
Melissa Dorman Matthews, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, LLP, Angela
Skaggs Gordon, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, LLP, Darrell Lee
Barger, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP & Lauren Abigail Foreman,
Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, LLP.

D.R. Horton, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Mason Kleiman --
dkleiman@vinlaw.com -- Kleiman Lawrence Baskind & Fitzgerald.

Chapparal Plumbing, L.P., Material Witness, represented by Richard
L. Merrill, Fabio & Merrill.


SENIOR PLANNING: Faces Lester Cotton Estate's Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Senior Planning
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as THE ESTATE OF LESTER
COTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SENIOR PLANNING SERVICES, LLC; LTC
CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC; and PRICE & PRICE, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-08921-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., March 25, 2019). The case is
assigned to Judge Freda L. Wolfson and referred to Magistrate Judge
Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Retirement Plan Services, LLC provides employee benefits services
to employers. The company was founded in 1989 and is based in St.
Louis, Missouri. As of April 5, 2018, Retirement Plan Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of EPIC Advisors, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-1130
          E-mail: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com

               - and -

          Hillary B. Weinstein, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 790-4557
          E-mail: hweinstein@anapolweiss.com


SENTINEL REAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coney Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA J. CONEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENTINEL REAL ESTATE CORPORATION;
SENTINEL OFFICE PAYROLL CORP.; and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV09983 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2019) is
an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Coney was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid
employee.

Sentinel Real Estate Corporation operates as a real estate
investment advisory firm. The Company provides real estate
investment management services to institutional and qualified
private investors. Sentinel Real Estate serves customers worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


SHIFTPIXY INC: Ramirez Suit Against Shift Human Capital Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, that the class action
suit initiated by Maribel Ramirez against the company's subsidiary,
Shift Human Capital Management Inc., has been concluded.

On May 1, 2018, claimant, Maribel Ramirez, filed a class action
lawsuit, naming the company's subsidiary, Shift Human Capital
Management Inc., and its client as defendants, claiming that she
was forced to work hours for which she was not paid and denied
lunch breaks, and rest periods, etc., to which she was entitled,
and also claiming in separate government complaints that she was
discriminated against and wrongfully terminated.

ShiftPixy said, "This matter settled subsequent to our quarter end
and Shift Human Capital Management liability was determined at
$20,000, which is included in the condensed consolidated balance
sheet."

ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and
workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the
United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor,
human resources consultant, and administrator of workers'
compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant,
hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was
founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


SINGING RIVER: High Court Refuses to Hear Settlement Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
WLOX reports that the legal battle over the fate of the failed
Singing River Health System pension plan came to an end when the
U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the objectors' appeal of the
class action settlement. That means affected retirees will soon get
their share of the $156 million settlement. [GN]


SKM SERVICES: Court Orders Mediation of Coolaroo Plant Fire Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that lawyers representing more
than 250 residents, landowners and businesses impacted by
Melbourne's Coolaroo Recycling Plant fire will head to mediation
with the operator.

The court-ordered mediation was set take place in Melbourne on
March 28 between the legal firm and the plant's owner and operator,
SKM Services Pty Ltd.

Maddens Lawyers says it's possible a negotiated outcome or
settlement will be reached at the mediation meeting, subject to
court approval, but the matter will proceed to trial if no
resolution can be found.

The fire burned for 11 days after starting on July 13, 2017,
forcing residents from the suburbs of Coolaroo and Dallas to leave
as toxic smoke billowed into the sky and sprinkled ash across the
city.

Businesses were also forced to close during evacuations and the
ensuing clean-up.

Maddens Lawyers says the affected parties are concerned about the
blaze not being a one-off, with a smaller fire burning at the plant
in July last year.

"In addition to seeking recovery of their losses, the people of
Coolaroo and Dallas are concerned that this distressing event is
not repeated," Madden Lawyers senior principal Brendan Prendergast
said.

Mr Prendergast said he hoped the mediation would result in a
resolution for the residents and landowners. [GN]


STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Sour Gummy Candies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Ralph Mudge, Esq. -- amudge@bakerlaw.com -- and Randal Shaheen,
Esq. -- rshaheen@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article
for Lexology, report that class action lawsuits alleging misleading
advertising of food and beverage products show no sign of abating
anytime soon. So we have to give a shout out once in a while when
the good guys score a win and common sense appears to prevail.

This happened recently in a class action alleging that Starbucks
had misleadingly claimed that its sour gummy candies were only
naturally flavored. To Starbucks' credit, the gummies are actually
naturally flavored. Plaintiff, however, purported to be outraged by
the fact that the gummies contained fumaric acid, an artificial
ingredient that helps make the gummies sour. This, in turn, led to
the question debated by philosophers reaching as far back as
Aristotle -- "is sour a flavor?"

Fortunately, in dismissing the complaint, the judge did not need to
resolve this knotty issue. Instead the judge concluded that no
"reasonable" consumer could have believed that Starbucks was making
a claim that its sour gummies were only naturally flavored. The
judge noted that under California law the reasonable consumer test
has four prongs: (1) literal truth, (2) common sense, (3) the
front-back problem and (4) nature of the brand name. With respect
to the first prong, the judge noted that Starbucks (no doubt on the
basis of wise legal counsel) nowhere claims that its sour gummies
are all-natural flavored. Instead the packaging notes that the
candies are "apple, watermelon, tangerine and lemon" flavored.
While the court observes that it would not be unreasonable for a
consumer to assume that there were at least some natural flavors in
the product, the front of the label statement falls well short of
claiming that there are only natural flavors. (Not so one of our
favorite childhood candies, SweeTarts, which recently settled a
similar class action, but it proudly claimed "no artificial
flavors" on its label.)

The court also found that plaintiff's allegation failed the "common
sense" test. Not only did the label nowhere state that the gummies
were only naturally flavored, there was no imagery or other
descriptive language on the package that suggested "all natural"
and the gummies themselves were visible through the packaging which
led the court to conclude that their bright colors did not exactly
scream out "all natural" (although, ironically, the added color was
from natural sources). The court also rejected the argument that
any alleged violation of Food and Drug Administration labeling
requirements warranted a finding of deception. The court said that
while any alleged regulatory violation might be probative as to
whether a reasonable consumer might be misled, it was not
determinative. Finally, in what would have otherwise been an
ominous ruling for food companies, almost all of which engage in
some form of health and wellness promotion, the judge rejected the
argument that Starbucks' health and wellness marketing somehow
implied that its gummies were all natural.

The judge quickly disposed of the last two factors as well. First,
the judge found that there was no contradiction between the front
and back of the package because the front of the package did not
claim all natural. Nor did the brand name of the product -- "sour
gummies" -- in any way imply all natural.

One can only hope that this ruling represents a return to "common
sense" when it comes to food class actions, but such wishful
thinking would no doubt fail the "reasonable advertising lawyer"
test.

The case is SANDRA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 18cv2286 JM (WVG)(S.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 1, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yylx59kp from Leagle.com.

Sandra Brown, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Houchin ,
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald Marron, Law Office of
Ronald Marron.

Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kevin S. Asfour, K&L Gates LLP, Paul W. Sweeney,
Jr., K&L Gates LLP & Kate G. Hummel, K&L Gates LLP. [GN]


STATE FARM: Can Appeal Ruling in Labor Depreciation Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reports that the Supreme Court has ordered
the Fifth District appellate court to let State Farm appeal a
decision of Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge in a
potential class action.

The Justices entered a supervisory order on March 20, overturning
the Fifth District's denial of review.

State Farm challenges Mudge's denial of a motion to dismiss the
action.

Madison County resident Jarret Sproull sued State Farm in 2016,
with a legal team that included partners Chris Byron and Chris
Petri of Edwardsville.

Others on the team had filed a similar action, Jenkins v. State
Farm, in Cook County the previous year.

Cook County Circuit Judge Susan Kennedy dismissed it, finding a
statute of limitations barred it.

Jenkins appealed and State Farm cross appealed, claiming Kennedy
should have dismissed the action on the merits.

Sproull's complaint in Madison County alleged that wind damaged his
home on Dec. 28, 2015.

In calculating actual cash value according to his policy, he
alleged that State Farm depreciated labor and material.

He also alleged that the policy didn't disclose labor depreciation
and that State Farm took unfair advantage of the ambiguity in
actual cash value.

State Farm moved to stay the action pending resolution of the
Jenkins action.

At a hearing in March 2017, Mudge asked plaintiff counsel Joe
Snodgrass of St. Paul, Minn., about Jenkins.

According to a transcript of proceedings, Snodgrass said Jenkins
might stay that case and opt into this one if it got certified as a
class action.

He said Jenkins could dismiss his appeal, dismiss his case, settle
it, or decide not to move for class certification.

Mudge said, "Is he just doing this for sport up there?"

Snodgrass said he had no duties as class representative until a
class is certified.

He said Judge Kennedy found Illinois regulations don't allow labor
depreciation.

"If a trial court ruling in Illinois doesn't stop State Farm from
continuing to do this, then your trial court ruling is not
necessarily going to stop State Farm," Snodgrass said.

Mudge asked why Sproull filed suit if the issue was already teed
up.

"Precisely because we were uncertain whether or not the Illinois
court of appeals would even address it and in part also because the
carriers didn't change any activity despite judge Kennedy's
decision," Snodgrass said

State Farm counsel Heidi Dalenberg of Chicago said Kennedy
dismissed the case and her decision wasn't binding.

"The suggestion that we are running around purposefully violating a
binding court order right now on the question of labor
depreciation, I think, overstates the situation," Dalenberg said.

She said Sproull sought to serve individual interrogatories for
every class member and estimated the cost of response at $150,000 a
day for 90 days. That would equal $13.5 million.

She said the Illinois insurance department was allowing insurers
including State Farm to amend property policies. Policies would say
that actual cash value means depreciation of all components of
replacement cost.

She also said it was in effect for new business and was being added
at renewal time for existing insureds. She said she didn't concede
that the prior definition was ambiguous.

Snodgrass said discovery necessary for class certification in
Arkansas and Kentucky was negligible.

Mudge asked if they filed the interrogatories referenced by
Dalenberg.

Snodgrass said that "those folks didn't need it. They moved for
class certification without it."

Dalenberg said, "That's not correct. In Kentucky the plaintiffs did
file exactly those same interrogatories."

She said State Farm objected and the court hadn't ruled. And, that
State Farm didn't hear from Sproull until he sued.

Anyone could find the value of a 10-year old television or a 20
year old car by looking on the Internet and seeing what the
marketplace charged, she said.

"There is no marketplace for an old roof," she said.

"We have to come up with the best approximation that we can to
figure out what would the value in money of that thing have been at
that second before the hailstorm hit.

"We're going to figure out the all end cost for putting that roof
back on your house as if it was all brand new, and we're going to
take that remaining percentage of life that you had left in it, and
we're going to pay you that percentage.

"If you're putting into the actual cash value calculation full
replacement cost for labor and actual cash value only for the
materials, you're doing violence to the policy language.

"We're going to pay you the money value of the thing that you had
prior to the storm, and you can use that money then to go make your
down payment with your contractor to get your repairs started.

"If you show us a signed contract for repairs, we'll consider
paying you right away for all the rest of it."

Mudge said he'd take it under advisement, and he asked for copies
of cases.

Byron said, "Do you want us to do an order to that effect?"

Mudge said, "That would be good. That's going to be Mr. Byron's
contribution."

Mudge granted a stay in May 2017, but it didn't last long.

In June, First District appellate judges affirmed Kennedy in the
Jenkins action in Cook County.

Like Kennedy, they ruled on timeliness and not on merits.

At a hearing that August, Mudge asked where the Jenkins case stood.


Snodgrass said, "Jenkins is over. There was no appeal to the
Supreme Court."

Mudge said, "So there's no -"

Snodgrass said, "You're the only one."

Mudge denied State Farm's motion last February, finding he couldn't
interpret actual cash value.

He wrote that he couldn't assume responsibility for defining a term
State Farm had the opportunity to draft more specifically to align
with its practices.

"Illinois courts have established that when there is an ambiguity
in an insurance policy, all exclusions, conditions or provisions
which tend to limit or defeat liability should be construed most
favorably to the insured," he wrote.

State Farm petitioned the Fifth District for leave to appeal, and
Justices Judy Cates and Melissa Chapman denied it this Jan. 10.

Justice John Barberis would have granted it.

State Farm asked the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, and instead
the Justices opened the Fifth District door.

The case is SUSAN HICKS, et al. v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO.,
Case No. 0:14-cv-00053 (E.D. Ky.) [GN]


STEPHENS PRODUCTION: Certification of Royalty Owners Class Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In STEPHENS PRODUCTION COMPANY, Appellant, v. BILL R. MAINER; PEGGY
ANN MAINER; MARY HAMMOND LIVING TRUST; H.H. HAMMOND LIVING TRUST;
BILLY RAY MAINER, JR.; DWIGHT EDWARD COLE; AND CYNTHIA ROSE COLE;
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Appellees, No. CV-18-931 (Ark.), Stephens Production Company took
an appeal from an order of the Franklin County Circuit Court
granting appellees' motion for class certification.  Stephens
contends that the trial court erred by granting the motion because
the requirements of numerosity and superiority were not met.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirms.

The Appellees own mineral interests in land located in Franklin
County.  Stephens has leases with appellees and others that permit
it to explore, drill, produce, and sell hydrocarbons from the
leased property.  After Stephens suspended royalty payments, the
appellees filed a complaint in August 2015 alleging that the
payments were suspended in an effort by Stephens to recoup improper
deductions.  The complaint asserted causes of action for (1) breach
of contract; (2) violation of the prudent operator standard,
Arkansas Code Annotated section 15-73-207 (Repl. 2009); (3)
conversion; (4) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated sections
15-79-601 to -604; (5) fraud and deceit; and (6) violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The Appellees moved for class certification on March 19, 2018. The
class sought to be certified was described as:

     [a]ll persons or entities who are, or were, royalty owners in
wells producing natural gas from the Barton Production Unit in
Franklin County, Arkansas where Stephens Production Company is or
was the operator and/or working interest owner/lessee under oil and
gas leases which contain the following lease language: Lessee shall
pay Lessor one-eighth (or applicable royalty if amended) of the
proceeds received by Lessee at the well for all gas (including
substances contained in such gas) produced from the leased premises
and sold by Lessee.

     Exclusions: The following persons are excluded from the
class:

     The persons or entities excluded from the Class are: (a) all
governmental entities, including federal, state and local
governments and their respective agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities; (b) the States and territories of the United
States or any foreign states or territories; (c) the United States
of America; (d) any persons or entities that Plaintiffs' counsel
is, or may be, prohibited from representing under the Arkansas
Rules of Professional Conduct, including Defendant's counsel, their
firms, and members of their firms; and (j) members of the judiciary
and their staff to whom this action is assigned.

The Appellant first argues that the requirement of numerosity is
not met here.  Rule 23(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure
(2017) states that, as a prerequisite to a class action, the class
must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.
The Court has not adopted a bright-line rule to determine how many
class members are required to satisfy the numerosity requirement.

The state Supreme Court notes that, in this case, the circuit court
considered the number of potential claimants known at the time to
exist and determined that joinder of all potential claimants would
be impractical.  The Court cannot say that this finding constitutes
an abuse of discretion.  Further, this court has held that when the
numerosity question is a close one, the balance should be struck in
favor of a finding of numerosity in light of the trial court's
option to later decertify.  Given the standard of review and the
trial court's option to decertify at a later date, the Court
affirms on this point.

The Appellant also argues that appellees failed to satisfy the
superiority requirement.  A class action may be maintained if it is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy.  This court has held that the
superiority requirement is satisfied if class certification is the
more efficient way of handling the case, and it is fair to both
sides.

The Court finds that the Appellant does not contend on appeal that
common issues of law or fact do not exist. Instead, the appellant
contends that superiority is not met here because the class is too
small and the potential class members who have not joined the
litigation had three years to do so before the class-certification
motion was filed, making it unfair for appellant to be subjected to
liability for claimants who were not interested in joining the
litigation.  Here, the pertinent language in the leases is the same
for all potential class members.  The complaint alleges that the
appellant's actions were the same as to all potential class
members.  A class action will allow the issue of liability to be
determined in one case, as opposed to being relitigated in multiple
separate cases.

Under these circumstances, the Court rules that a class action is
the superior method of adjudicating this controversy. Proceeding as
a class action is also fair to both sides, as each will be
permitted to present evidence on the issue of whether the
appellant's cessation of royalty payments was permissible. The
Court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that the superiority requirement is satisfied here.

Justice Rhonda K. Wood dissented, saying, "[u]nder Rule 23(a) of
the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure (2017), a class action is
appropriate only if the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable. Today, our court breaks new ground in
affirming the circuit court's conclusion that a putative class of
seven to thirty-six members is so numerous that joinder is
impracticable. Because the majority further relaxes our already
liberal requirements for class certification, I dissent."

A full-text copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6tm8g6q from Leagle.com.

Conner & Winters, LLP, by: G. Alan Wooten, Esq. --
awooten@cwlaw.com -- and Michael D. Sutton, Esq. --
msutton@cwlaw.com -- for appellant.

Danielson Law Firm, PLLC, by: Erik P. Danielson, for appellees.


SUN AMERICA: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Edwards Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Takeitha Edwards, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sun America LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00530 (N.D. Ohio,
March 11, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant practices and maintains
policies of not paying hourly, non-exempt employees, including the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, for all time
worked and overtime compensation. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
make, keep and preserve accurate records of all the unpaid work
performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
manufacturing employees.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manufacturing
employee between October 2018 and January 2019.

The Defendant manufactures food services packaging for the
commercial bakery, confectionery, and food services industry. The
Defendant conducted business in Stark County, Ohio and maintained
its headquarters at 46 North Rockhill Avenue, Alliance, Ohio
44601.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 696-5000
      Fax: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


SWAROVSKI NORTH: Removes Lerman Class Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Lerman v. Swarovski North America Limited, et
al., Case No. 37-02019-00011559-CU-BT-CTL, was removed on April 3,
2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00638-LAB-BLM to
the proceeding.

Swarovski manufactures and markets crystal giftware and jewelry.
The Company was incorporated in 1987 and is based in Cranston,
Rhode Island.  Swarovski operates as a subsidiary of Swarovski
AG.[BN]

Plaintiff Anna Lerman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Zev Benjamin Zysman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN, APC
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 783-8836
          Facsimile: (818) 783-9985
          E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com

Defendant Swarovski North America Limited is represented by:

          Stephanie A. Sheridan, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          One Market Street
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1008
          Telephone: (415) 365-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
          E-mail: ssheridan@steptoe.com


SYMMETRY MANAGEMENT: Dunbar Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELLA DUNBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYMMETRY MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00715-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The case is assigned to Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell and
referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Symmetry Management Corp. was founded in 1993. The company's line
of business includes the practice of general or specialized
medicine and surgery for various licensed practitioners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Salvatore Giardina, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3104 W Waters Ave, Suite 200
          Tampa, Fl 33614-2877
          Telephone: (813) 413-5610
          Facsimile: (866) 535-7199
          E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com


TAILORED BRANDS: Oliver Settlement Awaits Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 2, 2019, that its settlement agreement with Anthony Oliver
related to a putative class suit is still subject to preliminary
and final approval of the Court.

On February 17, 2016, Anthony Oliver filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company's Men's Wearhouse subsidiary in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 2:16-cv-01100).  The complaint attempts to allege claims
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  In particular the
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited text messages
to cellular telephones beginning October 1, 2013 to the present
day.

After the Company demonstrated that it had the plaintiff's
permission to send him texts, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging the Company sent text messages exceeding the
number plaintiff had agreed to receive each week.  The parties
filed cross-motions for summary judgment on what constitutes a
"week" and the Court recently issued an order granting the
plaintiff's motion and denying the Company's motion on what period
constitutes a "week."

On or about August 17, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement for an immaterial amount consisting of a combination of
cash and coupons.

The Company said, "The settlement agreement, which is subject to
preliminary and final approval of the Court, will not have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the
United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada.  It operates through two
segments, Retail and Corporate Apparel.  The company was formerly
known as The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored
Brands, Inc. in February 2016.  Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded
in 1973 and is based in Houston, Texas.


TAILORED BRANDS: Subsidiary Still Faces Twin Hill Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Tailored Brands, Inc. continues to face a class
action suit related to defective uniforms, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019.

On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees, Thor Zurbriggen
and Dena Catan, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
Company's Twin Hill subsidiary in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-05648).

The complaint alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, and
medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill
supplied to American Airlines for its employees.

On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding nine additional named plaintiffs, adding American Airlines,
Inc. as a defendant, and adding claims for civil battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiffs filed a
Seconded Amended Complaint on October 4, 2018 on behalf of 39 named
plaintiffs, adding PSA Airlines, Inc. and Envoy Air Inc. as
defendants, adding new factual allegations and adding a new claim
of fraud against American.

The Second Amended Complaint included plaintiffs from the Onody
(Case No. 1:18-cv-02303) and Joy (Case No. 1:18-cv-05808) matters
the Company reported in prior filings.  As a result, on October 16,
2018, the judge dismissed the separate Onody and Joy matters.

The Company said, "We have timely answered the Second Amended
Complaint and the matter will proceed in due course.  Thirteen
additional plaintiffs have been added bringing the total number of
named plaintiffs to 52.  We believe that any lawsuit filed on the
basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American
Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action
vigorously.  Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of
the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we
believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs'
alleged injuries to our uniforms.  The range of loss, if any, is
not reasonably estimable at this time.  We do not currently
believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the
United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada.  It operates through two
segments, Retail and Corporate Apparel.  The company was formerly
known as The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored
Brands, Inc. in February 2016.  Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded
in 1973 and is based in Houston, Texas.



TEACHERS INSURANCE: Bids to Dismiss M. Haley's ERISA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA HALEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND
ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-855 (JPO)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denied TIAA's (i) motion to
dismiss the operative complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), and (ii) motion to strike certain class
allegations.

Haley brings the putative class action against Defendant TIAA,
alleging that TIAA engaged in prohibited transactions with the
Washington University Retirement Savings Plan in violation of
Section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  Haley is an employee of Washington University and a
participant in the Washington University Retirement Savings Plan,
an employee pension benefit plan regulated by ERISA.  The Plan
offers participants the opportunity to take out a loan against a
portion of their retirement accounts.  The Plan contracted with two
outside vendors, Vanguard and Defendant TIAA, to administer these
loans.  Between 2011 and 2015, the Plaintiff took out four separate
participant loans, which TIAA has administered.  She has fully
repaid the first two loans, and she is in the process of repaying
the two outstanding loans.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in February 2017,
claiming that the Defendant's administration of retirement loans to
Plan participants violates ERISA.  She alleged both that TIAA
itself violated its duties as an ERISA fiduciary, and that TIAA is
liable as a nonfiduciary for breaches by the Plan Administrator,
WashU.

TIAA moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
for failure to state a claim.  On March 28, 2018, the Court granted
the motion to dismiss in part, holding that the Plaintiff had
standing to bring thieaction, but that she had not plausibly
alleged that TIAA qualified as an ERISA fiduciary.  With respect to
the Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief against TIAA as a
nonfiduciary, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss, and granted the Plaintiff leave to amend.

The Plaintiff filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint on May
3, 2018.  Counts I through III of the Amended Complaint again
allege that TIAA itself violated its duties as an ERISA fiduciary.
And Counts V through VII allege that TIAA is liable as a
nonfiduciary for breaches by the Plan Administrator.  

TIAA now moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), or for an order striking the
class allegations in the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(f).  TIAA
seeks to dismiss Counts V through VII on two grounds: (1) the
Plaintiff's failure to adequately allege required elements of
claims for non-fiduciary liability; and (2) the  Plaintiff's
request for impermissible legal remedies.

Judge Oetken finds that the applicability of a Section 408
exemption is an affirmative defense on which such non-fiduciary
defendants bear the ultimate burden.  As such, dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) based on the application of a Section 408 exemption is
warranted only if it is clear from the face of the Complaint or
judicially noticed court filings that the Plan's use of proprietary
funds falls within an available exemption.

The Judge cannot conclude that Section 408(b)(1) clearly exempts
TIAA's loan program from liability.  Accordingly, because Haley has
adequately alleged the application of Section 406(a)(1)(B) and the
requisite knowledge of the fiduciary and the Defendant
non-fiduciary, TIAA's motion to dismiss the Section 406(a)(1)(B)
claim is denied.

He also finds that the collective allegations in the Amended
Complaint plausibly establish that the Section 408(b)(2) safe
harbor does not clearly exempt the conduct at issue.  Accordingly,
TIAA's motion to dismiss the excessive compensation claim is
denied.  Because he cannot determine at this stage that Section
408(b)(17) exempts the loan program from liability -- and Haley has
adequately alleged the other elements of a Section 40(a)(1)(D)
claim -- the Judge denied TIAA's motion to dismiss this claim.

As to equitable remedies, for the reasons stated in the Opinion of
March 28, 2018, the Judge rejects the Defendant's contention that
Counts V through VII must be dismissed for seeking legal relief
unauthorized under ERISA.

Haley seeks to certify, and to be appointed as representative of a
class comprising all individual account retirement plans qualified
under Code section 403(b) and serviced by TIAA that have offered
the TIAA participant loan program at any time from Feb. 5, 2011
through the date of judgment.  TIAA argues that the Court should
strike the Complaint's class action allegations on behalf of plans
and plan participants other than the WashU plan and its
participants.

Judge Oetken finds that TIAA tries to present its objection to the
class allegations as an issue "separate" from class certification,
framing it as a challenge to whether the class allegations satisfy
Twombly.  But it essentially challenges whether other TIAA plans
were "similarly situated" and whether participants in those plans
were "harmed in a similar fashion," with Defendant and fiduciary
possessing the requisite knowledge.  Such arguments implicate
typicality and whether common questions predominate for the class,
and thus rely upon the Rule 23 factors that would be analyzed and
addressed by the Court in the course of deciding a motion for
class.  Accordingly, TIAA's motion to strike the class allegations
is denied as premature.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Oetken denied TIAA's (i) motion
dismiss, and (i) motion to strike.  The Clerk of Court is directed
to close the motion at Docket Number 38.

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

Melissa Haley, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen Noteware --
enoteware@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Michael C. McKay --
mmckay@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP, Shanon Jude Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C., Todd S. Collins
-- tcollins@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C. & John Joseph Nestico
-- jnestico@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLC.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Defendant,
represented by Jaime A. Santos -- jsantos@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter, LLP, James O. Fleckner -- jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com --
Goodwin, Procter, L.L.P., Michael K. Isenman --
misenman@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP & Valerie A.
Haggans -- vhaggans@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP.


TELIGENT INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Generic Drugs Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaints in the case, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation, remains pending.

To date, 12 putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been
filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc., regarding
the pricing of generic econazole nitrate cream ("econazole").  The
class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes
consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased,
paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic
econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.  The class
plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for
econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of
the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the
defendants.  All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter.  On October
16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs' claims against
the Company with leave to replead.  On December 21, 2018 the class
plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the Company moved to
dismiss on February 21, 2019.  This motion remains pending.

Three "opt-out" antitrust lawsuits have additionally been filed
against the Company by Humana Inc.; The Kroger Co.  et al.; and
United HealthCare Services, Inc., and consolidated into the In re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  Each of the opt-out
complaints names between thirty-six and forty-three defendants
(including the Company) and involves allegations regarding the
pricing of econazole along with between twenty-four and twenty-nine
other drug products that were not manufactured or sold by the
Company during the period at issue.  The opt-out plaintiffs seek
treble damages for alleged overcharges for the drug products
identified in the complaint during the alleged period of
conspiracy, and two of the complaints also seek injunctive relief.
A motion to dismiss the Humana Inc. and The Kroger Co., et al.
opt-out complaints was filed on February 21, 2019.  A motion to
dismiss the United HealthCare Services, Inc. opt-out complaint has
not yet been filed.

The Company said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, we are
unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss.  We believe these cases are
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, and markets generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TEP ROCKY: Gonzales Appeals Sefcovic Suit Ruling to 10th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Charles Dean Gonzales and Susannah Gonzales filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Elna Sefcovic, et
al. v. TEP Rocky Mountain, et al., Case No. 1:17-CV-01990-MEH, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit, assigned Case No. 2017-CV-32575, was removed on
August 17, 2017, from the District Court City and County of Denver,
Colorado, to the District Court.

TEP Rocky Mountain is a private exploration and production company
that operates the piceance basin assets acquired by Terra Energy
Partners.

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Real Property Actions."

The appellate case is captioned as Elna Sefcovic, et al. v. TEP
Rocky Mountain, et al., Case No. 19-1120, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and entry of
      appearance were due April 18, 2019, for Charles Dean
      Gonzales and Susannah Gonzales; and

   -- Notice of appearance was due April 18, 2019, for Elna
      Sefcovic, LLC, Juhan, LP, Roy Royalty, Inc., TEP Rocky
      Mountain, LLC, The Law Offices of George A. Barton, PC and
      White River Royalties, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ELNA SEFCOVIC, LLC; WHITE RIVER ROYALTIES,
LLC; JUHAN, LP; and ROY ROYALTY, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and Movant-Appellee THE LAW
OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, PC; are represented by:

          George Barton, Esq.
          Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq.
          GEORGE A. BARTON LAW OFFICE
          7227 Metcalf, Suite 301
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Telephone: (913) 563-6250
          E-mail: gab@georgebartonlaw.com
                  stacy@georgebartonlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC, is represented by:

          Lauren R. Caplan, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          975 F Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 393-6500
          E-mail: lrcaplan@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          Christopher Anthony Chrisman, Esq.
          John Frederic Shepherd, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          555 17th Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-8000
          Facsimile: (303) 291-9123
          E-mail: cachrisman@hollandhart.com
                  jshepherd@hollandhart.com

Objectors-Appellants CHARLES DEAN GONZALES and SUSANNAH GONZALES;
and Intervenors IVO LINDAUER, SINDEY LINDAUER, RUTH LINDAUER and
DIAMOND MINERALS are represented by:

          Nathan A. Keever, Esq.
          DUFFORD, WALDECK, MILBURN & KROHN LLP
          744 Horizon Court, Suite 300
          Grand Junction, CO 81506
          Telephone: (970) 241-5500
          E-mail: keever@dwmk.com


TFORCE FINAL: Underpays Truck Drivers, Malaver Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR MALAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST, LLC; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10194 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 25, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Malaver was employed by the Defendants as truck
driver.

TForce Final Mile West, LLC provides transportation services to
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         J.D. Henderson, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF J.D. HENDERSON
         215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 529-5891
         E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net

              - and -

         Ziad Elrawashdeh, Esq.
         RAWA LAW GROUP APC
         5843 Pine Ave. Chino Hills, CA 91709
         Telephone: (909) 393-0660
         Facsimile: (888) 250-8844


THEIS: Largely Liable for 2014 Bushfire Damages, Court Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a Western Power
subcontractor has been found largely liable for a 2014 bushfire in
the Perth Hills region that was sparked by a fallen power pole and
destroyed 57 homes, but claims against the state-run utility have
been dismissed.

The blaze in Parkerville, Stoneville and Mt Helena also partially
damaged six homes and burnt 392 hectares.

A group action on behalf of 189 affected residents was heard in the
Supreme Court of WA last year, with Garry and Sandra Elwood the
test case plaintiffs.

The termite-ridden jarrah power pole was privately owned by
pensioner Noreen Campbell as it was on her land, but was connected
to infrastructure owned by the utility and serviced by its
subcontractor Theiss.

The pole, which had only four per cent good wood remaining at its
base when it toppled, was supposedly inspected six months before it
fell.

Also, two days before the fire, maintenance was conducted on a
nearby pole, which required the subcontractors to check the
condition of surrounding poles.

Justice Rene Le Miere ruled today that Theiss had been negligent by
failing to ensure its line crew properly inspected the pole, saying
the workers were not adequately trained.

The judge said Theiss was liable for 70 per cent of the Elwoods'
damages totalling $774,733, while Ms Campbell had also breached her
duty of care and was liable for the remaining 30 per cent.

He dismissed claims against Western Power, saying the utility had
discharged its duty of care by contracting Theiss to do the work.

Slater and Gordon practice group leader Rory Walsh said he was
surprised Western Power had not been found liable as it had sheeted
home responsibility to a subcontractor that was found to be
ill-equipped and incompetent for very important work.

But he was pleased with the judgment, which was the first group
action in the modern era where a company had been found liable for
failing to prevent a bushfire.

"Those liability findings will now bind the class as a whole," he
told reporters.

"It's on the basis of that that we will now seek to negotiate with
the defendants who have been found liable to settle the claim on
behalf of the group.

"It's clear that this is a damages judgment that's going to settle
in the tens of millions of dollars."

Mr Elwood said he was relieved by the judgment, which would give
the community closure.

"I'm glad it's all over . . . and I'm hoping that everybody up
there will appreciate what we've gone through."

He said the pole inspection regime had to improve.

"There are still poles, literally thousands of poles in WA, private
poles that have never ever been inspected," Mr Elwood said.

"We will be lobbying the government, Western Power, personally. We
want to see change."

The Elwoods say they feel sorry for Ms Campbell, who was added to
the action by the two other defendants and was represented by her
insurance company's legal team. [GN]


TILLY'S INC: Redemption of Settlement Coupons Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019,
that as of February 2, 2019, approximately 1.5% of non-transferable
discount coupons had been redeemed, representing less than 0.2% of
total sale transactions and less than 0.5% of total net sales,
since the coupons were issued.  The Company further stated that
these coupons had no material impact on its fiscal 2018 comparable
store net sales or operating results as a whole.

In January 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").  Specifically, the
complaint asserted a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sending
unsolicited automated messages to the cellular telephones of the
plaintiff and others.  The complaint sought class certification and
damages of US$500 per violation plus treble damages under the
TCPA.

The case is styled Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM.

The Company said, "In March 2017, we filed our initial response to
this matter with the court.  In June 2017, the parties attended a
mediation.  In July 2017, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter, subject to court approval, and we
recorded an estimated loss provision of US$6.2 million in
connection with the proposed settlement during the second quarter
of fiscal 2017.  In March 2018, the parties executed a settlement
agreement, subject to final court approval.

"In April 2018, the court preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement and certified a class for settlement purposes.  In May
2018, the class members were sent notice of the settlement and in
August 2018, the court granted final approval of the settlement.
As a result, we recorded a US$1.5 million reduction in our original
accrual estimate to reflect the final required cash payments to be
made as part of this settlement which were subsequently paid in
October 2018.  Additionally, we were required to issue
non-transferable discount coupons to approximately 612,000 existing
Tillys customers not covered by the cash payments in early
September 2018.

"As of February 2, 2019, approximately 1.5% of these coupons had
been redeemed, representing less than 0.2% of total sale
transactions and less than 0.5% of total net sales, since the
coupons were issued.  Consequently, these coupons had no material
impact on our fiscal 2018 comparable store net sales or operating
results as a whole.

"On a transactional basis, redemption transactions have produced an
average sale that is approximately three times larger than
non-redemption transactions during this same time period, but with
a significantly lower margin rate.  The net result has been an
increase in net margin dollars produced per redemption transaction
that is approximately 25% higher than non-redemption transactions.

"There can be no assurances that these results, or the level of
redemptions, will remain consistent through the remaining six month
redemption period.  Although redemption activity has been low
during the first six months of the redemption period, the potential
impact through September 4, 2019 could be material and could
adversely affect our financial condition and results of
operations."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States.  Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others.  Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


TILLY'S INC: Seeks Calif. High Court Review in Skylar Ward Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. has brought the Skylar Ward class action case to the
California Supreme Court seeking discretionary review of the Court
of Appeal's February 4, 2019 Decision, which overturned the trial
court's decision, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws.  The case is styled
Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405.

The Company said, "The complaint sought class certification,
unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and
attorneys' fees.  In June 2016, the court granted our demurrer to
the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed
to state a cause of action against Tilly's and dismissed the
complaint.  Specifically, the court agreed with us that the
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did
not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the
plaintiff's claims are based.

"In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our
demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all of
plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice.  In January 2017, the
plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of
Appeal.  In October 2017, the plaintiff filed her opening appellate
brief, and our responding appellate brief was filed in December
2017.

"In May 2018, the plaintiff filed her reply appellate brief.  Later
in May 2018, an amicus brief was filed by Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc., in support of Tilly's position in this appeal.  Oral
argument was heard by the California Court of Appeal in November
2018.  On February 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion
overturning the trial court's decision, holding that the
plaintiff's allegations stated a claim.

"In March 2019, we filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the Court of
Appeal's decision.  We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States.  Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others.  Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Court Tosses Out Navy Crew's Claims vs. GE
----------------------------------------------------------
In DUSTIN BARTEL; et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY, INC.; et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-537 JLS
(JLB)(S.D. Calif.), District Judge Janis L. Sammartino (1) grants
Defendant General Electric's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the
Plaintiffs' Complaint as to the claims against GE; and (2) grants
Defendant Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss
and dismisses the Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice as to the
claims against TEPCO.  The Court dismisses the complaint against
TEPCO without prejudice so that Plaintiffs may file their claims in
the proper forum.

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck Japan, giving
rise to tsunami waves more than 40 feet high that struck Japan's
Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant ("FNPP").  The plant's
radioactive core melted down, causing severe damage to the plant
and releasing radiation as a result.  The Plaintiffs, who are
members of the U.S. Navy crew of the U.S.S. RONALD REAGAN, crews of
other vessels participating in the Reagan Strike Force, land-based
service personnel, and, in some cases, their dependents, were
deployed to Japan as a part of a mission known as "Operation
Tomodachi."  The Plaintiffs allege that the FNPP released
radioisotopes and exposed them to injurious levels of ionizing
radiation during the mission.  The release of radiation and
subsequent injuries resulted from "negligently designed and
maintained" Boiling Water Reactors at the FNPP.

The Plaintiffs assert both individual and class action claims.  The
causes of action include negligence, strict products liability,
strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, res ipsa loquitur,
negligence per se, loss of consortium, and survival and wrongful
death.  The Plaintiffs make these claims against TEPCO, as the
owner and operator of the FNPP, and against GE, as the designer of
the Boiling Water Reactors within the FNPP.

                     GE's Motion to Dismiss

GE argues that the Court should conduct a choice-of-law analysis
and apply Japan's Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage, Act No.
147 of June 17, 1961 ("Compensation Act") which precludes GE from
liability for nuclear events.

The Court finds that, after balancing the impairments and reviewing
the relevant case law, the Court is persuaded that Japan's
interests would be "more impaired" if its law was not applied to
this matter. Accordingly, Japanese law applies to the issue of GE's
liability.

Under California's choice-of-law governmental interest test, the
Court finds that Japanese law applies to this case.  Further, the
Court interprets the Japanese Compensation Act to channel all
liability from third parties to the Nuclear Operator.  Because GE
is not an Operator and no exception applies, the Compensation Act
precludes all liability against GE.  Thus, the Court grants GE's
Motion to Dismiss and dismisses all of the Plaintiffs' claims
against GE pursuant to the Compensation Act.

                    TEPCO's Motion to Dismiss

TEPCO argues that issue preclusion bars the Plaintiff's claims
because of the prior Bartel I order.  Absent preclusion, TEPCO
argues the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  The Court agrees with TEPCO that preclusion
applies and that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over
TEPCO.

Here, there is no dispute that TEPCO raised the personal
jurisdiction issue in Bartel I and that TEPCO asserts the identical
personal jurisdiction defense again in this action against the same
Bartel I plaintiffs.  Because this Court decided that issue in a
final, appealable order, the requisite elements of issue preclusion
are met.  The Plaintiffs were free to amend the complaint in that
action, file a motion to reconsider, or appeal that Order.  Under
the doctrine of issue preclusion, however, they cannot attempt to
relitigate that same issue here.  Accordingly, this Court's ruling
in Bartel I that it lacks personal jurisdiction over TEPCO
precludes those same Bartel I plaintiffs' claims against TEPCO in
this action.

A full-text copy of the March 4, 2019 Order relating to the Bartel
suit is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2bx6vp6 from Leagle.com.

Dustin Bartel, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Pamela Ahlberg, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Christopher Alba, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Contrail Allen, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Andrew Anderson, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Matthew Anderson, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Jeffrey
Armstrong, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly, Matthew
Ayres, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Daniel Barbiero, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Monty Barham, Jr., On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Jessica Barlow, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Beatrice Barthelemy, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Brenden Beskow, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Jennifer Boyle, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Logan Black, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Johnathan
Burbach, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated
Situated, Adriana Cabarcas, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Derek Cambridge, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Derek Cambridge, On Behalf Of And For
His Minor Son, D.C., On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Camry Campbell, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Alexandra Renee Campos, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Christopher Carr, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Amy Chamberlain, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Carissa Clark,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Thomas
Clarke, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Jaime Clavito, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Jestine Clayton, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Ashley Cochran, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Christopher Coleman, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Jeff Cook, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Patrick Crespo, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Brian Cross, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Michael Cross, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Joshua
Cunningham, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Dakota Davis, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Gerald H. Davis, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Katarina Davison, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Adam Dawson, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Gadiel Del Orbe, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, The Estate Of Donald H. Dillinger,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Olivia
Dimas, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Matthew Donaldson, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Sharonda Douglas, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Daniel Dressler, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Corey Drew-Bell, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Lawrence Edwards, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Edward Eluere, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Ramon Enciso, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Eric I. Epps,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Brian
Eubanks, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Jason Ferguson, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Justine Fraley, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Marlon Francis, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Ruth Freeman, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Steven Gardner, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Lisset Garner, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Derek Keith Gay, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Joshy George,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Raymond
Giles, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Kirk
Godair, ndividually And As Administrator of the Estate Of Ruby
Perez, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Kirk
Godair, On Behalf Of And For His Minor Daughter, C.G., On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Rodolfo Guerra, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Tymeshia Guidry, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Cecilia
Guitierrez, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Cyrinthia Hambley, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Haldane Hamilton, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Nathan Hansen, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Corey Hart, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Michael Harvey, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Joseph K. Henry, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Darren Henson, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Marty B. Hill, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Martin Hitson,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Mitchell
Hodges, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Nicholas Holland, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, William Holt, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, John Wesley Hyatt, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Nancy Jackson, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Kevin Jacobson, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Justin Jaehnig, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Matthew Jenkins, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Greggory
Jordan, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Roderick Jessamy, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Justin Kenworthy, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Matthew Knaust, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Andrew Koepke, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Nicholas Kovachev, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Ryan Kunin, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Rene Landeros, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Michael Leland, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Melissa M.
Lester, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Lawrence M. Levan, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Joseph Lewis, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Scott Lieng, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Arnulfo Limon, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Adrian Lucina, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Annette Luckey, Individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of Danelle Luckey, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Derrick Luckey, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Edwin Maher, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Francisco E.
Marigundon, Jr., On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Chad Martins, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Janeth Masinde, Individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of Brenda Downing, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Travis McKnight, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Edwards Mello,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Rachel
Mendez, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Anais Mendoza-Gastelum, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Robert Meyer, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Jeremy Michaud, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Zachary Miller, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Brandon Montgomery, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Herbert Moore,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Esmerelda
Morales, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Joseph Mulder, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Jonathan Muldowney, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Charles R. Murphy, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Eion Nelson, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Garrett Nelson, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Robert Ochoa, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Glenn Ofori, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Luke Opyd, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Tim Palmer, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Tim Patao, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Nathan Pena, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Joshua Peoples, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Joshua Perez, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Trang Pham, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Timothy Pierce,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Chelsea
Quintog, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Clinton Ramsiare, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Brian Rawlins, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Cyrus Rea, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Teresa Ready, Individually and as Administrator
of the Estate of Jesse Ready, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Teresa Ready, On Behalf of and for Her Minor
Daughter, A.R., On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Jacob Reed, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Balthazar Reforsado, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Cameron Reid, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Angelina Reyna, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Quentin Richardson, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, William E. Rigby, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Richey Devin,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Pedro
Rodriguez, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Cesar Salgado, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Tyler Satterwhite, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Tiffany Schad, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Brett Schmidt, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Michelle Scott, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Joshua Segree, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Joshua Segree, On
Behalf of and for His Minor Son, H.S., On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Eric Seibert, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Jerrid Sevart, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Quincy Shepherd, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Carl Slaubaugh,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Aaron Smith,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Gregory
Smith, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Justin Smith, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Mellony Snyder, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Shenny Solis, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Crystal Souder, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, James Souder, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Kyle Spurlock, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Justin Steinmetz, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Amanda Stemen,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Ronald
Stemen, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Lowell Stewart, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Daniel Strohl, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Jose Suero, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Mark Surtel, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Nicholas Swann, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Byron Sy, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Alexander Tidd, On Behalf Of Themselves
And Others Similarly Situated, Louis Torres, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Casey Tucker, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Randy Valentin, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Gabriel
Vasquez, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Shawn Velasquez, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Robert Venable, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Donald Voorhees, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Brittney Wachner, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, William Walsh, On Behalf
Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Patrick Walton, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Bridget Waters,
On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Kenneth
Wethered, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Carolyn Felix White, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Tim White, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly
Situated, Eloi Whiteman, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others
Similarly Situated, Jeffrey Willhoite, On Behalf Of Themselves And
Others Similarly Situated, Christopher Woods, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Derek Yoder, On Behalf Of
Themselves And Others Similarly Situated, Brandon Zacharie, On
Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated & Edward
Zimmerman, On Behalf Of Themselves And Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Cabral Bonner, Law Offices of
Bonner & Bonner, Catharine Elizabeth Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP,
Charles A. Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner, Gayle M. Blatt,
Esq. -- webcontact@cglaw.com -- Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla,
Blatt & Penfield LLP & John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, pro
hac vice.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan
H. Heckenlively, Esq. -- Bryan.Heckenlively@mto.com -- Munber,
Tolles & Olson LLP, Daniel P. Collins, Esq. --
Daniel.Collins@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Gregory P.
Stone, Esq. -- Gregory.Stone@mto.com -- Munger Tolles and Olson
LLP, Hailyn J. Chen, Esq. -- Hailyn.Chen@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles
& Olson LLP & Kyle Warren Mach, Esq. -- Kyle.Mach@mto.com -- Munger
Tolles & Olson.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David J.
Weiner, Esq. -- david.weiner@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP, Michael D. Schissel, Esq. --
michael.schissel@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP, pro hac vice, John D. Lombardo, Esq. --
john.lombardo@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold and Porter LLP & Sally L.
Pei, Esq. -- sally.pei@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP.


TURTLE CREEK: Ohio App. Reverses Arbitration Order in Shillingburg
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRADLEY SHILLINGBURG, Appellant, v. TURTLE CREEK
ASSETS, LTD., et al., Appellees, C.A. No. 29113 (Ohio App.), Judge
Thomas A. Teodosio of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Ninth
District, Summit County, reversed the order of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to compel arbitration and
staying the case.

In June 2016, Mr. Shillingburg entered into a lease purchase
agreement with Aaron's Inc. for a Motorola G5 smartphone.  On the
same day that Mr. Shillingburg signed the leasing contract, he also
signed an arbitration agreement with Aaron's.  In June 2017,
Aaron's sold Mr. Shillingburg's account, alleged to be delinquent,
and assigned the lease purchase agreement to Turtle Creek.

Mr. Shillingburg alleges that Turtle Creek engaged in unlawful
activities in attempting to collect on the alleged debt, and in
December 2017, Mr. Shillingburg filed his complaint against Turtle
Creek and its owner, Gordon S. Engle.  In January 2018, Mr.
Shillingburg filed an amended class action complaint, adding
Forward Properties International, Inc. as a Defendant, and alleging
claims based upon the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the
case pending arbitration, to which Mr. Shillingburg responded in
opposition.  In June 2018, the trial court granted the motion,
staying the case and ordering the matter to arbitration, to be
conducted with Mr. Shillingburg in his individual capacity only.

Mr. Shillingburg now appeals, raising four assignments of error.
Mr. Shillingburg's first three assignments of error are largely
premised upon the theory that the arbitration agreement was a
stand-alone document and was not assigned to Turtle Creek.  His
fourth assignment of error is based upon his contention that his
claims fall outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Judge Teodosio agrees that the trial court erred, but for reasons
other than those stated.  He finds that whether a motion to compel
arbitration is filed alone or in combination with a motion to stay
the proceedings, the trial court must conduct a hearing.  When the
record indicates that the trial court did not conduct a hearing,
the Court will reverse without addressing the merits of the trial
court's decision.

He finds that Turtle Creek expressly requested an order to compel
arbitration, and not merely a stay so that arbitration might
proceed.  It does not appear from the record that a hearing on the
motion was held.  He therefore reversed and remanded so that the
trial court may conduct a hearing on the motion.  He further noted
that a hearing is especially necessary when the scope of the
arbitration agreement is contested.  Although Mr. Shillingburg
argued that his claims were outside of the scope of arbitration in
his brief to the trial court, the trial court's order failed to
specifically address those arguments.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Decision and Journal
Entry is available at https://is.gd/2eqt4c from Leagle.com.

RONALD I. FREDERICK and MICHAEL L. BERLER, Attorneys at Law, for
Appellant.

BOYD W. GENTRY -- bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com -- and ZACHARY P.
ELLIOTT, Attorneys at Law, for Appellees.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Decision and Journal
Entry is available at https://is.gd/2eqt4c from Leagle.com.

RONALD I. FREDERICK and MICHAEL L. BERLER, Attorneys at Law, for
Appellant.

BOYD W. GENTRY -- bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com -- and ZACHARY P.
ELLIOTT, Attorneys at Law, for Appellees.


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ruling May Have Implications for Insurers
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Valentino, writing for Behavioral Healthcare Executive, reports
that a ruling handed down against a subsidiary of the nation's
largest health insurance company earlier in March could have
long-lasting implications for coverage of behavioral healthcare by
the insurance industry overall.

A California federal court found that United Behavioral Health, a
subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare, wrongfully denied coverage of
outpatient, intensive outpatient and residential treatment services
to policyholders based on internal guidelines that failed to comply
with generally accepted standards of care.

The class-action suit was filed on behalf of United policyholders
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) based on
the insurer's denial of coverage between 2011 and 2017.

The 106-page ruling of U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
was "incredibly thought-out and incredibly thorough," Aviva Morady,
an attorney for Nelson Hardiman, tells Behavioral Healthcare
Executive.

"At the very least, it's going to send the message to insurers that
your guidelines are subject to judicial review, and if you adopt
these internal guidelines that aren't in line with generally
accepted standards, you might get a similar ruling," says Morady,
who serves in Nelson Hardiman's regulatory compliance group. "I do
hope we see all of the health plans take a closer look at their
coverage determination guidelines.

Recognizing American Society of Addiction Medicine Criteria (ASAM
Criteria), American Association of Community Psychiatrists' (AACP)
Level of Care Utilization System (LOCUS), and the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid's Medicare benefit policy manual (CMS Manual)
as generally accepted standards of care, the Northern District of
California court found that United's process for developing its
internal guidelines was fundamentally flawed and unduly influenced
by financial self-interest.

Among the areas United was found to have failed to meet generally
accepted standards of care:

   -- Placing an excessive emphasis on acuity and crisis
stabilization, while ignoring treatment of underlying conditions
   -- Failing to address co-occurring conditions
   -- Failing to err on the side of caution in favor of higher
levels of care by pushing patients to lower levels of care where
possible, even in situations where lower levels of care are likely
to be less effective
   -- Precluding coverage for treatment to maintain a level of
function
   -- Precluding care based on members demonstrating a lack of
motivation
   -- Failing to address the unique needs of children and
adolescents
   -- Using an overly broad definition of custodial care and an
overly narrow definition of active treatment and improvement
   -- Imposing mandatory prerequisites instead of a
multidimensional approach

Given the scope of the ruling, Patrick Kennedy, the former U.S.
representative and longtime mental health advocate, called it "the
Brown v. Board of Education of the mental health movement."

Remedy in the United case, in which the judge will determine
punishment for the insurer, is expected to be ruled on in the
coming months. [GN]


UNITED NATURAL: Guerra Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Salvador Guerra v. United Natural Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02382, was transferred on April 3, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-01684-KAW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the California
Labor Code, arising from alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums and unpaid minimum
wages, among other violations.

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada.  The Company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Jill Jessica Parker, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
                  jill@lfjpc.com

Defendant United Natural Foods, Inc., an unknown business entity,
and United Natural Foods West, Inc., a California corporation, are
represented by:

          Andrea L. Fellion, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5305
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: mpuma@morganlewis.com


UNITED STATES: Christy Inc. Appeals Decision to Federal Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christy, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in its
lawsuit entitled Christy, Inc. v. US, Case No. 1:18-cv-00657-MMS,
in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought for damages to Christy, Inc. and a class of other patent
holders whose property was taken by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) without compensation in violation of the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

According to the lawsuit, this unlawful "taking" occurred when the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") invalidated claims pursuant
to the post-grant proceedings created in the America Invents Act
("AIA"), including Inter Partes Review ("IPR") and Post-Grant
Review ("PGR") proceedings (together, "post-grant proceedings" or
"PGPs").  These PGPs have been used by the USPTO to invalidate
patents at an alarming rate, and Christy, Inc. and other patent
holders seek just compensation for the taking of patent owners'
recognized patent property rights by the United States.  More
specifically, the lawsuit seeks money damages for the value of the
patent claims, including any expected royalty and other payments
for use of the patented technologies, the issuance and maintenance
fees paid, and any investments made in the patented technologies.

The appellate case is captioned as Christy, Inc. v. US, Case No.
19-1738, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Entry of Appearance was due April 18, 2019;

   -- Certificate of Interest was due April 18, 2019;

   -- Docketing Statement is due on May 6, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on June 3, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTY, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Timothy C. Davis, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue, North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          E-mail: tim@hgdlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Gary L. Hausken, Esq.
          DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 307-0342
          E-mail: gary.hausken@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Jenna Elizabeth Munnelly, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1100 L Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 616-1061
          E-mail: jenna.e.munnelly@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Amended Alharbi Immigration Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AHMED ALHARBI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEPHEN MILLER,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2435 (BMC) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification; and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion dismiss the
amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the action under the Immigration and
Nationality Act; the Administrative Procedures Act; and the First,
Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.  They originally filed a complaint on
behalf of 61 individuals who are members of 21 Yemeni families.
They sought an order mandating that the Defendants immediately
adjudicate their immigrant visa applications.

The Court found that documentary and declaratory evidence suggested
that 27 Plaintiff-beneficiaries were issued approval notices after
their consular interviews, construed those approval notices as
issued visas under Section 6(c) of Proclamation 9645, and issued a
preliminary injunction ordering the Government to complete any
necessary security screenings for those Plaintiffs and to issue
visas to the individuals who cleared the assessments.  The
Defendants complied with their obligations under the preliminary
injunction.

In addition, the Defendants represent that the Government has sua
sponte reconsidered or is in the process of reconsidering each
Plaintiff's visa or waiver refusal under Section 3(c) of
Proclamation 9645.  Most Plaintiffs were issued immigrant visas as
a result of the review, although some individuals were denied visas
on substantive grounds of inadmissibility unrelated to Proclamation
9645, and some individuals have yet to be reconsidered.

Once Defendants complied with the terms of the preliminary
injunction, they moved to dismiss the complaint.  The Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, adding additional Plaintiffs and
claims.  The amended complaint seeks an order mandating the
Defendants to "correctly adjudicate" their immigrant visa
applications, "print and issue" the visas, and provide them with an
opportunity to submit a waiver to complete adjudication of their
immigrant visa applications.  The amended complaint also seeks
monetary damages.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the class, under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), of all individuals who were: 1) citizens
or nationals of Yemen, Syria, Iran, Somalia, and Libya, 2) who
received a visa approval from any US Embassy upon completion of the
Plaintiff-Beneficiary's immigrant visa interview between Feb. 25,
2016 to Dec. 8, 2017, and 3) whose visa was not printed and/or not
distributed after having been informed by the Embassy that their
visa was approved.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. They
argue that most of the named Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed
as moot, because they have already been issued immigrant visas.
They have also moved to dismiss certain of the Plaintiffs' claims
under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3), for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and others under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state
a claim.

Judge Cogan finds that the numerosity prong is not met.  First, the
Olaintiffs have not advanced any evidence to suggest that any of
the 800 or more putative class members received an approval notice
from the Djibouti Embassy.  Second, they have not advanced any
evidence to suggest that any of the 800 or more putative class
members received an approval notice from any other embassy besides
the Djibouti Embassy.  Third, the Plaintiffs have not advanced any
evidence to suggest that any of the 800 or more putative class
members are from Syria, Iran, Somalia, or Libya.  Because the
Plaintiffs have met neither the express nor implied requirements of
certifying a class under Rule 23, their motion for class
certification will be denied.  

Turning to the the motion to dismiss, the Judge will grant it.
Among other things, the Judge holds that because he finds that the
Plaintiffs were neither approved for visas nor issued them by
virtue of having received an approval notice, the reason the
consular officers advanced for their refusals --  Proclamation 9645
-- was facially legitimate and bona fide.  And because his review
is limited to whether the Defendants' reason for refusing the
Plaintiffs' visas was facially legitimate and bona fide, the
Plaintiffs' claims under the Mandamus Act must be dismissed.

He also finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not
state a legally cognizable claim for relief, because the conduct
they have challenged does not constitute a violation of law; (ii)
because the Plaintiffs have included no facts to suggest that the
gap in time constituted a purposeful delay, and that the alleged
delay was the result of religious discrimination, the claim must be
dismissed; (iii) the Plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment claims are nothing
more than a "mere recasting" of their other constitutional
challenges, which are rooted in the historical interpretation of
the principles embodied by separate constitutional provisions; and
(iv) the Plaintiffs have not alleged, other than by baldly
asserting that the Defendants harbor discriminatory animus against
them because of their national origin and religion, that the
Government intended by these visa refusals to interfere with any of
the specific familial units identified in the amended complaint.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Cogan (i) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, and (ii) granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

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

National Immigration Law Center, Movant, represented by Trudy
Sumiko Rebert, National Immigration Law Center.

Ahmed Alharbi, Gameelah Alharbi, Riyadh Alharbi, Nidal Assieeby,
Ahmad Alharbi & Yahya Murshed, Plaintiffs, represented by Julie A.
Goldberg, Goldberg & Associates, pro hac vice.

Ghadeer Murshed, Saadia Nasser, Taha Thabit, Aisha Thabit, Qasem
Thabit, Abdullah Mugamal, Emad Mugamal, Jehan Al Najjar, Duaa
Mugamal, Shahd Mugamal, Musleh Mugamal, Mohamed Mugamal, Hussain
Mugamal, Samia Al-Namer, Sadam Mugamal, Yasmeen Mugamal, Salah
Mugamal, Nadia Saleh, Nooria Mugamal, Layan Mugamal, Hussein Ali,
Laila Ali, Dheyazan Saeed, Saif Saeed, Ruqaia Aldafri, Rashed Al
Shugaa, Ali Mussa, Iseal Musa, Altazam Algaad, Ahmed Al Saidi,
Nugood Ahmed, Bassam Almontaser, Saleh Murshed, Aisha Ragih, Hanan
Nagi, Ali Hamood, Mohammed Husain, Yaseen Hussein, Zahr Almulaiki,
Fadil Almulaiki, Kaid Saleh, Tahani Ali, Mohamed Taher, Yassin
Taher, Arwa Qahtan, Redan Qahtan, Hizam Alzookari, Lutfiah Al
Gamal, Gamil Asseady, Ahmed Assaedy, Wedad Ali, Abdulbaset Rageh,
Kamal Salim, Nasser Salim, Abduh Ahmed Alqassari & Ehtiram Yahya,
Plaintiffs, represented by Julie A. Goldberg, Goldberg &
Associates, pro hac vice & Rafael Urena , Goldberg & Associates.

Ashwak Mukbil, Tahani Qasem, Ahlam Mohamed, Nesmah Ali, Tamnia
Murshed, Abdulaziz Ali, Sabah Murshed, Aisha Ali, Rawaiah Nasser,
Basma Hadi, Ahmed Mohamed, Mohamed Hadi, Alsamawi Mutahar, Sabah
Mohammed, Kafa Almuntaser, Gana Hadi, Radwan Ali, Murtadha Saleh,
Kawther Hadi, Sabah Muthana, Layla Qasem, Amani Saleh, Feryan Ali,
Sultan Al Wadi, Fares Al-Shalh, Radwan Saleh, Mariam Muthana, Ali
Murshed, Riyadh Ali, Fatima Ali, Alfiah Kaid, Rouwaida Alchoujaa,
Asia Mathar, Ebrahim Al-Shalh, Hassan Murshed, Gawaher Qasem, Alva
Ahmed, Abeer Jabar, Sihaam Al-Rowhani, Samah Muthana, Ghadeer
Al-Howthi, Farah Mohamed, Wasseem Mohamed, Mohamed Saleh, Montaser
Ali, Sumaia Abdulrahman, Hafedh Obad, Enas Saleh, Noor Muthana,
Sultan Obad, Mona Obaid, Eradah Alzinadani, Suad Abdullah Muthana,
Dheyazan Qaid, Suad Yehya Muthana, Abdul Hadi, Awad Hadi, Entibah
Marched, Hadi Mohamed, Quanaf Jabar, Karem Mohamed & Ali Saleh,
Plaintiffs, represented by Julie A. Goldberg, Goldberg &
Associates.

Stephen Miller, Senior Policy Advisor for the President, Donald J.
Trump, President of the United States of America, United States of
America, John Sullivan, Acting Secretary of United States
Department of State, United States Department of State, United
States Embassy in Djibouti, Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Christopher Wray, Director
of Federal Bureau of Investigations, Federal Bureau of
Investigations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection & Jefferson
Sessions, Attorney General of the United States of America,
Defendants, represented by Farzin Franklin Amanat, United States
Attorneys Office, Joseph Anthony Marutollo, U. S. Attorney's
Office, Joshua Samuel Press , U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Division
& Michael Huston, U.S. Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Faces Szuggar Suit in U.S. Federal Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is captioned as VICTORIA SZUGGAR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00440-LAS (Fed. Cl., March 25, 2019).
The case is assigned to Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Harvey Kaster, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: kaster@nka.com


WAUKEGAN, IL: Court Certifies Class of Harry Poe Manor Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of:

     "All persons who resided in Harry Poe Manor at any time from
January 1, 2011 to April 22, 2019."

The Court also appointed these plaintiffs as class representatives:
Timothy Phillips, Gilberto Colon, Chandra Thomas, Kevin Duty, Troy
Thompson, Dennis Halter, Shondis Adams, Shimon Merriweather, Cedric
Reams, Laniqua Kuykendall, Charlotte A. Davis, Alicia Ross, Caryn
E. Price, Latasha Gatlin, Christopher Seals, Ronald Anderson, Tonya
Eskilson, Alvin Arreaga, Walter Ori, and Carol Will.

The plaintiffs' proposed class counsel are also appointed as lead
counsel: Amy Lonergan of Finn & Finn, Ltd.; Jed H. Stone of Stone &
Associates; Jeff Lipman of Lippman Law Firm; and Steven P. Wandro
of Wandro & Associates, PC.

This case involves tenants of a housing project who claim the
property manager didn't do enough to protect them from these pests.
Current and former residents of Harry Poe Manor ("Poe Manor") have
moved to certify a class based on the defendants' allegedly
inadequate response to a years-long bedbug infestation.  The
defendants contest certification on every possible ground, but the
Court finds that certification is proper.  The putative class
members were exposed to a shared, pervasive risk of harm because,
they allege, of deficiencies in the defendants' prevention and
eradication measures.  Their claims present common, foundational
questions of fact and law that are best resolved by class
litigation.

The case is TIMOTHY PHILLIPS, GILBERTO COLON, CHANDRA THOMAS, KEVIN
DUTY, TROY THOMPSON, DENNIS HALTER, SHONDIS ADAMS, SHIMON
MERRIWEATHER, CEDRIC REAMS, LANIQUA KUYKENDALL, CHARLOTTE A. DAVIS,
ALICIA ROSS, CARYN E. PRICE, LATASHA GATLIN, CHRISTOPHER SEALS,
RONALD ANDERSON, TONYA ESKILSON, ALVIN ARREAGA, WALTER ORI, and
CAROL WILL, individually and on behalf of the class of all persons
who currently reside in Harry Poe Manor or formerly resided therein
at any time from January 2011 to date, Plaintiffs, v. WAUKEGAN
HOUSING AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate; CHARLES CHAMBERS,
individually and as Executive Director of Waukegan Housing
Authority; and RENWICK CORNELIOUS, individually and as Property
Manager of Harry Poe Manor; and TARA DANIEL, individually and as
Property Manager of Harry Poe Manor, Defendants, No. 13-CV-08444
(N.D. Ill.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April
22, 2019, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6g5ux2m from
Leagle.com.

John Stewart, Timothy Phillips & Gilberto Colon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amy Lynn Lonergan, Finn & Finn, Ltd. & Jed H. Stone,
Stone & Associates.

Dennis Tindall, Charlotte A. Davis, Shimon Merriweather, Latasha
Gatlin, James Honard, Cedric Reams, Shondis Adams, Laniqua
Kuykendall, Carlton Stewart, Kevin Duty, Troy Thompson, Marita
Smith, Caryn E. Price, Gussie M. Dossie, Pearline Wright, Alicia
Ross, Chandra Thomas, Dennis Halter, Ronald Anderson, Janie E.
Williams, Jarvis Leflore, Christopher Seals, Alvin Arreaga, Starr
Nutall, Uniqueka Scott, Al Hutchens, John Harvey, Walter Ori, Carol
Will, individually and on behalf of the class of all persons who
currently reside in Harry Poe Manor or formerly resided therein at
any time from January 2011 to date, Vincent Davis, Tanya Eskilson &
Bernell Ford, Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Amy Lynn Lonergan, Esq.
     Finn & Finn, Ltd.
     128 N. West Street
     Waukegan, IL 60085
     Tel: (847) 599-0202
     Fax: (847) 599-0404

Waukegan Housing Authority, a body politic and corporate, Charles
Chambers, individually and as Executive Director of Waukegan
Housing Authority & Renwick Cornelious, individually and as
Property Manager of Harry Poe Manor, Defendants, represented by
Michael E. Kujawa, Schain Banks Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd, Deborah Anne
Ostvig, Schain Banks Kenny & Schwartz, LTD, Erika Gina Baldonado,
Schain, Banks, Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd, Jonathon Robert Sommerfeld,
Schain, Banks, Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd., Shirley-Zaneta Blazejczyk,
Judge James & Kujawa Llc, Thomas Neil Osran, The Chicago Housing
Authority & William Charles Barasha, Judge, James & Kujawa, Ltd.

Tara Daniels, individually and as Property Manager of Harry Poe
Manor, Defendant, represented by Erika Gina Baldonado, Esq. --
ebaldonado@schainbanks.com -- Schain, Banks, Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd,
Jonathon Robert Sommerfeld, Esq. -- jsommerfeld@schainbanks.com --
Schain, Banks, Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd., Michael E. Kujawa, Esq. --
mkujawa@schainbanks.com -- Schain Banks Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd &
Shirley-Zaneta Blazejczyk, Judge James & Kujawa Llc.


WELLMARK: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in York Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jillian York and Jody Baily filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Jillian York, et al. v. Wellmark, et
al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00627-RGE, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jillian York, et al. v.
Wellmark, et al., Case No. 19-1705, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jillian York, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and Jody Baily are represented by:

          Brandon McCaull Bohlman, Esq.
          John Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          E-mail: bohlman@sagwlaw.com
                  goplerud@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041-0000
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: Nick@chimicles.com
                  SES@chimicles.com
                  KimDonaldsonSmith@chimicles.com

Defendants-Appellees Wellmark, doing business as Wellmark Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa, and Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa,
Inc., are represented by:

          Leslie C. Behaunek, Esq.
          Angel A. West, Esq.
          NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C.
          700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Telephone: (515) 283-3100
          E-mail: lcbehaunek@nyemaster.com
                  aaw@nyemaster.com

               - and -

          Martin J. Bishop, Esq.
          Rebecca R. Hanson, Esq.
          Abraham Judson Souza, Esq.
          Bryan M. Webster, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 S. Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-1000
          E-mail: mbishop@reedsmith.com
                  rhanson@reedsmith.com
                  asouza@reedsmith.com
                  bwebster@reedsmith.com


WEST END INDIANA: Uncashed Checks in Easler Settlement Expires
--------------------------------------------------------------
West End Indiana Bancshares, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2019,
that any uncashed settlement checks related to the case entitled,
Audrey (Adams) Easler v. West End Bank, S.B., expired on March 27,
2019.

On March 15, 2017, a complaint styled Audrey (Adams) Easler v. West
End Bank, S.B., Case No. 89D02-17-3-CT-00001, Wayne County Circuit
Court, Superior II, Richmond, Indiana (the "Complaint"), was served
on West End Bank, S.B.  (the "Bank"), naming it as defendant and
alleging, among other things, that the Bank sent to the plaintiff a
post-repossession notice that failed to include consumer rights
required by the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") as enacted in
Indiana, and that the Bank's process of repossession violated the
UCC.

The complaint alleges that the named plaintiff is a representative
of a class of plaintiffs and that the complaint would become a
class action law suit.  The complaint asks for both equitable
relief and monetary damages.

The Bank and plaintiff mediated in November 2017 and reached a
class-wide settlement for the state of Indiana, which was
supposedly approved by the Court.  The class-wide settlement is
being administered at this time.  Upon completion of settlement
administration, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.  The
parties have negotiated a settlement in order to avoid the risk of
loss.  In entering into this settlement, the Bank continues to deny
that it has done anything unlawful, and entered into the settlement
only to contain its risk of loss.

The Wayne County Superior Court No. 2 approved the settlement on
September 27, 2018.  The deadline for claimants to submit claim
forms was October 27, 2018.  Settlement class members making a
claim have received their settlement checks.  Any uncashed checks
will expire on March 27, 2019.  Unpaid settlement funds will revert
to the Bank.

Based on the settlement agreement, the Bank has estimated the
losses will not exceed the amount to be paid by the Company's
insurance company.  Should the losses exceed the amounts covered by
insurance, the Bank's maximum contribution based on the tentative
settlement agreement is US$250,000.

West End Indiana Bancshares, Inc. was incorporated in the State of
Maryland in June 2011 for the purpose of becoming the savings and
loan holding company for West End Bank, S.B.  (the "Bank"), upon
consummation of the mutual to stock conversion of West End Bank,
MHC, the Bank's former mutual holding company, which occurred on
January 10, 2012.


WESTERN UNION: Court Stays Frazier RICO Suit Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAZMIERA FRAZIER, RHONDA LAUBLER, TERESA RIGGS, ANITA
SEWARD, and KOALESHIA SIMON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE WESTERN UNION
COMPANY, WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., HIKMET ERSEK, and
VARIOUS "DOE" DEFENDANTS, including Western Union Officers,
Directors, and Agents, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-00998-KLM
(D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the District Court
for the District of Colorado granted the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Proceeding Pending Arbitration Pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal
Arbitration Act.

The Plaintiffs initiated the putative class action against Western
Union, Western Union Financial Services, Inc. ("WUFSI"), Western
Union's CEO Hikmet Ersek, and various other unnamed Doe Defendants.
The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Colorado Organized Crime
Control Act, and their respective state consumer protection laws.
WUFSI, a subsidiary of Western Union, operates a "Money Transfer
System" through which consumers send money to other individuals in
the United States and around the world.  Each of the named
Plaintiffs alleges that she was defrauded by an unnamed third-party
fraudster who convinced her to send a fraudulent money transfer
order.

Money transfer orders sent through WUFSI are subject to a set of
contractual terms and conditions located on a pre-printed Send
Money Form.  The Terms and Conditions in place at the time of each
of the named Plaintiffs' alleged money transfers included
arbitration clauses, requiring the parties to arbitrate any
disputes individually, rather than on a class-wide basis.  The
Defendants maintain that the Terms and Conditions are included in
both the Send Money Form customers fill out to send money and on
the receipts given to customers after sending money transfer
orders.  They also assert that before a customer can send money
using a Send Money Form, WUFSI's standard business practices
require the customer to sign the form, agreeing to the accompanying
terms and conditions.  Once the information on the Send Money Form
is verified by a Western Union clerk on location, the clerk then
prints a receipt for the customer.  Like the Send Money Form, the
Defendants assert that WUFSI's standard business practices require
the customer to sign the receipt.

At the relevant times of the Plaintiffs' alleged
fraudulently-induced money transfer orders, two separate
Arbitration Clauses appeared in the Defendants' Terms and
Conditions.  One Arbitration Clause appeared in Send Money Form
Terms and Conditions in 2005, and the other Arbitration Clause
appeared in Send Money Form Terms and Conditions in 2016 and 2017.

The Defendants seek a stay of the case while arbitration
proceedings are held.  At issue in the instant motion is: (1)
whether the Plaintiffs are bound by the Arbitration Clauses in
dispute, (2) whether Defendants Ersek, Western Union, and WUFSI
respectively are bound by the Arbitration Clauses in dispute, (3)
whether the two individual Arbitration Clauses in question are
enforceable, and (4) whether the Plaintiffs' RICO claims fall
within the scope of the Arbitration Clauses.


The Plaintiffs do not dispute the existence of agreements for
Plaintiffs Laubler, Riggs, and Seward because these three
Plaintiffs have produced copies of signed Terms and Conditions from
their transactions or testified to signing receipts.  Therefore,
the Plaintiffs do not raise a genuine issue of material fact.
Thus, Magistrate Judge Mix finds that Plaintiffs Laubler, Riggs,
and Seward are bound by the Arbitration Clauses.

The Magistrate also finds that the Defendants have met their
initial burden of presenting sufficient evidence that there was
notice of and assent to the Terms and Conditions containing
Arbitration Clauses for Plaintiffs Frazier and Simon.
Additionally, she also finds that the Plaintiffs, in response,
failed to meet their burden of raising a dispute of material fact
with respect to the existence of Terms and Condition with
Plaintiffs Frazier and Simon.  Therefore, she finds the existence
of enforceable Arbitration Clauses, and Plaintiffs Frazier and
Simon are bound by them.

As to WUFSI, the Magistrate finds that WUFSI is a Western Union
entity covered by the Terms and Conditions, making any further
legal distinction between other nonsignatory entities immaterial to
her analysis.

She finds that the Plaintiffs' claims asserted against the
signatory Defendant WUFSI are interdependent with those claims
asserted against the nonsignatory Defendants Western Union and
Ersek and are intertwined with the Terms and Conditions.  As such,
she finds that Defendants Western Union and Ersek are bound by the
Arbitration Clauses, and may enforce arbitration against the
Plaintiffs pursuant to the Arbitration Clauses.

As to whether the NAF Arbitration Clause is enforceable, the
Magistrate finds the NAF Arbitration Clause to be enforceable with
respect to Plaintiff Frazier despite the unavailability of the
named arbitrator.  She also finds that the Plaintiffs' procedural
and substantive unconscionability arguments challenge the validity
of the NAM Arbitration Clause and the larger Terms and Conditions
as a whole.  Given that the Plaintiffs do not separately contend
that the delegation clause is unconscionable, she severs that
clause to allow the arbitrator to decide the Plaintiffs'
unconscionability arguments.

With respect as to whether the Plaintiffs' RICO claims fall outside
the scope of the Arbitration Clause and the FAA, the Magistrate
finds that the fact that the arbitrator in the NAM Arbitration
Clause retains discretion to award costs and fees does not preclude
the Plaintiffs from collecting attorneys' fees if they prevail on
their RICO claims.  She also  finds that the NAM Arbitration Clause
is not invalidated by the arbitrator's discretion regarding
attorneys' fees and costs.  Finally, she finds that the possibility
that discovery costs will greatly outweigh the amount recoverable
in the Plaintiffs' arbitration claims does not prevent them from
pursuing their statutory RICO rights.  Thus, the Plaintiffs'
effective vindication argument with respect to discovery costs
fails.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Mix granted the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending Arbitration Pursuant
to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act.  The Clerk of Court
will administratively close the case in order to allow the parties
to participate in arbitration proceedings.  No later than 20 days
after the completion of the arbitration proceedings, the parties
will file a Status Report in which they advise the Court whether
the parties believe the case should be reopened for good cause or
whether the case should be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/rs8mCb from Leagle.com.

Kazmiera Frazier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Rhonda Laubler, Teresa Riggs, Anita Seward &
Koaleshia Simon, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Jay Levitt --
alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel R. Ferri
-- dferri@dlcfirm.com -- Vitale Vickrey Niro & Gasey, LLP, James
Edward Tonrey, Jr., Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA, Kenneth Steven
Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles & Devine, LLC, Kevin
Peter Roddy -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA &
Ty Cheung Gee -- tgee@hmflaw.com -- Haddon Morgan & Foreman, P.C.

The Western Union Company, Western Union Financial Services, Inc. &
Hikmet Ersek, and Various "Doe" Defendants, Including Western Union
Officers, Directors, and Agents, Defendants, represented by Hille
Von Rosenvinge Sheppard -- HSHEPPARD@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin,
LLP, Claire Elizabeth Wells Hanson -- cehanson@hollandhart.com --
Holland & Hart LLP, David Franklin Graham -- DGRAHAM@SIDLEY.COM --
Sidley Austin, LLP, Holly Stein Sollod --
hsteinsollod@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP & Joseph Ryan
Dosch -- JDOSCH@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP.


WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: Appeal from Nixed Budde Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissed third amended complaint
in the "Budde" putative shareholder class action remains pending
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according
to the Form 10-K of Williams Industrial Services Group Inc.
(formerly known as Global Power Equipment Group Inc. until June
2018) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 1, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The putative shareholder class action is captioned Budde v. Global
Power Equipment Group Inc., and was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas naming the Company and
certain former officers as defendants.  This action and another
action were filed on May 13, 2015 and June 23, 2015, respectively,
and on July 29, 2015, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff.

On May 1, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint that named the Company and three of its former
officers as defendants.  It alleged violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of matters related to the Company's
restatement of certain financial periods and claims that the
defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of
material fact in certain public disclosures during the putative
class period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as promulgated thereunder.  The claims
were filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who acquired
the Company's stock between September 7, 2011 and May 6, 2015, and
sought monetary damages of "more than US$200 million" on behalf of
the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  On June 26, 2017, the Company
and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  After full briefing, on December 27, 2017, the court
issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the motion to
dismiss and allowing the plaintiffs until January 15, 2018 to file
an amended complaint.  The court found that, with respect to each
of the defendants, plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a
strong inference of scienter, or the required intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud, or act with severe recklessness.

On January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
Complaint, and in response the Company filed a renewed motion to
dismiss.  After full briefing and oral argument, on September 11,
2018, the court dismissed with prejudice the Complaint.  The court
found that, even with plaintiffs' amended allegations, plaintiffs
failed to plead facts supporting a strong inference of scienter.
Also on September 11, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Plaintiffs'
appeal is briefed and currently pending before that court.

The Company said, "Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and
the outcome of this action is not predictable with assurance.  At
this time, the Company is unable to predict the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this
litigation, or any potential effect such may have on the Company or
its business or operations."

Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. (f/k/a Global Power
Equipment Group) has been safely helping plant owners and operators
enhance asset value for more than 50 years.  The Company provides a
broad range of general and specialty construction, maintenance and
modification, and plant management support services to the nuclear,
hydro and fossil power generation, pulp and paper, refining,
petrochemical and other process and manufacturing industries.
Williams' mission is to be the preferred provider of construction,
maintenance, and specialty services through commitment to superior
safety performance, focus on innovation, and dedication to
delivering unsurpassed value to its customers.


XPO LOGISTICS: Corado-Cortez Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned EMERITA CORADO-CORTEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XPO
LOGISTICS, INC., a Connecticut Corporation; XPO LOGISTICS, FREIGHT,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, XPO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey Corporation; XPO LOGISTICS SUPPLY
CHAIN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation; XPO LOGISTICS,
WORLDWIDE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive
Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1901162 was removed from the San
Bernardino County Superior Court, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on April 12, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00670.

The Complaint asserts these claims on a class and/or representative
basis: (1) failure to pay overtime and minimum wages; (2) failure
to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4)
failure to pay wages upon separation of employment; (5) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (6) unfair
competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
     Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
     Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
     Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
     San Diego, CA 92122
     Phone: 858-652-3100
     Facsimile: 858-652-3101
     Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
            tim.johnson@ogletree.com
            jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
            nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com


YALE UNIVERSITY: Rescinds Admission of Student Linked to Scam
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Newburger, writing for CNBC, reports that Yale University has
rescinded the admission of a student linked to the national college
admissions scandal that implicated 50 people, including
celebrities, coaches and administrators, in paying and accepting
bribes to get students into elite colleges.

Thomas Conroy, Yale University spokesman, told CNBC the university
"has rescinded the admission of one student as a result of this
matter," but did not identify the student's exact association with
the school.

It's the latest university response to the scheme in which students
-- most of whom did not know about their parents' actions,
prosecutors say -- begin to face a reckoning. Federal prosecutors
have said the schools are victims in the scam.

The former Yale women's soccer coach, Rudy Meredith, was charged
with taking a $400,000 bribe to accept an applicant who did not
play soccer, according to the indictment. Meredith resigned and
will plead guilty to fraud-related charges.

The University of Southern California blocked students linked to
the scandal from registering for classes and getting their
transcripts, and said it had identified six current applicants
associated with the indictment and would reject them.

Other universities implicated include Georgetown, UCLA, the
University of San Diego, the University of Texas and Wake Forest.

A class-action lawsuit has been filed by several college students
against 8 universities in connection with the scheme. The suit
claims more than $5 million in damages and accuses each school of
being "negligent in failing to maintain adequate protocols and
security measures in place to guarantee the sanctity of the college
admissions process." [GN]


ZAPPOS: Must Face Data Breach Class Action, Supreme Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court rejected a bid by online shoe retailer Zappos to throw out a
class-action lawsuit by customers who said their personal
information was stolen by hackers in 2012.

The justices denied an appeal by Zappos, a subsidiary of Amazon.com
Inc, of a ruling by a California-based federal appeals court that
revived the lawsuit, dealing a setback to the company and business
groups seeking to limit their liability in data breaches, an
increasingly common problem in the internet age.

The case hinges on whether customers whose data has been stolen can
sue the company that was hacked even if that information was not
used for nefarious purposes such as identity theft or fraudulent
charges.

Zappos said customers whose data is not used in those ways are not
harmed to such a degree that can sustain a federal lawsuit. But the
customers said that after a breach their information can be misused
at any time, even years later, and long before the fraud is
discovered.

Hackers broke into Zappos' computer systems in January 2012,
gaining access to servers containing identifying information for 24
million customers, including names, contact details and partial
credit card numbers.

People who purchased shoes and other items from Zappos filed
several proposed class-action lawsuits, saying Zappos used
unprotected servers and did not properly encrypt the data. Zappos
says it acted swiftly so that passwords could be reset, preventing
serious harm.

A federal judge in Nevada said some victims who claimed financial
loss had legal standing to sue but the rest who could not claim
such concrete injuries did not.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling last
year, reviving the other claims, saying the "hackers accessed
information that could be used to help commit identity fraud or
identity theft."

In addition to an actual injury, the court said customers can sue
if they can show there is a substantial risk of harm and that it is
impending.

Zappos called that standard "manifestly insufficient" and urged the
Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit.

Backed by business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Zappos said in a court filing that data breaches are a fact of life
in an increasingly digital world and the court should shield
retailers, employers and service providers from "sprawling and
costly litigation." [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,772 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,772 asbestos-related claims
pending at December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
("Asbestos Liability").  Air & Liquid, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in
excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 668 and 479 claims in
2018 and 2017, respectively, classified in various jurisdictions as
"inactive" or transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on
multi-district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers.  Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2YGPgKs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Deaths Driving Up Workplace Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Davenport, writing for Regina CTV News, reported that the the
Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board's annual report for 2018
is providing more insight into the 48 workplace deaths in the
province last year.

According to the report, 13 workplace deaths in 2018 were caused by
asbestos-related illnesses, one of the highest single causes
named.

The head of the WCB told reporters at a technical briefing that
many of the deaths are the result of years of asbestos use catching
up with some workers who were exposed to the substance.

"There's little that we can do to fix or change the exposures that
happened years prior, and we expect to continue to see asbestos
claims come through the systems as people age and time goes by,"
WCB CEO Peter Federko said. "The best thing that we can do is
create awareness and ensure that we are not continuing to propagate
exposures to these asbestos fibres."

Federko added that ultimately once the last claims related to
asbestos exposure are entered, he believes that number will be
reduced now that most workers have fewer interactions with the
fibres.

Other contributing causes to the number of fatalities listed were
10 deaths resulting from motor vehicle incidents including six from
the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, six deaths caused by firefighter
cancers relating with exposure to chemicals and gases and four
youth fatalities.

Federko says Worksafe Saskatchewan is focusing awareness efforts on
several of those causes, particularly a set of 13 recommendations
for firefighters to be more protected and aware in their
workplace.

"[Recommendations] like ensure you're wearing your protective
equipment after the fire is out, so what we've discovered is
notwithstanding that the fire has been extinguished, there's still
gases being released from the debris left behind," Federko said.
"When firefighters go to conduct the investigations of those sites,
they're often not wearing their protective equipment but at the
same time still being exposed to those gases."

The annual numbers are in line with an earlier report released in
March regarding workplace deaths and injuries last year, showing
the first increase to workplace time lost injuries in the province
since 2002 and the first increase in total injury rates since
2012.

The WCB accepted over 22,000 workplace injury claims last year of
just over 29,000 submitted, a number it said is unacceptable.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bergeson & Campbell Comments on EPA's SNUR
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., writing for The National Law Review,
wrote that on April 17, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) released a final significant new use rule (SNUR) for
asbestos using the definition in Title II, Section 202 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), which defines asbestos as the
"asbestiform varieties of six fiber types -- chrysotile
(serpentine), crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite
(cummingtonite-grunerite), anthophyllite, tremolite or
actinolite."

EPA states that it is promulgating the SNUR "to ensure that any
discontinued uses of asbestos cannot re-enter the marketplace
without EPA review, closing a loophole in the regulatory regime for
asbestos."  The restricted significant new uses of asbestos
(including as part of an article) are manufacturing (including
importing) or processing for uses that are neither ongoing nor
already prohibited under TSCA.  Persons subject to the SNUR may not
undertake any of these activities; they are required to notify EPA
at least 90 days before commencing any manufacturing (including
importing) or processing of asbestos (including as part of an
article) for a significant new use.  The required notification
initiates EPA's evaluation of the conditions of use associated with
the intended use.  Manufacturing (including importing) and
processing (including as part of an article) for the significant
new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the
notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken
such actions as are required in association with that
determination.  The final SNUR will be effective 60 days after
being published in the Federal Register.

The final SNUR takes pains to clarify that the conditions of use of
asbestos that are currently ongoing, including asbestos diaphragms
used in the chloralkalai industry, sheet gaskets used in chemical
manufacturing, and others, are not affected by the SNUR.  EPA also
used the rule development process to clarify and reduce the list of
ongoing conditions of use of asbestos that are being considered in
the asbestos risk evaluation that is currently underway.  Thus,
certain uses previously included in the risk evaluation (cement
products, packings, and woven products) as ongoing were determined
by EPA not to be ongoing and were removed from the scope of the
risk evaluation and have been included in and are subject to the
final SNUR.  Finally, according to EPA, all of the ongoing uses of
asbestos are specific to the chrysotile form only.  Accordingly,
manufacture, import, mining, or processing, including as articles,
of any other form of asbestos for any use whatsoever is regulated
as a significant new use under the final rule.

Restrictions on Discontinued Uses of Asbestos

According to EPA's "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding EPA's
Final Asbestos Rule," in response to comments on EPA’s June 11,
2018, proposed rule, EPA "expanded the scope of the final rule to
include an additional four categories of products and a 'catch all'
category."  The following uses are subject to the final SNUR and
cannot return to the marketplace without EPA review: adhesives,
sealants, and roof and non-roof coatings; arc chutes; beater-add
gaskets; cement products; extruded sealant tape and other tape;
filler for acetylene cylinders; friction materials (with certain
exceptions identified in Table 1 of the final SNUR and posted
online); high-grade electrical paper; millboard; missile liner;
packings; pipeline wrap; reinforced plastics; roofing felt;
separators in fuel cells and batteries; vinyl-asbestos floor tile;
woven products; any other building material; and any other use of
asbestos not otherwise identified.  Consistent with the proposed
rule, the final SNUR makes inapplicable the exemption at 40 C.F.R.
Section 721.45(f) concerning importation or processing of
asbestos-containing articles for the significant new uses included
in the final rule.

The SNUR prohibits the discontinued uses of asbestos from
restarting without EPA having an opportunity to evaluate each
intended use (i.e., significant new use) for potential risks to
health and the environment and, as required by TSCA Section
5(a)(3), making an appropriate determination and taking any
necessary regulatory action, which may include a prohibition,
required by that determination.  EPA makes clear that the SNUR does
not provide a means by which prohibited uses under the 1989 partial
ban under TSCA Section 6(a) could return to the marketplace.  The
SNUR keeps all prior TSCA Section 6(a) prohibitions on asbestos in
place and does not amend them in any way.  More information on
EPA's June 11, 2018, proposed SNUR is available in our June 5,
2018, memorandum, "EPA Takes 'Three Important Steps' Intended to
Ensure Chemical Safety."

Risk Evaluation of Asbestos

In December 2016, EPA designated asbestos as one of the first ten
chemical substances subject to EPA's chemical risk evaluation rule.
EPA is conducting a risk evaluation of asbestos under its
conditions of use, pursuant to TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(A).  According
to the SNUR, through scoping and subsequent research for the
asbestos risk evaluation, EPA identified several conditions of use
of asbestos to include in the risk evaluation.  Through extensive
research, review of public comments, and stakeholder engagement,
EPA has further refined the conditions of use of asbestos since
publication of the proposed SNUR and Problem Formulation of the
Risk Evaluation for Asbestos in June 2018.  EPA states that the
conditions of use of asbestos currently undergoing risk evaluation
are specific to the chrysotile form only and include: imported raw
bulk chrysotile asbestos for the fabrication of diaphragms for use
in chlorine and sodium hydroxide production; and several imported
chrysotile asbestos-containing materials, including sheet gaskets
for use in chemical production (e.g., titanium dioxide production),
brake blocks used in oil drilling equipment, aftermarket automotive
brakes/linings and other vehicle friction products, and other
gaskets.  EPA has removed cement products, woven products, and
packings from the scope of the risk evaluation since publication of
the problem formulation document because it found no information to
confirm they are conditions of use.  EPA states that because
additional EPA research indicates that cement products, woven
products, and packings are not ongoing uses, the SNUR includes them
as significant new uses.  The final SNUR does not affect those uses
that EPA believes are currently ongoing in the U.S.; again, those
uses are being evaluated in the context of EPA’s asbestos risk
evaluation.  More information on the Problem Formulation of the
Risk Evaluation for Asbestos is available in our June 5, 2018,
memorandum, "EPA Takes ‘Three Important Steps' Intended to Ensure
Chemical Safety."

Commentary

We congratulate EPA for taking strong and decisive action under the
final SNUR effectively to prohibit all non-ongoing conditions of
use of asbestos.  While this prohibition is conditioned by the
ability for a person to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN),
the legal effect of a SNUR was considerably strengthened by new
TSCA which explicitly requires that EPA review and make a
determination on the proposed significant new use and take any
actions required by that determination, including any needed
restrictions or prohibitions.  Furthermore, new TSCA makes clear
that commercialization cannot proceed until EPA has met these
requirements.  With this statutory infrastructure in place, we
believe that it is appropriate to characterize this regulatory
action as having the effect of a prohibition.

We also appreciate the clarity in EPA’s discussion of the
regulatory effect of the SNUR under amended TSCA by making clear
that:

   -- The SNUR does not provide a means for Section 6(a) prohibited
uses to return to the marketplace;

   -- All ongoing conditions of use of asbestos are being
considered in the asbestos risk evaluation and are not subject to
the SNUR;

   -- Any use of the five non-chrysotile forms of asbestos
(crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite),
anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite) require a SNUN; and

   -- The final SNUR has the effect of closing the "loophole" that
otherwise exists whereby the significant new uses identified in the
rule may begin at any time without prior notice to EPA.

Furthermore, we commend EPA, in considering and responding to
comments, for the decision to include in the final rule's
regulatory text a new broad use category to ensure that all other
uses of asbestos that are no longer ongoing and not already
prohibited under TSCA are captured in and explicitly subject to the
final SNUR.

In our view, the clear, strong, and decisive actions taken by EPA
in the final rule should fully address the criticisms and
complaints, some misguided, that were raised by some stakeholders
in response to the proposed rule.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Distribution Faces Claims in Bankr. N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
continues to face proofs of asbestos-related claims pending in the
Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center.  No other purported party was
served.  In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products.  Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the
policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the
material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys'
fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have
been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to
recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has
paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff.  D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim.  D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend.  In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered.  In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement
with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land
provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by
D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy
at issue in this lawsuit.  In June 2007, the parties settled this
lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1.6 million.
Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial
satisfaction of the secured indebtedness.

"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776.  Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing.  Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately US$26.8
million, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts
owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land.  In addition, a personal injury law
firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with
asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of
approximately two thousand claimants.  While it is not likely that
a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C
that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the
trustee will deal with these claims.  It is not expected, however,
that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in
the liquidation of D/C."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/7xmBfm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Railway Worker's Widow Gets Significant Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
George Allen, writing for Journalist, reported that the widow of a
Derby railway worker who died of asbestos-related cancer has been
paid a "significant" compensation payout.

Grenville Rice worked near the deadly fibrous material during the
1950s and 1960s at the locomotive works behind Derby's railway
station.

Last year, at 81, "healthy and active" Mr Rice was diagnosed with
asbestos-related cancer and sadly died just three months later.

His widow Jeanette, of Belper, has now been paid a large sum by the
Department for Transport in an out-of-court settlement.

Mrs Rice did not want to reveal the size of the payout. However, it
is understood that such compensation claims usually amount to five
or six-figure sums.

She said her husband, who worked on the brakes of diesel engines,
was "devastated" when he received the shock diagnosis so many years
after his railway work.

The 76-year-old said: "When Grenville was diagnosed with this he
was absolutely devastated. He didn't realise this could have
happened, after all this time.

"He'd never really been near a hospital in his whole life. He
walked, did odd jobs, went to football and watched the cricket. He
was such an active person until he started to deteriorate week by
week."

Mrs Rice, who is also a retired British Rail worker, said her
husband slowly began to show signs that he was seriously unwell.

She said: "He was falling down, his eyesight was affected, he
didn't sleep properly, his breathing got worse, and he wasn't
eating the same.

"He couldn't really do anything for himself. Everybody was shocked.
He was so fit and well -- it was just devastating."

The widow said her husband had no special clothing to protect him
while he was working near asbestos.

She said: "They had no masks. And I think actually the majority of
the problem was from the dust. There was just no protection
whatsoever."

Dedicated Accident Solicitors helped Mrs Rice to get compensation
from the Department for Transport, which is legally responsible for
such cases. John Das, director of the firm, said the money should
help the family reach closure.

He said: "I feel that the compensation that Grenville's family was
awarded has enabled them to obtain some closure, justice and a
degree of financial security moving forwards.

"It's a sad reality that exposure to asbestos does kill and we are
working with victims and their families to bring more negligent
employers to justice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Wins Right to Obtain Info vs. Lobbyist
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Dyer, writing for The BMJ, reported that a leading expert on
asbestos related cancers has won a landmark Data Protection Act
claim at the High Court against a lobbyist who accused him of
giving fraudulent evidence in court cases and tried to get him
struck off the medical register.

Robin Rudd, a consultant physician specialising in respiratory
diseases and cancer, has spent 35 years giving expert evidence in
cases in which claimants have sought damages for mesothelioma, lung
cancer, asbestosis, and pleural disease allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos.

John Bridle, 79, has been involved for 50 years in the manufacture
and use of chrysotile (white) asbestos and asbestos cement products
used in building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Remove Part of Libby Site Off Superfund List
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Volz, writing for the Associated Press, reported that U.S.
officials removed part of a Montana asbestos cleanup site from its
Superfund list in the latest sign that the 17-year cleanup is
ending, though the asbestos-related health problems for thousands
of people remain.

The 45-acre (18-hectare) area is five miles (8 kilometers) north of
downtown Libby and is the first of eight units of the Libby
Asbestos Superfund site to be taken off the National Priorities
List of sites nationwide contaminated by hazardous waste.

Asbestos from a vermiculite mine owned by W.R. Grace polluted Libby
and nearby Troy until it was shuttered in 1990. Health officials
estimate at least 400 people have died and another 3,000 have been
sickened from exposure, and people in the area are still being
diagnosed with asbestos-related disease today.

The contaminated material can cause fatal lung diseases and other
health issues.

The area has been a Superfund site since 2002. The cleanup had cost
$596 million as of July 2017, the most recent figure available,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman Katherine Jenkins
said.

Federal officials have been winding up the cleanup, and the
announcement was a significant step toward its end.

The area being removed from the list was contaminated by a
processing plant used to screen mined vermiculite that contained
asbestos. The EPA has determined that "no further remediation
action is needed to protect human health and environment."

Jenkins said two other Libby Superfund site units also are in the
process of being removed from the National Priorities List: the
area surrounding another former processing plant and a 400-acre
(162 hectare) industrial park that used to house a lumber company.

The other units that will remain on the Superfund list include
homes and businesses in Libby and Troy, rail and transportation
corridors and the former W.R. Grace vermiculite mine itself.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Has $1.7BB Envt'l, Asbestos Reserves at Dec.31
------------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company has total reserves of US$1,699 million
related to environmental remediation and asbestos claims at
December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Our operations, like operations of other
companies engaged in similar businesses, involve the use, disposal
and cleanup of substances regulated under environmental protection
laws.  We are involved in numerous remediation actions to clean up
hazardous wastes as required by federal and state laws.
Liabilities for remediation costs exclude possible insurance
recoveries and, when dates and amounts of such costs are not known,
are not discounted.  When there appears to be a range of possible
costs with equal likelihood, liabilities are based on the low end
of such range.  It is reasonably possible that our environmental
remediation exposure will exceed amounts accrued.  However, due to
uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and
information related to individual sites, such amounts are not
reasonably estimable.  Total reserves related to environmental
remediation and asbestos claims were US$1,699 million at December
31, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2JlCDkl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Talks Still Ongoing at Dec.31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that it continues to pursue discussions with
Fireman's Fund Insurance Corporation in an attempt to resolve the
issues related to insurance coverage on the asbestos lawsuits that
the Company is facing.

The Company states, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.

"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution
is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for
asbestos claims against it.  However, in the interim, Fireman's
Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense
costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights
may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms.

"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.

"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund
in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is
unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/7xmBfm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mikelsen Drops Claims vs. CBS
----------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, has dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant CBS Corporation, in the case
entitled Alice Mikelsen, Surviving Spouse, and Susan Page, as
Personal Representative for Arthur Melvin Mikelsen, Deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, No. 17-cv-00700-RSL, (W.D. Wash.), by way of stipulated
motion between the Plaintiffs and Defendant CBS Corporation.

A copy of the Order Stipulation and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6343c9c from Leagle.com.

Alice Mikelsen, surviving spouse & Susan Page, as personal
representative for Arthur Melvin Mikelsen, deceased, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kristin M. Houser -- houser@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter
Goldmark & Bender, Lucas W.H. Garrett -- garrett@sgb-law.com --
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Thomas J. Breen -- breen@sgb-law.com
-- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Craig A. Sims -- csims@sgb-law.com
-- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Elizabeth Jean McLafferty --
mclafferty@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Kaitlin T.
Wright -- wright@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender &
William Joel Rutzick , Schroeter Goldmark & Bender.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw --
bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald C.
Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc.
PLLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith Cochran
& Dickerson.

Warren Pumps LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
Quimby Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mikelsen's Claims vs. Foster Wheeler Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik has dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation, in the case entitled Alice Mikelsen, Surviving Spouse,
and Susan Page, as Personal Representative for Arthur Melvin
Mikelsen, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation, et al., Defendants, No. 17-cv-00700-RSL, (W.D. Wash.),
by way of stipulated motion between the Plaintiffs and Defendant
Foster Wheeler.

A copy of the Order Stipulation and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyvzhpsp from Leagle.com.

Alice Mikelsen, surviving spouse & Susan Page, as personal
representative for Arthur Melvin Mikelsen, deceased, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kristin M. Houser -- houser@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter
Goldmark & Bender, Lucas W.H. Garrett -- garrett@sgb-law.com --
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Thomas J. Breen -- breen@sgb-law.com
-- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Craig A. Sims -- csims@sgb-law.com
-- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Elizabeth Jean McLafferty --
mclafferty@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Kaitlin T.
Wright -- wright@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender &
William Joel Rutzick , Schroeter Goldmark & Bender.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw --
bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.
Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald C.
Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc.
PLLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith Cochran
& Dickerson.

Warren Pumps LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
Quimby Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mikelsen's Claims vs. General Electric Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, has dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant General Electric Company, in
the case entitled Alice Mikelsen, Surviving Spouse, and Susan Page,
as Personal Representative for Arthur Melvin Mikelsen, Deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, No. 17-cv-00700-RSL, (W.D. Wash.), by way of stipulated
motion between the Plaintiffs and Defendant General Electric
Company.

A copy of the Order Stipulation and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6ynmh39  from Leagle.com.

Alice Mikelsen, surviving spouse & Susan Page, as personal
representative for Arthur Melvin Mikelsen, deceased, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kristin M. Houser -- houser@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter
Goldmark & Bender, Lucas W.H. Garrett -- garrett@sgb-law.com --
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Thomas J. Breen -- breen@sgb-law.com
-- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Craig A. Sims -- csims@sgb-law.com
-- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Elizabeth Jean McLafferty --
mclafferty@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Kaitlin T.
Wright -- wright@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender &
William Joel Rutzick , Schroeter Goldmark & Bender.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw --
bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald C.
Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc.
PLLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith Cochran
& Dickerson.

Warren Pumps LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
Quimby Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 86 Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. remains a co-defendant in approximately 86
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 188 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FqeV2x


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recent Mesothelioma Suit Takes on Avon
-------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that in
recent months, American courts have been busy with lawsuits filed
by mesothelioma victims, accusing a variety of defendants of
knowingly and negligently exposing them to the carcinogenic mineral
asbestos. Though the public has become increasingly familiar with
asbestos and its dangers as a result of television ads urging
victims to seek legal guidance, the vast majority of viewers have
shrugged the commercials off, thinking that mesothelioma is a
remnant of an earlier day, when asbestos was a constant in
industrial workplaces.  Now that notion is being displaced, as
asbestos-related diseases have begun being diagnosed in a new
generation that's been exposed in an entirely different way:
mesothelioma lawsuits are being filed by people who used talc-based
products that plaintiffs say were contaminated with asbestos, and
the latest company to be accused of negligence is the iconic
cosmetics company, Avon.

Woman's Lawsuit Accuses Avon Products of Causing Her Illness

The idea that products sold by "the Avon lady" could cause
malignant mesothelioma is jarring, and the same has been true of
accusations against Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. Yet these
cases are being heard in America's courts as a younger group of
mesothelioma victims is being identified -- and many of them are
women. One of the most recent cases was filed by Kim Young, a
61-year-old woman who was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma
and who believes that it came from her lifelong use of Avon's talc
products. Mrs. Young's case  has indicated that she used Avon
products, including Skin So Soft, Bird of Paradise and
Unforgettable, from 1961 through 1999. Like many young girls
brought up in the 60s and 70s, she recalls her mother using the
same product up until the time of her death, and has memories of
using a powder puff to apply the powder, and writing her name in
the dust left behind on surfaces in the family bathroom.

New York Judge Permits Case to Move Forward

Though Avon has pushed back against claims of responsibility for
Mrs. Young's mesothelioma, and has filed a motion for summary
judgment to have the case dismissed, Judge Manuel J. Mendez of the
New York City Asbestos Litigation Court, denied the company's
petition and is allowing the case to proceed so that Mrs. Young can
present her plea for compensation for the damages that she and her
family have suffered to a jury.

Mesothelioma continues to be diagnosed, and as younger people are
facing the realities of the disease, the American public is
becoming increasingly aware of the dangers that asbestos continues
to present. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with
mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related disease and you need
information about the resources available to you, contact us today
at 1-800-692-8608.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, KIM YOUNG and
J.C. YOUNG, Plaintiffs, v. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Docket No. 190383/2016, Motion Seq. No. 007 (N.Y. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyddf3me from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries remain as defendants
along with numerous industrial companies in asbestos-related
litigation claims in certain U.S. states, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "No significant resources have been required by
Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid
defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them
vigorously.  Given the state of these claims it is not possible to
determine the potential liability, if any."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FcPiRp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Had $3.0MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire Group, Inc. had US$3.0 million in direct and assumed
asbestos and environmental loss reserves at December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Included in the other liability and assumed
reinsurance lines of business are reserves for asbestos and other
environmental losses and loss settlement expenses.  At December 31,
2018 and 2017, we had US$3.0 million and US$2.6 million,
respectively, in direct and assumed asbestos and environmental loss
reserves.  The estimation of loss reserves for environmental claims
and claims related to long-term exposure to asbestos and other
substances is one of the most difficult aspects of establishing
reserves, especially given the inherent uncertainties surrounding
such claims.  Although we record our best estimate of loss and loss
settlement expense reserves, the ultimate amounts paid upon
settlement of such claims may be more or less than the amount of
the reserves, because of the significant uncertainties involved and
the likelihood that these uncertainties will not be resolved for
many years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2uiMo8z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UT Asbestos Response Falls Short, UTFA Says
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 26, 2019, the University of Toronto Administration
released both the Report of the Panel to Review the Asbestos
Management Program at the University of Toronto and the
Administration's response to that Report.  The Administration
appears to have had the Report for more than a month before
releasing it along with a response.

The University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA) is alarmed by
the University of Toronto Administration's inaction and inadequate
response to the Report on the handling of asbestos management,
years after asbestos contamination in the University's Medical
Sciences Building (MSB) raised serious questions about the risk of
asbestos exposure at U of T. Asbestos can pose serious health
dangers and, while the Review Panel's Report does not come close to
fully addressing the problem of asbestos at the University, the
Administration must at least act on the recommendations made by its
own Review Panel in the Report to protect the health and safety of
members of the University campus community.

University of Toronto Faculty Association (U.T.F.A.), C.U.P.E.
3902, the United Steelworkers 1998 (U.S.W.) and other unions and
organizations on campus are preparing a media scrum at The
University of Toronto's St. George Campus. Speakers will include
Jess Taylor, Chair of C.U.P.E 3902, a representative from U.S.W.
1998, and Terezia Zoric, Vice-President of U.T.F.A. This media
scrum will communicate our shared concerns about the Panel's
findings and design and urge the University to take more serious
measures to improve its Asbestos Management Program.

In 2016-2017 multiple asbestos-related incidents occurred in the
MSB. In response, UTFA immediately called on the Administration to
seek input from employee groups in a process that would establish a
joint task force on the handling of asbestos across all three
campuses -- and with a mandate to examine incidents in the MSB.
Instead, the Administration created its own Review Panel and
selected its members.

At the time, UTFA, along with several other student and staff
organizations, criticized the process that led to the creation of
the Review Panel.  It is not the joint task force that UTFA
requested. It was not at arm's-length from senior administrators
whose conduct should have been under scrutiny.  It was not asked to
examine the incidents in the MSB. It did not provide opportunity
for sufficient input from community members, including employee
groups.  In addition, the Review Panel did not include experts with
practical experience in asbestos abatement and management  and did
not include representatives from employee groups working in
affected buildings.

With the Review Panel's work completed, UTFA can see that some of
the recommendations of the Review Panel are steps in the right
direction. UTFA is, however, deeply concerned that the
Administration does not see the need to take necessary actions to
comply with the Review Panel's recommendations.

UTFA and its members, including professors who teach and conduct
research in the MSB, continue to have significant concerns about
the Administration's response, including:

   -- The Administration is failing to comply with its own policies
that require the U of T to strive to exceed the minimum legislated
requirements "by adopting the best practices available to protect
the University community".

   -- The Panel's Report stated that the Administration should
adopt a more stringent standard (e.g. 0.02 or 0.01 f/cc) for
testing air quality and that such a standard was "readily
achievable". However, the Administration has confirmed it will use
a less stringent standard, contrary to the advice of its own Panel
that the appropriate standard is "as low as reasonably
achievable".

   -- The Panel recommended consulting stakeholders on a standard
measurement approach and providing transparency in the oversight of
external contractors. There has been no consultation with
stakeholders or transparency about the work of contractors who
engage in asbestos abatement in University buildings where staff
and students work and learn.
The Report identified areas where there should be greater
involvement and communication with worker representatives and Joint
Health and Safety Committees (JHSC). The Administration has failed
to commit to these changes.

   -- To improve communication, the Administration agreed to create
"a toolkit … including the use of regular updates or newsletters
to building occupants, and messages to other users and postings on
site"; it is unclear that the toolkit will require everything
recommended by the Panel (e.g. air testing results, weekly updates
on the status of ongoing work).

   -- Asbestos management is a serious health and safety issue, and
the University of Toronto should be taking immediate and
appropriate action to ensure that asbestos is managed according to
best practices.  While there are deficiencies in the Report, the
recommendations made by the Review Panel at least provide a minimum
set of actions the Administration must undertake, both as a
building owner and an employer, to ensure a healthy and safe campus
for staff, students, and members of the broader University
community.

"It is clear that the University of Toronto administrative
leadership fell short in its management of asbestos removal on
campus," said Terezia Zoric, UTFA's Vice-President, Grievances. "As
a first step to demonstrate that they are committed to addressing
the serious health dangers posed by the presence and mishandling of
asbestos, the University must act on the recommendations provided
by their own Review Panel."

The University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA) represents
approximately 3000 faculty and librarians at the University of
Toronto.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $81.7MM Libby Costs at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$81.7 million
at December 31, 2018, for response costs related to a vermiculite
mine in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area, known as
Operable Unit 3 ("OU3").  The RI/FS will determine the specific
areas within OU3 requiring remediation and will identify possible
remedial action alternatives.  Possible remedial actions within OU3
are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.

"Grace accrued US$70.2 million, US$9.5 million, and US$24.8 million
in 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively, for future costs related to
vermiculite-related matters.

"As part of the RI/FS process, Grace contracted an engineering and
consulting firm to develop a range of possible remedial
alternatives and associated cost estimates for OU3.  Based on this
work, Grace recorded a pre-tax charge of US$70.0 million in the
2018 third quarter for the estimated costs of remediation of OU3.
Grace believes that this amount should provide for a protective
remedy meeting the statutory requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

"The estimated costs of remediation are preliminary and consist of
several components, each of which may vary significantly as the
remedial alternatives are further developed.  It is reasonably
possible that the ultimate costs of remediation could range between
US$30 million and US$170 million.  Grace is working closely with
the EPA, and the ultimate remedy will be determined by the EPA
after the RI/FS is finalized.  Such remedy will be set forth in a
Record of Decision ("ROD") that is expected to be issued by the EPA
during or after 2020.  Costs associated with the more active
remedial alternatives would be expected to be incurred over a
decade or more.  Grace will reevaluate its estimated liability as
remedial alternatives evolve based on further work by the
engineering and consulting firm and discussions with the EPA as the
RI/FS process moves toward a ROD.  Depending on the remedial
alternatives that the EPA selects in the ROD, the total cost of
remediating OU3 may exceed Grace's current estimate by material
amounts.

"The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or
operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished
products.  Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these investigation
and remediation activities and has recorded a liability to the
extent that its review has indicated that a probable liability has
been incurred and the cost is estimable.  These liabilities cover
the estimated cost of investigations and, to the extent an
assessment has indicated that remediation is necessary, the
estimated cost of response actions.  Response actions typically
involve soil excavation and removal, and replacement with clean
fill.  The EPA may commence additional investigations in the future
at other sites that processed Libby vermiculite, but Grace does not
believe, based on its knowledge of prior and current operations and
site conditions, that liability for remediation at such other sites
is probable.

"Grace's total estimated liability for response costs that are
currently estimable for the Libby mine and surrounding area, and at
vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby at December 31, 2018
and 2017, was US$81.7 million and US$25.8 million, respectively.
It is possible that Grace's ultimate liability for these
vermiculite-related matters will exceed current estimates by
material amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FeQKTk



                            *********

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 ***