CAR_Public/190429.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 85

                            Headlines

AIR EVAC: W. Va. Court Narrows Claims in C. Hundley's Suit
AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Adams Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
ALASKA: Removes Spencer Medicaid Case to Federal District Court
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Sued Over Vehicle Seizure Program
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: May 2 Filing Date for 2nd Amended Huang Suit

AT&T SERVICES: Summary Judgment Bid in Gadelhak TCPA Suit Granted
AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Class Actions Amid Natura Acquisition Talks
BANK OF AMERICA: Baltimore Sues Over Bond Interest Rates
BANK OF HAWAII: Suit Related to Overdraft Fees Ongoing
BANNER HEALTH: Bid to Exclude Kmak Testimony in Ramos Partly Okayed

BIMBO FOODS: Conditional Certification of Franze Class Partly OK'd
BISCOMERICA CORP: Court Dismisses Backus Without Leave to Amend
BITMAIN: Investors Plan to File Class Action in Hong Kong
BRAVO RESTAURANT: Cortez Hits Missed Breaks, Claims Overtime Pay
CANCER GENETICS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Underway

CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Smith et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
CARMAX INC: Rowland Class Action Dismissed
CARMAX INC: Wage & Hour Class Suits in Calif. Still Ongoing
CAS MEDICAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
CBL PROPERTIES: Sets Aside $90MM for Class Action Settlement

CHART INDUSTRIES: Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit Ongoing
CHART INDUSTRIES: Suit over Aluminum Cryobiological Tank Underway
CHASE BANK USA: Chen Credit Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
CHEMICAL & MINING: Class Cert. Bid in S.D.N.Y. Suit Still Pending
CHRISTOPHER'S GOLDEN WOK: Zhongmin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

CHRYSLER: Judge Tosses Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Sludge
CLUB EROTICA: Jackson Hits Tip Pool, Fees; Claims Reimbursements
COFFEE MEETS BAGEL: Bonell Hits Data Breach Over Security Lapse
CONDUENT EDUCATION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Chery Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Vargas Fair Hearing Claim Dismissed With Prejudice

CORECIVIC: Securities Suit Granted Class Action Status
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bond Seeks to Stop Deceptive Sale of Kona Coffee
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kona Coffee Farmers File Mislabeling Suit
CSX CORP: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation
DITECH HOLDING: Kamimura Class Suit in Nevada Stayed

EDEN MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Worker Fingerprint Scans
ELLIE MAE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
EMPATH LLC: Technicians Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Deductions
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Settles TCPA Class Action for $4MM
FORMEL D: McMurray Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

GOOGLE INC: Gibson Dunn Attorney Discusses Cy Pres Ruling
GREAT-WEST LIFE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Action
HILL'S PET: Dog Owners Sue Over Toxic Pet Food
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Kanefsky Class Action
INT'L BUSINESS: Ex-Employees File Age-Discrimination Class Action

KONA GRILL: Boots Suit Against Kona Sushi Underway
L&K COFFEE: Faison Sues Over Counterfeit Kona Coffee
LEON COUNTY, FL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Knight Suit
LESAINT LOGISTICS: Worker Files Lawsuit Over Fingerprint Scans
LINN STAR TRANSFER: Aguilar Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

LM FUNDING: Settlement in Solaris Suit Wins Final Approval
LORAIN, OH: Lawsuit Over Water Rates Certified as Class Action
MARLY BUILDING: Bar Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Aronstein Appeals Case Ruling to 1st Cir.
MDL 2516: Calif. Appeals Ruling in Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation

MDL 2741: 12 Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal. for Roundup Litigation
MDL 2895: KPH Seeks Transfer of Four Antitrust Cases to E.D. Pa.
MHP PHARMACY: Frank Hits Misclassification, Claims Overtime Pay
MICHAEL P. MORTON: Denial of Ortez Class Certification Recommended
MONTAIRE FARMS: Plaintiffs Will Have Voice in DNREC Settlement

MORAN FOODS: Brown Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
MOUNT ZION: Castanon Suit to Recover Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
NCAA: Flasher Seeks Damages Over Injuries Sustained as an Athlete
NCAA: Mum About Football Brain Hazard, Akinbiyi Suit Asserts
NIO INC: Faces Class Action Over 2018 IPO

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Dodson Says Vehicle Seat Sensor Defective
NPS PROPERTY: Cohen Milstein Files Housing Discrimination Case
NRA GROUP: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Isaac FDCPA Suit
OHANA MILITARY: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Lake Suit
PACIFIC BELL: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of Angela Rel's Suit

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Biganini Files FDCPA Suit in New York Ct.
POWERCOMM HOLDINGS: Oral Argument in Randolph Suit on May 8
PRESS ENERGY: Burdett Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Gerbie TCPA Action in Illinois Ends
PUBLIC STORAGE: Class in Martinez-Santiago TCCWNA Suit Decertified

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vecchio Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
ROYAL BANK: Freddie Mac Appeals Judgment in N.J. Carpenters Suit
RUANE CUNIFF: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Ferguson ERISA Suit
SAGAL FILBERT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jackson FDCPA Suit

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Pays $190,000 in Bedingfield Class Suit
SOULJA BOY: Fans Mull Class Action Over Unfilled Web Store Orders
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Amaraut Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
STAMPS.COM INC: Grabisch Hits Share Price Drop
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Admissions Scandal

STICKY'S HOLDINGS: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SUNNIVA INC: Faces Class Action Over NHS EMR Privacy Breach
T-MOBILE NORTHEAST: Bid to Remand Edoff Data Breach Suit Denied
TERNIUM SA: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due May 15
TESLA INC: Srinivasan Appeals Ruling in Wochos Suit to 9th Cir.

TICKETMASTER LLC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Lee Class Suit
TQ PIZZERIA: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Villanueva Alleges
TRISTATE PARKING: Almonte Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TSR INC: Paskowitz Class Action Still Ongoing
UCLA HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $7.5MM

UCONN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
UNION PACIFIC: 8th Cir. to Hear Appeal from Class Cert. Order
UNITED STATES: Williams Suit to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Agrees to Dismiss Merger Related Suits
VALE SA: Bid to Dismiss Samarco Bondholders Suit Still Pending

VALE SA: Discovery Ongoing in ADR Investors' Suit
VALE SA: Suits Over Fundao Dam Collapse Ongoing
VICE MEDIA: Settles Pay Discrimination Class Action for $1.87MM
WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses Juan Olivo's Suit Without Prejudice
WEST MIAMI: Suarez et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages

YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Admissions Scandal
ZTO EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Nurlybayev Class Suit Remains Pending
ZTO EXPRESS: Birmingham Retirement & System Suit Still Stayed
ZTO EXPRESS: Guo and McGrath Suits Remain Stayed
[*] Nick Sherry Expects Superannuation Fee Gouging to Continue

[*] UCBA Sponsors Assembly Bill 1417 to Curb Illegal Cannabis Ads

                            *********

AIR EVAC: W. Va. Court Narrows Claims in C. Hundley's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the case, CONNIE
R. HUNDLEY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC., d/b/a AirMedCare Network; and
MED-TRANS CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-12428
(S.D. W. Va.).

Plaintiff Hundley is a resident of Mingo County, West Virginia.
Upon solicitation by Matthew Ellis, Ms. Hundley paid $300 to buy a
"membership" to the "AirMedCare Network," a trade name of Defendant
Air Evac, a Missouri Corporation.  The AirMedCare Network is an
association of air ambulance providers that sells memberships which
provide Network members with no out-of-pocket expenses for air
ambulance services provided by the following companies: Defendant
Air Evac; EagleMed, LLC; REACH Air Medical Services, LLC, and
Defendant Med-Trans Corp.

As stated in the Terms and Conditions of membership, a membership
ensures no out-of-pocket flight expenses if flown by the Company or
another AirMedCare Network participating provider by providing
prepaid protection against AirMedCare Network Provider air
ambulance costs that are not covered by a member's insurance or
other benefits or third party responsibility.  The terms and
conditions clarify that in certain circumstances beyond the
company's control, air ambulance services may be unavailable.
Defendant Med-Trans is one of the affiliated companies in the
AirMedCare Network.  AirMedCare and Med-Trans are separate legal
entities; the latter is incorporated in North Dakota.

On July 25, 2015, Hundley was involved in a motorcycle accident in
Tennessee.  Due to her injuries, she was transported to the
University of Tennessee Medical Center by an air ambulance operated
by defendant Med-Trans.  She was an AirMedCare Network member at
the time.  Following the incident, Hundley received from Med-Trans
a demand for payment by her or third parties in the amount of
$33,893.22, the full cost of the flight.  

Hundley then brought the lawsuit, individually and on behalf of a
class of persons who are citizens of the State of West Virginia as
of the date the action is filed and who have purchased or renewed
memberships with AirMedCare Network, claiming that her membership
should have indemnified her for the full flight cost, and that
AirMedCare was not authorized to collect the $300 she paid for her
membership because AirMedCare was not a licensed insurer.

Hundley brought claims for breach of contract against AirMedCare
and Med-Trans (Counts I and V), violation of West Virginia Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("WVUTPA") against AirMedCare and Matthew Ellis
(Count II), common-law bad faith against AirMedCare (Count III),
and illegal debt collection under the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act ("WVCCPA") against AirMedCare (Count IV).  On
Dec. 22, 2016, AirMedCare removed the case to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.  

Pending are the Defendants' motions to dismiss, filed Dec. 29, 2016
and Feb. 2, 2017.  AirMedCare seeks to dismiss each of Ms.
Hundley's claims.  First, AirMedCare argues that the AirMedCare
Network membership program is not insurance under West Virginia law
and any claim resting on that premise (Counts I-IV) must be
dismissed.  Second, AirMedCare contends that the non-contract
claims (Counts II-IV) must be dismissed for being preempted by the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.  Finally, AirMedCare seeks
dismissal of the breach of contract claims (Counts I and V) for
failing as a matter of law.

As an initial matter, Judge Copenhaver dismisses Count IV pursuant
to its recent decision in Hinkle v. Matthews.  Count IV claims that
AirMedCare engaged in illegal debt collection pursuant to the
WVCCPA by collecting a $300 premium while not being a licensed
insurer.  In Hinkle, the Court determined a point of sale exchange
is not a claim.  The analysis is the same in the present case.  The
$300 sale was not a claim for debt collection purposes under the
WVCCPA but was rather a point of sale exchange; Ms. Hundley paid
$300 and received membership to the AirMedCare Network membership
program.  Accordingly, AirMedCare did not engage in debt collection
regarding the $300 membership fee.  Count IV is dismissed.

AirMedCare contends that Counts I-III must be dismissed because the
membership agreement is not insurance.  The Judge finds that he
holds insufficient factual knowledge to decide, at this juncture,
whether the membership program constitutes insurance under the
State ex rel. Safe-Guard Prod. Int'l, LLC v. Thompson analysis.
Accordingly, he does not dismiss at this stage any claims on the
ground that the membership program is not insurance.

The Defendants next argue that Hundley's remaining non-contract
claims (Counts II and III) should be dismissed for the independent
reason of being preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
As for Count III, while common law claims may be covered by the
Airline Deregulation Act, it does not protect air carriers from
suits alleging no violation of state-imposed obligations, but
seeking recovery solely for the airline's alleged breach of its
own, self-imposed undertakings.  As for Count II, the claim hinges
entirely on whether or not the membership program constitutes
insurance.  If it does not, the claim fails; if it does, the claim
likely survives Airline Deregulation Act preemption because the
McCarran-Ferguson Act protects from federal statutory challenges:
(1) any state law that relates to the regulation of the business of
insurance or (2) any state law enacted for the purpose of
regulating the business of insurance.  Because the Judge has found
that he cannot yet determine whether the AirMedCare Network
membership is insurance, he defers consideration of the preemption
issue.

Lastly, the Defendants seek to dismiss Counts I and V, the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claims.  AirMedCare seeks dismissal
of these claims on a theory of prior breach, an affirmative
defense.  In light of the allegations on the face of the complaint,
as well as the statements in the accompanying documents that the
membership frees members from out-of-pocket expenses for in-network
air ambulances, the Judge cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that
the claims for breach of contract are not viable. Counts I and V
are not dismissed.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Copenhaver granted
the Defendants' motions to dismiss as to Count IV, and otherwise
denied, and that Count IV be, and it is, dismissed.  The Clerk is
directed to forward copies of this order to all counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties.

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

Connie R. Hundley, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan R. Marshall
-- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, Michael C.
Walker -- Michael@burnsidelaw.com -- BURNSIDE LAW, Raymond S.
Franks, II -- rfranks@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER & S.
Douglas Adkins, CYRUS ADKINS & WALKER.

Air Evac EMS, Inc., doing business as AirMedCare Network &
Med-Trans Corporation, Defendants, represented by Carte P. Goodwin
-- cgoodwin@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN TODD, Joshua L. Fuchs --
jlfuchs@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, pro hac vice & Nicole M. Perry
-- nmperry@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, pro hac vice.


AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Adams Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donathan Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aircraft Service International, Inc., Case
No. 2019CH02684 (Ill. Cir., February 28, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; and statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Aircraft Service operates as Menzies Aviation where Adams worked as
an hourly employee. He was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out"
using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He alleges that
Menzies improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data to an
out-of-state payroll services provider without their informed
consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Castiglione, Esq.
      Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
      The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
      70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60601 58402
      Tel: (312) 356-3200
      Fax: (312) 386-5800
      Email: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
             kasif@khowajalaw.com

             - and -

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 201-0575


ALASKA: Removes Spencer Medicaid Case to Federal District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Alaska removed the case, JENNIFER SPENCER,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. ADAM CRUM, in his official capacity as Commissioner
of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, and SHAWNDA
O'BRIEN, in her official capacity as Director of the Alaska
Division of Public Assistance, the Defendants, Case No.
3AN-19-05386CI (Filed Feb. 27, 2019), from the Superior Court for
the State of Alaska to the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska. The District of Alaska Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-00087-SLG to the proceeding.

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunction requiring
the Defendants to make final eligibility determinations and begin
providing Medicaid coverage to all eligible individuals within 30
days after receiving their Medicaid applications or 90 days if a
disability determination is required; the award of costs and
expenses of litigation; the award of full reasonable attorney's
fees; and such other and further compensatory or equitable relief,
in violation of federal law related to Medicaid which arises under
the laws of the United States.[BN]

Attorney for the Defendants

          Alexander J. Hildebrand, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          PO Box 110300
          Juneau, AK 99811-0300
          Telephone: (907) 465-3600
          E-mail: alexander.hildebrand@alaska.gov

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          James J Davis, Jr., Esq.
          Goriune Dudukgian, Esq.
          NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC
          310 K Street, Suite 200
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          E-mail: jdavis@njp-law.com
                  gdudukgian@njp-law.com

ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Sued Over Vehicle Seizure Program
--------------------------------------------------
Chris Ramirez, writing for KOB 4, reports that the City of
Albuquerque is facing a class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs claim the city illegally took their car, kept it for
months or years, and then made millions by selling the vehicles.

The lawsuit also claims the city continued the practice after it
was ruled unconstitutional.

Matthew Kiscaden was stopped by an Albuquerque police officer and
arrested him on suspicion of driving with a revoked driver's
license in 2017.

Police seized his car and forced him to keep it on his driveway
with a boot for nine months.

"The case was dismissed. I then went home, contacted the city
attorney and asked him to please come to my home and remove the
boot and refund the money," Kiscaden said. "The city attorney at
that time said, 'No, this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter,
we are not going to remove the boot or refund the money.'"

Kiscaden eventually the city nearly $3,000 in fees to remove the
boot.

He is one of thousands of people who share a similar story.

The class action lawsuit alleges, between 2009 and 2016, the city
generated $11.8 million in revenue by seizing vehicles, tacking on
enormous fees and, in many cases, selling the cars at auction.

"The motivation wasn't to seek justice, the motivation was to raise
money in order to fund a program that was inherently
unconstitutional," said attorney Shannon Kennedy, who is
representing the class.

Kennedy also alleges that some vehicles were nearly worthless after
the city returned them.

The city left a convertible on an impound lot for 19 months, with
the top down. When its rightful owner got the car back, weather had
ruined the interior.

For Kiscaden, and many others like him, grapple with the fact that
they were punished without a conviction, and forced to give up
their car and then pay thousands to get it back.

"It was very detrimental. I worked out in Rio Rancho at the time.
The stress one has to go through and the anxiety one has to go
though, it's almost a total life change," Kiscaden said. "My life
was thrown upside down."

The lawsuit points out that in 2015, the state legislature
abolished civil forfeitures. In 2018, a federal court ruled that
city was unconstitutionally seizing vehicles. Also in 2018, the New
Mexico Court of Appeals ruled the city was violating the law by
seizing cars.

However, the suit claims throughout that time, the city continued
sezing vehicles.

KOB 4 reached out to Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller's Office. A
spokesperson said Mayor Keller stopped the program. City officials
would not comment on the lawsuit because they said they hasn't seen
it yet. [GN]


ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: May 2 Filing Date for 2nd Amended Huang Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INCHEN HUANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
ARTHUR JOSEPH HIGGINS, JAMES A. SCHOENECK, and AUGUST J. MORETTI,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-04830-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge John S.
Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, has issued an order regarding
the deadline for the filing of the Second Amended Complaint and the
briefing schedule for anticipated motion(s) to dismiss.

On Aug. 18, 2017, Huang filed a federal securities class action
lawsuit against the Defendants.  On Dec. 8, 2017, the Court entered
an Order appointing the Depomed Investor Group as the Lead
Plaintiff, and approving Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as the Lead
Counsel.

On Feb. 6, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed its First Amended
Complaint.  The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint on April 9, 2018.  On March 18, 2019 the Court
Granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, and
gave the Lead Plaintiff 21 days to file a Second Amended
Complaint.

The Lead Plaintiff anticipates filing the Second Amended Complaint
and the Defendants anticipate moving to dismiss the anticipated
Second Amended Complaint.  The parties have met and conferred
regarding a schedule for the filing of a second amended complaint
and a briefing schedule for the Defendants' anticipated motion(s)
to dismiss.

Having met and conferred, they've agreed to, and Judge Tigar
granted, the following schedule for the filing of and responding to
an amended complaint:

     a. The Lead Plaintiff will file a second amended complaint by
May 2, 2019;

     b. The Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the
second amended complaint by June 17, 2019;

     c. If the Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint,
Lead Plaintiff will file its opposition(s) by Aug.t 1, 2019;

     d. The Defendants will file their replies in support of any
motion(s) to dismiss by Aug. 30, 2019;

     e. The Counsel for the parties will meet and confer to agree
on a proposed hearing date in connection with the motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint, subject to the Court's
availability; and

     f. The initial scheduling date set forth in the Court's March
18, 2019 Order is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Uoy0aL from Leagle.com.

Inchen Huang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice
& Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Depomed Investor Group, "Lead Plantiff", Plaintiff, represented by
Adam Christopher McCall, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Adam Marc Apton,
Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Nicholas Ian Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com --
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice & Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Arthur Joseph Higgins, James A. Schoeneck & August J. Moretti,
Defendants, represented by Michael A. Mugmon --
MICHAEL.MUGMON@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP & Rebecca A. Girolamo -- BECKY.GIROLAMO@WILMERHALE.COM --
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP.

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael A.
Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Jessica L. Lewis ,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Michael G. Bongiorno,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice & Rebecca A.
Girolamo, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall & Dorr LLP.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Tricia Lynn McCormick, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Brian Shrader, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

John Lucas & Joe Bojues, Movants, represented by Robert Vincent
Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Thomas J. Bruch, Steven Robert Farrar, Dennis J. Seltzer & David
Weinstein, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Gerald Ross, Interested Party, represented by Benjamin Heikali,
Faruqi and Faruqi LLP.


AT&T SERVICES: Summary Judgment Bid in Gadelhak TCPA Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALI GADELHAK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-01559 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Edmond E. Cheng of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, (i) AT&T's motion for summary judgment; and (ii) denief
Gadelhak's motion for summary judgment.

Gadelhak brought the proposed class action after he received
automated text messages from Defendant AT&T, allegedly in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  Gadelhak lives
in Chicago, Illinois and is not a customer of AT&T or any AT&T
affiliate.  He registered his cell phone number with the Do Not
Call list in May 2014.  Nonetheless, in July 2016, Gadelhak
received five text messages from AT&T asking survey questions in
Spanish.  AT&T insists that TARCRFT (AT&T Customer Rules Feedback
Tool) is designed to send text messages only to AT&T customers, so
Gadelhak's number must have been erroneously listed on an AT&T
account.

In February 2017, Gadelhak brought the proposed class action
against AT&T for violations of the TCPA.  He alleges that AT&T
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted him via text
message using an automated telephone dialing system ("ATDS")
without his prior consent. He also alleges that AT&T did the same
to others, on whose behalf Gadelhak brings class allegations.

Both parties now move for summary judgment, content to litigate
class certification (if Gadelhak were to prevail) after a decision
on summary judgment.  In its motion, AT&T asserts that it did not
use an ATDS to send a text message to Gadelhak and thus did not
violate the TCPA.  For his part, Gadelhak asks the Court to declare
as a matter of law that AT&T's TACRFT system employs an ATDS.  Much
of the parties' dispute boils down to whether the D.C. Circuit's
opinion in ACA International v. FCC nullified previous FCC orders
defining the term ATDS and, if so, what is the proper definition of
that statutory term under the plain language of the TCPA.

Judge Cheng finds that the 2008 Declaratory Ruling held the same,
as it simply "affirmed" the interpretation of ATDS promulgated in
the 2003 Order.  With the Commission's repeated affirmations of the
prior orders, this Court holds, as other courts in the District
have, that ACA International invalidated the Commission's
understanding of the term ATDS as articulated in the 2015
Declaratory Ruling, as well as the 2008 Declaratory Ruling and the
2003 Order.

Because ACA International invalidated the Commission's prior orders
defining the term ATDS -- and also declined to articulate their own
definition of the term -- the Judge moves on to interpreting the
TCPA unburdened by the Commission's definitions.  AT&T argues that
the statutory text dictates a "no" answer,while Gadelhak asserts
that a device that "stores" telephone numbers to be called and
automatically dials those numbers falls within the statutory
definition.

The Judge's interpretation does not actually render "store"
superfluous.  The word's presence in the provision ensures that
systems that generate numbers randomly or sequentially, but then
store the numbers for a period of time before dialing them later
after a person has intervened to initiate the calls, are still
covered by the statutory definition of ATDS.  All in all, none of
Gadelhak's arguments are persuasive; instead, the numbers stored by
an ATDS must have been generated using a random or sequential
number generator.

Finally, Gadelhak concedes that the system employed by AT&T for its
TACRFT program generates a list of telephone numbers to be called
via automated computer processes.  Based on this description,
AT&T's system is not an ATDS as defined in the statute.  Gadelhak
makes the additional argument, though, that "AT&T's dialing system
also uses a random number generator to produce telephone numbers to
be called.

The Judge finds that the organization of the provision does not
support a reading where "using a random or sequential number
generator" refers to the order numbers from a list are dialed.
Otherwise, the provision would read to store or produce telephone
numbers to be called; and to dial such numbers, using a random or
sequential number generator.  Based on the record evidence, there
is no genuine dispute that AT&T's system cannot generate telephone
numbers randomly or sequentially -- as those terms are used in the
TCPA -- and thus it is not an ATDS and is not prohibited.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Cheng denied Gadelhak's motion
for partial summary judgment, and granted AT&T's motion for summary
judgment.  The final judgment will be entered.  The status hearing
of April 4, 2019 is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/TgGCB0 from Leagle.com.

Ali Gadelhak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael S. Hilicki, Keogh Law,
LTD, Timothy J. Sostrin, Keogh Law, LTD. & Keith James Keogh, Keogh
Law, Ltd.

AT&T Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hans J. Germann --
hgermann@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Class Actions Amid Natura Acquisition Talks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Bowman, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that Avon
Products as hit with multiple class action lawsuits. This news
comes on the heels of the company's announcement that it was in
talks to potentially be acquired by Brazil's Natura.

So what
Several law firms are alleging that Avon may have committed
securities fraud by failing to disclose that it significantly
loosened credit terms in Brazil, its largest market, in order to
recruit new representatives, and that it failed to account for the
new credit terms by increasing its allowance for doubtful accounts.
These firms concluded that that move led to the stock being
artificially inflated during the period in question in 2017.

Separately, Avon confirmed on March 22 that the company has had
preliminary discussions with Natura on a "potential transaction,"
which was understood to be a takeover by Natura. Avon stock had
risen 18% since that news broke, but gave up much of those gains on
March 27, though it's unclear if that was due to the lawsuits or
just a sign that investors thought the stock was overbought,
especially as shares have nearly doubled this year on hopes for a
turnaround.

Now what
Class action lawsuits like these ones against Avon are fairly
common, so they aren't necessarily cause for alarm. However, the
news seems important in that it could have an effect on Natura's
potential acquisition. This is the second time that Natura has
approached Avon, following discussions last September, so talks may
not lead to a deal. However, investors are clearly hoping for an
exit from Avon stock's long descent, so keep an eye out for reports
on advancing talks. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Baltimore Sues Over Bond Interest Rates
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Campbell, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
Baltimore is suing 10 major banks, alleging they illegally inflated
interest rates for particular bonds for public works --
overcharging Baltimore and other municipalities by billions of
dollars.

The city is seeking class-action status for the federal antitrust
lawsuit, saying the banks inflated costs for the city and other
local governments, which Baltimore seeks to represent. That takes
money away that could be spent on schools, police, roads, sewer
lines and the like.

The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges
that Bank of America, Barclays Bank, BMO Financial Group, Citibank,
Fifth Third Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley,
Royal Bank of Canada and Wells Fargo Bank colluded to fix interest
rates of the tax-exempt bonds, known as variable rate demand
obligations (or VRDOs), from 2007 until 2016.

Baltimore, which has issued more than $260 million of the bonds,
said the banks "conspired in a coordinated and confidential scheme"
from at least August 2007 to June 2016 to collect billions in
unearned fees from the city and others on the bonds, which are used
to pay for major, long-term city infrastructure projects.

"While Defendants enjoyed the benefits of their rate-fixing scheme,
Plaintiff and similarly situated VRDO issuers suffered to the tune
of billions of dollars in overcharges during the Class Period by
paying inflated, collusively set interest rates," the complaint
says. "Defendants' scheme inevitably reduced the funds available
for public works, services, and organizations."

Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank and RBC
declined to comment on March 26; spokespeople for the five other
banks did not respond to requests for comment.

Baltimore is joining a growing group of municipalities and states
suing over how banks handle variable rate demand obligations.
Philadelphia sued a group of banks in February with much the same
arguments and also seeking class-action status, according to a
Reuters report. The state of New York, as well as California,
Illinois and Massachusetts, all have sued banks, too, according to
a report in The Bond Buyer trade publication.

VRDOs are long-term municipal bonds that allow cities, counties,
states and other issuers to borrow large amounts of money at lower,
short-term rates because they feature a "put" or "tender" option
that allows investors to sell the bond back at face value, plus
accrued interest.

Because of this feature, cities often pay expensive fees to
remarketing agents -- such as the banks being sued -- to set the
interest rates and re-sell or purchase any tendered bonds. The
remarketing agents are required to set the rates at the lowest
possible market rate.

The interest rates generally are reset weekly.

If Judge Jesse M. Furman allows Baltimore's class action suit to
move forward or merges it with another suit, it could become a
massive case. As of November 2013, there were approximately 9,000
VRDOs outstanding in the United States with a collective balance of
roughly $223 billion, the lawsuit said.

Bank of America, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo alone accounted for
approximately 40 percent of the VRDO market in 2011, 2012 and
2013.

Baltimore's complaint cites a whistleblower analysis that showed
interest rates were "grouped together in ‘buckets' in a manner
that would be statistically impossible had the banks actually
priced VRDO interest rates individually." It also noted a report
that the Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation
of VRDO remarketing practices.

Maintaining artificially high interest rates discouraged investors
from exercising their "put" option, meaning the banks did not have
to buy the bonds back and re-sell them, while simultaneously
allowing them to charge higher fees for those services, the
complaint claimed.

The city is represented by outside counsel, Susman Godfrey LLP.
[GN]


BANK OF HAWAII: Suit Related to Overdraft Fees Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit initiated by a customer in
relation to the company's practice of determining whether consumer
deposit accounts were overdrawn based on available balance.

On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a Bank customer primarily alleging Bank of Hawaii's practice of
determining whether consumer deposit accounts were overdrawn based
on "available balance" (which deducts debit card transactions that
have taken place but which have not yet been posted) was not
properly applied or disclosed to customers.

This lawsuit is similar to lawsuits filed against other financial
institutions pertaining to available balance overdraft fee
disclosures. Management disputes any wrongdoing and the case is
being vigorously defended. Because of the many questions of fact
and law that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain.

Bank of Hawaii, a chartered bank, provides banking products and
services to customers in Hawaii. The company offers personal
banking products, such as checking and savings accounts, special
packages, loans and lines, mortgages, credit and debit cards,
online and mobile banking services, individual retirement accounts,
and other services. The company was founded in 1897 and is based in
Honolulu, Hawaii. It has branches in the Hawaiian Islands; Guam,
Saipan, and Palau; and American Samoa. Bank of Hawaii operates as a
subsidiary of Bank of Hawaii Corporation.


BANNER HEALTH: Bid to Exclude Kmak Testimony in Ramos Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORRAINE M. RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANNER
HEALTH, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-2556-WJM-NRN (D.
Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude and Strike the Testimony of Thomas R.
Kmak.

The case arises out of alleged mismanagement of Defendant Banner
Health's employee 401(k) plan.  Plaintiffs Ramos and the others
bring the class action against Banner Health, as well as current
and former Banner Health employees, alleging, among other claims,
that Banner Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by causing the Plan
to pay excessive recordkeeping fees.

On March 26, 2018, Banner Defendants submitted a rebuttal report by
Kmak to provide opinions related to the reasonableness of the
administrative and recordkeeping fees paid by the Plan and to
examine certain opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert, Martin A.
Schmidt.  To assess the reasonableness of the Plan's recordkeeping
fees, Kmak first applied Fiduciary Benchmarks Insights, LLC's
benchmarking methodology to build a mathematically derived
benchmark group for Banner Health.  Based on a group of benchmark
plans for each year from 2009-2017, Kmak calculated the 25th and
50th percentile fees of the benchmark group and compared the Plan's
fees to those markers.

Currently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion.  At base, the
dispute over the admissibility of Kmak's testimony turns on the
alleged failure of Banner Defendants to disclose and provide the
underlying data on which Kmak's expert opinion relies.  The
Plaintiffs seek to exclude Kmak's report for failure to identify
and produce certain materials on which he relied.  They also
contend that Kmak's report is "untestable, unverifiable,
unreliable, and inadmissible" because Kmak failed "to disclose the
data and formulas underlying his benchmark calculations."

JUdge Martinez holds he need only address the Plaintiffs' first
argument.  Based on the statements of the parties, Kmak's rebuttal
report, and Kmak's deposition, he finds that Banner Defendants have
not disclosed or provided all of the materials upon which Kmak
relied in his report.  Nor has Kmak provided the relevant
information from which Plaintiffs may evaluate the benchmark groups
employed by Kmak as a comparison for Banner Health's Plan fees.

Given this state of affairs, the Judge must consider the
appropriate course under Rule 37(c).  He finds that there was some
prejudice to the Plaintiffs because they were unable to evaluate
whether the benchmark group contained the appropriate comparators.
However, the report and subsequent deposition provided substantial
data on how Kmak arrived at his opinions based on the benchmark
group, and some information about how he developed the benchmark
group.

The Plaintiffs contend that there is not sufficient time for the
Plaintiffs to analyze the data, depose Kmak regarding it, or revise
their rebuttal reports.  Given that no trial date has yet been set,
the Judge finds that striking Kmak's testimony would result in an
injustice to the Banner Defendants, who would be left without a
retained expert's testimony on the reasonableness of the Plan's
fees.  He finds that the schedule set forth will allow the parties
sufficient time to cure the harm caused by Kmak's inadequate
disclosures.  Moreover, he will take the reopened expert discovery
period into account when setting the trial date in the future.

Finally, the Judge finds that there is not sufficient evidence to
support a conclusion that Banner Health acted in bad faith.  Banner
Defendants reasonably, if wrongly, believed that they were under no
obligation to disclose additional information, facts, or data.  He
thus concludes that, given the opportunity to cure, Banner
Defendants' violation of Rule 26 was harmless.

Accordingly, he will reopen expert discovery, allow the Plaintiffs
to depose Kmak for an additional 4 hours, and order Banner
Defendants to disclose supplemental rebuttal expert disclosures
from Kmak and to produce the following documents:

      a. The electronic Fidelity Service Data, which was provided
to Kmak and identified by Kmak as recordkeeping service data
provided by Fidelity, in the form provided to Kmak or a
substantially similar form readable and accessible by the
Plaintiffs;

      b. The Plans, Companies, and Recordkeepers in each benchmark
group from 2009-2017 used by Kmak as a comparison point for the
Plan's fees;

      c. The names of the companies and recordkeepers previously
anonymized in Kmak's report at ECF No. 321-3 at 232-34; and

      d. Any additional documents relied on by Kmak not already in
possession of the Plaintiffs.

Because he reopens expert discovery for the limited purpose
described, the Judge finds it premature to determine whether Kmak's
"undisclosed methodology and data makes opinions untestable,
unverifiable, unreliable, and inadmissible."  He therefore denies
the remainder of the Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice to
refiling after the reopened discovery period closes.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Martinez granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to the extent that he finds that Kmak's disclosures fell
short of the Rule 26(a) standard, and denied as to the remainder of
the Motion.  The Court sua sponte reopens expert discovery for the
following limited purposes:

     a. The Banner Defendants will disclose supplemental rebuttal
expert disclosures from Kmak on April 30, 2019 which address how he
created the benchmark groups from 2009-2017.  Consistent with Rule
26(a)(2), Kmak will disclose all facts and data he considered in
forming his supplemental expert report;

     b. In addition, the Banner Defendants must produce to the
Plaintiffs the following documents or information by April 30,
2019:

          i. The electronic Fidelity Service Data, which was
provided to Kmak and identified by Kmak as recordkeeping service
data provided by Fidelity, in the form provided to Kmak or a
substantially similar form readable and accessible by the
Plaintiffs;

          ii. The Plans, Companies, and Recordkeepers in each
benchmark group from 2009-2017 used by Kmak as a comparison point
for the Plan's fees; and

          iii. The names of the companies and recordkeepers
previously anonymized in Kmak's report; and

          iv. Any additional documents relied on by Kmak not
already in possession of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs may reopen Kmak's deposition and depose Kmak for an
additional 4 hours on or before May 21, 2019.  To the extent that
they have already provided a rebuttal report to Kmak, the
Plaintiffs may revise that rebuttal report and provide it to the
Banner Defendants by June 10, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5t8B95 from Leagle.com.

Lorraine M. Ramos, Constance R. Williamson, Karen F. McLeod, Robert
Moffitt, Cherlene M. Goodale, Linda Ann Heyrman & Delri Hanson,
individually and as reprentatives of a class of plan participants,
on behalf of the Banner Health Employees 401 (k) Plan, Plaintiffs,
represented by Aaron Elliott Schwartz -- aschwartz@uselaws.com. --
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Heather Lea, Schlichter Bogard
and Denton, LLP, James Redd, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP,
Kurt Charles Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Michael
Armin Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Troy Andrew Doles,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, & Jerome Joseph Schlichter --
jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

Banner Health, Banner Health Board of Directors, Laren Bates,
Wilford A. Cardon, Ronald J. Creasman, Gilbert Davila, Peter S.
Fine, Susan B. Foote, Michael J. Frick, Michael Garnreiter, Barry
A. Hendin, David Kikumoto, Larry S. Lazarus, Steven W. Lynn, Anne
Mariucci, Quentin P. Smith, Jr., Christopher Volk, Cheryl
Wenzinger, Banner Health Retirement Plans Advisory Committee,
Brenda Schaefer, Charles P. Lehn, Colleen Hallberg, Dan Weinman,
Dennis Dahlen, Ed Niemann, Jr., Ed Oxford, Jeff Buehrle, Jennifer
Sherwood, Julie Nunley, Margaret Dehaan, Patricia K. Block,
Paulette Friday, Richard O. Sutton, Robert Lund & Thomas R. Koelbl,
Defendants, represented by Richard Jason Pearl --
richard.pearl@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP & Theodore M.
Becker -- theodore.becker@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP.

Jeffrey Slocum & Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Joseph Boran -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Emily Taylor Jastromb --
emily.jastromb@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
Hillary E. August -- hillary.august@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius, LLP, James P. Looby -- james.looby@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld --
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP &
Sari M. Alamuddin -- sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius, LLP.


BIMBO FOODS: Conditional Certification of Franze Class Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS FRANZE & GEORGE SCHRUFER, JR. on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, FIK/ABIMBO FOODS
BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, INC., F/K/A GEORGE WESTON BAKERIES
DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-03556 (NSR) (JCM)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and
judicial notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiffs Franze and Schrufer bring the action, initiated on May
12, 2017, against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  They
bring the proposed collective and class action alleging that the
Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs and the Distributors as
independent contractors, exempt from the FLSA, in order to avoid
paying them overtime in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.

On March 12, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification and judicial notice under the FLSA.  They seek to
conditionally certify a collective action on behalf of similarly
situated distributors for the Defendants and requests the Court to
authorize notice to be sent to potential class members.

On June 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs served a motion to dismiss the
Defendants' counterclaims against them and, on March 15, 2019, the
Court issued an Opinion denying the Plaintiffs' motion.  The Court
found that granting the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the
Defendants' counterclaim for unjust enrichment would have been
premature.  The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
Nov. 13, 2018, and that motion remains pending before the Court.

Judge Roman finds that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient
evidence to make a modest factual showing that they and the
Distributors are victims to a common policy to mischaracterize
Distributors as independent contractors to deprive them of overtime
compensation in violation of the FLSA and that the Distributors and
the Plaintiffs are sufficiently similarly situated to proceed for
the purposes of conditional class certification.  He holds that the
Plaintiffs have met their low burden.

The Judge accepts the Plaintiffs' proposed notice as modified to
include a three-year notice period and authorizes the notice to be
posted at the Newburgh, New York and New Paltz, New York
facilities4 and sent by mail to all individuals who worked as
distributors or independent contractor route drivers for the
Defendants in New York during the three years prior to the date of
the filing of the action.  He further authorizes the Plaintiffs to
send one reminder notice by mail.  Within 30 days, the Defendants
will produce the names and last known mailing addresses of all
individuals who worked as distributors or independent contractor
route drivers for the Defendants in New York during the three years
prior to the date of the initiation of the action.

The Defendants state that the Court is empowered to impose
sanctions on the Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 or,
alternatively, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b).  They
allege that the Plaintiffs declarations are "replete with
misrepresentations" and that they simply reused declarations from
another proceeding.  The decision of whether or not to impose
sanctions under Rule 11 and Section 1927 is committed to the
discretion of the district court.  The Judge determines that it is
too early to determine whether sanctions are warranted and declines
to impose sanctions at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Roman granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' motion.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 37.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/063wYO from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Franze, on behalf of themselves, and of all similarly
situated individuals & George Schrufer, Jr., on behalf of
themselves, and of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
represented by Gary Steven Graifman -- email@kgglaw.com --
Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Orin Robert Kurtz --
okurtz@gardylaw.com -- Gardy & Notis, LLP, Reginald H. Rutishauser
, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. & Randy J. Perlmutter --
rperlmutter@kgglaw.com -- Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, formerly known as Bimbo
Foods Bakeries Distribution Inc. formerly known as George Weston
Bakeries Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
Jonathan Puma -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP & Melissa C. Rodriguez --
melissa.rodriguez@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa C.
Rodriguez, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Melissa
C. Rodriguez, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Nicholas Franze, on behalf of themselves, and of all similarly
situated individuals & George Schrufer, Jr., on behalf of
themselves, and of all similarly situated individuals, Counter
Defendants, represented by Gary Steven Graifman, Kantrowitz
Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Orin Robert Kurtz, Gardy & Notis, LLP,
Reginald H. Rutishauser, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. &
Randy J. Perlmutter, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, Counter Claimant,
represented by Michael Jonathan Puma, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP
& Melissa C. Rodriguez, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


BISCOMERICA CORP: Court Dismisses Backus Without Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TROY BACKUS, Plaintiff, v. BISCOMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03916-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted Biscomerica's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint without leave to amend.

Backus brought the putative class action against the Defendant,
claiming that it violated California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") by selling packaged cookies that contained partially
hydrogenated oil ("PHO").  Biscomerica manufactures, distributes,
and sells a variety of packaged cookies that contain PHO, an
artificial trans fat, a toxic carcinogen for which there are many
safe and commercially viable substitutes.

Backus "repeatedly purchased and consumed" Biscomerica cookies
containing PHO for personal and household consumption.  Until late
2015, he bought these cookies approximately once a month from
various California stores.  He was injured because he lost money
because he purchased products that were detrimental to his health
and were unfairly offered for sale in violation of federal and
California law, and because he suffered physical injury when he
repeatedly consumed the cookies.  He was "unaware" that the cookies
were "dangerous" because he is a busy person and cannot reasonably
inspect every ingredient of every food that he purchases for
himself and others.

Backus brought his initial complaint in the Court on July 12, 2016,
asserting causes of action under state law, including: (1)
California's UCL; (2) nuisance; and (3) the implied warranty of
merchantability.  He asserted his claims on behalf of himself and a
nationwide class of people who had purchased Biscomerica cookies on
or after Jan. 1, 2008.

On March 27, 2017, the Court granted Biscomerica's motion to
dismiss.  First, the Court held that Backus' claim that the use of
PHO was unlawful under the UCL failed because his interpretation of
California's Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law was preempted by
Section 754.  Second, the Court held that use of PHO was not unfair
under the UCL because it was similarly preempted.  Finally, it
rejected Backus' nuisance and implied warranty of merchantability
claims.  The Court granted Backus leave to amend his complaint but
noted that his entire theory as to each cause of action currently
pled is deficient as a matter of law.

Backus filed an amended complaint on April 17, 2017, asserting two
UCL-based causes of action.  First, Backus claimed that
Biscomerica's use of PHO was unlawful under the UCL because the
products were adulterated, thus violating the FDCA and the Sherman
Law.  Second, Backus claimed that Biscomerica's use of PHO was
unfair under the UCL.  He purported to bring his claim on behalf of
himself and a nationwide class of people who had purchased
Biscomerica cookies containing partially hydrogenated oil between
Jan. 1, 2008 and June 16, 2015.

Biscomerica filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
5, 2017.  Backus opposed on May 19, and Biscomerica replied on June
1.

On June 22, 2017, the Court stayed the action, over Biscomerica's
opposition, until two cases asserting similar claims were resolved
by the Ninth Circuit.  In the first of those cases, Hawkins v.
AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., the Ninth Circuit assumed, without
deciding, that the plaintiff's PHO claims were not preempted by
federal law, but the court held that the plaintiff had nonetheless
failed to state a claim for violation of the UCL or for breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability.  In the second case,
Hawkins v. Kroger Co., the Ninth Circuit declined to reach the
preemption issue.  With the two cases decided, the Court lifted the
stay on Oct. 24, 2018 and ordered the parties to submit
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the two Hawkins cases.
Both Backus and Biscomerica filed supplemental briefs on November
8.

Judge Gilliam concludes that Backus' allegations in his amended
complaint -- which, other than the end date of the class period are
the same as those in his original complaint -- are deficient as a
matter of law.  Because the Court has already granted Backus leave
to amend once before, and any further amendment would be futile, he
granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.  The Clerk is
directed to close the case and enter judgment in favor of the
Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8Dp8Uf from Leagle.com.

Troy Backus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Christopher Hamilton --
andrew@westonfirm.com -- The Weston Firm, David Elliot --
davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com -- Law Offices of David Elliot &
Gregory Weston -- greg@westonfirm.com.

Biscomerica Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brendan William
Brandt -- brendan.brandt@varnerbrandt.com -- Angelica Acosta
Samaniego -- angelica.samaniego@varnerbrandt.com -- Varner and
Brandt LLP.


BITMAIN: Investors Plan to File Class Action in Hong Kong
---------------------------------------------------------
Ana Alexandre, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a critic of
cryptocurrency mining giant Bitmain, BTCKING555, said that a group
investors are preparing a class action lawsuit against the company
in a tweet on March 26.

BTCKING555 said in the post that a number of Bitmain's investors
are going to file a class action lawsuit against the company in
Hong Kong, seeking to recover their investments after the
expiration of Bitmain's initial public offering (IPO) bid. The post
reads:

". . . already in august I warned many investors and prevented them
from investing. Those that did not listen, good luck recovering
your moneys. I hear there is class action in works in Hong Kong."

BTCKING555 also claims that last summer, Bitmain rose $700 million
and saved the company from bankruptcy. Investors, in their turn,
reportedly anticipated that the value of their shares would
increase significantly, although that has not yet happened:

"Noone will go nowhere near Bitmain for funding and expect
litigation for investors try to recover their moneys. If not for
the summer $700 mln fund-raise, Bitmain would be bankrupt now.
Jihan and CFO lied on numbers and investors (Softbank, Tencent) to
lock in capital."

BTCKING555 remarks follow news that Bitmain's filing to list its
IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEx) reached the end of its
six-month expiration window. According to HKEx listing rules, the
filing reached the end of its validity window without confirmed
reports of a Committee hearing, thus rendering the application
obsolete.

Bitmain first confirmed its IPO listing plans in the summer of
2018, when erstwhile Bitmain CEO Jihan Wu revealed that the firm
was mulling an overseas IPO in a market with U.S.
dollar-denominated shares, such as Hong Kong.

Later in August, reports surfaced of Bitmain allegedly sealing a
IPO financing deal, bringing its valuation to $15 billion. Both
Chinese tech conglomerate Tencent and Japan's SoftBank were
purportedly involved.

In response to Cointelegraph's investigations at the time, Softbank
subsequently denied its alleged involvement. Tencent eluded formal
confirmation or denial, other purported investors soon likewise
distanced themselves from rumored involvement. [GN]


BRAVO RESTAURANT: Cortez Hits Missed Breaks, Claims Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Cortez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Bravo
Restaurant Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation, John C. Bozonelos,
John G. Bozonelos, James Pappas, Demetrios Petsas and George
Rogiokos, in their individual capacities Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01512 (N.D. Ill., March 1, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant called "Basil's Greek
Dining" located at 4000 Fox Valley Center Drive, Aurora, Illinois,
where Cortez worked as a cook from 2009 until his termination on or
about January 28, 2019. He claims to have worked though his rest
periods and denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Margherita M. Albarello, Esq.
      DI MONTE & LIZAK, LLC
      216 W. Higgins Road
      Park Ridge, IL 60068
      Tel: (847) 698-9600
      Fax: (847) 698-9623
      Email: malbarello@dimontelaw.com


CANCER GENETICS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Genetics, 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 defendants are seeking
dismissal of the consolidated class action suit in New Jersey
entitled, In re Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On April 5, 2018 and April 12, 2018, purported stockholders of the
Company filed nearly identical putative class action lawsuits in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the
Company, Panna L. Sharma, John A. Roberts, and Igor Gitelman,
captioned Ben Phetteplace v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al., No.
2:18-cv-05612 and Ruo Fen Zhang v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:18-06353, respectively.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the company's business, operational, and financial results. The
lawsuits sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages in connection with purchases of the company's stock between
March 23, 2017 and April 2, 2018, as well as interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

On August 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions in one
action captioned In re Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed shareholder Randy Clark
as the lead plaintiff. On October 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, adding Edward Sitar as a defendant and
seeking, among other things, compensatory damages in connection
with purchases of CGI stock between March 10, 2016 and April 2,
2018.

On December 31, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Cancer Genetics said, "The Company is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of the Securities Litigation and therefore cannot
estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if any."

Cancer Genetics, Inc. develops, commercializes, and provides
molecular and biomarker-based tests and services in the United
States, Europe, and Asia. Cancer Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1999
and is based in Rutherford, New Jersey.


CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Smith et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Desera Smith and Kayla Gudinas, On behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Captain George's
of South Carolina, LP; Captain George's of South Carolina, Inc.;
Captain KDH, LLC; Lideslambous, Inc.; Pitsilambous, Inc.;
Pitsilides Management, LLC; George Pitsilides; Sherry Pitsilides;
and Doe Corporations 1-4, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-02409
(Filed Aug. 30, 2018), was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk) on March 29, 2019. The
Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00153-HCM-DEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the hon. District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr.

The Plaintiffs seek appropriate monetary, declaratory and equitable
relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals with minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Patrick James McLaughlin, Esq.
          WUKELA LAW FIRM
          PO Box 13057
          Florence, SC 29504
          Telephone: (843) 669-5634
          Facsimile: (843) 669-5150
          E-mail: patrick@wukelalaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Leah B Moody, Esq.
          LEAH B MOODY LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 1015
          Rock Hill, SC 29731
          Telephone: (803) 327-4192
          Facsimile: (803) 329-1344
          E-mail: lbmatty@comporium.net

CARMAX INC: Rowland Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2019, that the court has dismissed
the class action suit entitled, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action asserting wage and hour claims, was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento
Division.

On April 11, 2019, the court dismissed the Rowland lawsuit,
including the class claims, and compelled arbitration of the
plaintiff's claims on an individualized basis.

CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


CARMAX INC: Wage & Hour Class Suits in Calif. Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2019, that the company continues to
defend wage-and-hour class action lawsuits in California.

CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and
non-exempt employees in California.

The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide
meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General
Act claims.

CarMax entities were defendants in a fifth proceeding asserting
these claims, which was dismissed after the completion of fiscal
2019.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory
relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties,
interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.  

On November 21, 2018, Derek Mcelhannon et al v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast,
Inc., a putative class action, was filed in Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda.

On February 1, 2019, the Mcelhannon lawsuit was removed to the U.S
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division. The Mcelhannon lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, statutory and/or civil penalties, interest, cost and
attorneys' fees.  

CarMax said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in the above matters."

CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


CAS MEDICAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 27 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of CAS Medical Systems,
Inc. ("CAS Medical") (NasdaqCM: CASM) common stock in connection
with the proposed acquisition of CAS Medical by Edwards
Lifesciences Corporation and its affiliates ("Edwards") announced
on February 12, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
CAS Medical and its Board of Directors (the "Board"), is captioned
Franchi v. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00478 (D.
Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On February 11, 2019, CAS Medical entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Edwards.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of CAS Medical will
receive $2.45 in cash for each share of CAS Medical they own (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, CAS Medical's financial projections and the analyses
performed by CAS Medical's financial advisor.  The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of
CAS Medical common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 27, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]


CBL PROPERTIES: Sets Aside $90MM for Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that Chattanooga-based CBL
Properties said on March 26 it would suspend payment of its
dividend for two quarters and set aside $90 million in connection
with the proposed settlement of a class action suit.

The suit, filed three years ago in Florida against the shopping
center owner and operator, claimed that CBL and affiliated entities
overcharged tenants at bulk metered malls for electricity.

CBL, which holds 67 malls nationwide including Hamilton Place and
Northgate malls in Chattanooga, denied the allegations of
wrongdoing and continued to do so on March 26 even with the
announcement of the settlement.

"We deny all allegations of wrongdoing and conduct our business
with the utmost integrity," the company said in a statement.
"However, given the class certification, denial of our petition to
appeal, an accelerated trial schedule, and the potential cost of an
adverse outcome or prolonged litigation, we believe that the
proposed settlement is in the best interest of the company and its
shareholders."

A trial date had been set for April 2 in Fort Myers, Florida, in
federal court.

CBL shares fell in after-hours trading following the announcement
that it had approved the structure of the settlement. A couple of
hours after the company's announcement, CBL's stock had fallen by
12 percent to $1.68 per share in after-hours trading.

The suspension of the dividend for two quarters will preserve about
$26 million in cash at the current quarterly dividend rate,
according to CBL. Based on the current projection of taxable income
for 2019, which includes the impact of the settlement, the real
estate investment trust believes it will satisfy all required
distributions for the 2019 taxable year.

The lawsuit filed by Hagens Berman and Buckner+Miles claimed CBL
tenants had been victim to a "criminal enterprise" in which the
company knowingly overcharged its mall tenants for electricity by
up to 100 percent.

The suit said CBL promised its small business tenants that their
electricity charges would not exceed what it was charged by local
public utilities for the electricity the tenants actually used.
But, the suit said, CBL breached its own lease agreements and state
law by inflating both the electricity rates charged and the amounts
of electricity used by tenants.

Attorney Thomas Loeser of Hagens Berman in Seattle said the
settlement is "a fair and adequate resolution of the litigation."

"We believe the settlement, if approved by the court, will fairly
compensate the class members," he said.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, CBL is to set aside a
common fund with a monetary and non-monetary value of $90 million
to be disbursed to class members in accordance with a formula to be
agreed upon by the parties that is based upon aggregate damages of
$60 million.

Class members will be comprised of past and current tenants at
certain of it shopping centers that it owns or formerly owned
during the class period which will extend from Jan. 1, 2011,
through the date of court's preliminary approval.

Class members who are past tenants and make a claim will receive
payment of their claims in cash, according to CBL. Class members
who are current tenants will receive monthly credits against rents
and future charges over the next five years.

Any amounts under the settlement allocated to tenants with
outstanding amounts payable to the company, including tenants which
have declared bankruptcy or declare bankruptcy over the relevant
period, will first be deducted from the amounts owed to the
company, CBL said.

Attorney's fees and associated costs to be paid to class counsel,
which is expected to total a maximum of $28 million, and class
administration costs, expected to not exceed $150,000, will be
funded by the common fund but must be approved by the court,
according to the company.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, CBL will not pay
dividends to holders of its common shares payable in the third and
fourth quarters of 2019, CBL said. The settlement does not restrict
its ability to declare dividends payable in 2020 or in subsequent
years.

CBL anticipates accruing in its financial statements for the first
quarter of 2019 a reserve with related to the settlement of about
$88.1 million. CBL said insurance does not cover the proposed
settlement amounts. [GN]


CHART INDUSTRIES: Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself from a class action suit involving its Stainless
Steel Cryobiological Tank product.

During the second quarter of 2018, Chart was named in lawsuits
(including a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California) filed against Chart and
other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of a stainless
steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE 808AF-GB) at the
Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California.  

The company is evaluating the merits of such claims in light of the
limited information available to date regarding use, maintenance
and operation of the tank which has been out of the company's
custody for the past six years when it was sold to the Pacific
Fertility Center through an independent distributor. Accordingly,
an accrual related to any damages that may result from the lawsuits
has not been recorded because a potential loss is not currently
probable or estimable.

Chart Industries said, "We have asserted various defenses against
the claims in the lawsuits, including a defense that since
manufacture, we were not in any way involved with the installation,
ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility
center cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of
the tank."

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

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHART INDUSTRIES: Suit over Aluminum Cryobiological Tank Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged
failure of its aluminum cryobiological storage tank product.

Chart has been named in purported class action lawsuits filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the alleged failure of an aluminum
cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The
Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.


The company have confirmed that the tank in question was part of
the aluminum cryobiological tank recall commenced on April 23,
2018. The company have asserted various defenses against the claims
in the lawsuits and are in the early stages of litigation.

Chart Industries aid, "Accordingly, an accrual related to any
damages that may result from the lawsuit has not been recorded
because a potential loss is not currently probable or estimable."

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

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHASE BANK USA: Chen Credit Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jeffrey Chen, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19004405 (Cal.
Super., January 28, 2019), was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on February
27, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-01082.

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorney's
fees and costs resulting from being denied application for a new
credit card account with Chase due to previous unsatisfactory
relationship with the bank under the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act.[BN]

Defendants are represented by:

      David M. Jolley, Esq.
      COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
      One Front Street, 35th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
      Telephone: (415) 591-6000
      Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
      Email: djolley@cov.com


CHEMICAL & MINING: Class Cert. Bid in S.D.N.Y. Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 18, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
yet to rule on a motion for class certification in a securities
lawsuit.

In 2015, the Chilean Internal Revenue Service (Servicio de
Impuestos Internos or "SII") and the Chilean Public Prosecutor
brought a number of criminal and administrative proceedings
following investigations related to the payment of invoices by SQM
and its subsidiaries SQM Salar S.A. ("SQM Salar") and SQM
Industrial S.A., for services that may not have been properly
supported or that may not have been necessary to generate corporate
income, against (i) Patricio Contesse G., the Company's former CEO
whose employment was terminated in May 2015, (ii) Mr. Contesse and
the Company's then-current CEO, Patricio de Solminihac, as well as
the then-current CFO (now CEO), Ricardo Ramos, in their capacities
as the Company's tax representatives and (iii) five then-current
and former members of the Company's Board of Directors. All the
claims against Messrs. de Solminihac and Ramos were subsequently
dismissed. The lawsuits against Mr. Contesse continue and the five
Board members are appealing the fines of approximately US$36,000
imposed on each of them.

Since October 2015, a consolidated class action lawsuit has been
pending against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the U.S.
securities laws in connection with the subject matter of the
investigations described above.

The complaint alleges that certain statements made by the Company,
principally in the Company's SEC filings and press releases, were
materially false and/or misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Specifically, the complaint challenges certain of the Company's
statements concerning its compliance with applicable laws and
regulations; the effectiveness of its internal controls; its
adoption of a code of ethics consistent with SEC requirements; its
revenues and taxes owed; and its compliance with applicable
accounting standards. The complaint also alleges that the Company
made inadequate disclosures concerning the status of the Corfo
litigation. The lead plaintiff seeks damages of an undetermined
amount to recover the economic losses allegedly suffered by the
class as a result of the challenged statements.

On March 30, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint under the doctrine of forum non conveniens or,
alternatively, pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act. Briefing on that motion to dismiss was
completed on June 29, 2016.  

On March 28, 2017, the district court issued an opinion and order
denying in part and granting in part the motion to dismiss. The
district court denied the motion to dismiss under the doctrine of
forum non conveniens; denied the motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim with respect to the statements concerning legal
compliance, internal controls, and financial reporting and
accounting; and granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim with respect to the statements concerning the Company's
code of ethics and the status of the Corfo litigation.

On January 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify a
class consisting of all persons who purchased SQM ADSs between June
30, 2010 and March 18, 2015, and such motion remains pending before
the court.

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

Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. is a Chilean chemical
company and a supplier of plant nutrients, iodine, lithium and
industrial chemicals. It is the world's biggest lithium producer.


CHRISTOPHER'S GOLDEN WOK: Zhongmin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhongmin Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Christopher's Golden Wok, Inc. and Stephen Lu,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01246 (E.D. N.Y., March 1, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wage, unpaid spread
of hours premium, liquidated damages prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Laws.

Christopher's Golden Wok operates as Golden Woks where Zhongmin was
employed as a kitchen helper and delivery man at their restaurant
located at 159 Christopher Street, New York, NY 10014. Plaintiff
was not compensated overtime for all hours worked above forty in
each workweek, asserts the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY, 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: kliu@hanglaw.com


CHRYSLER: Judge Tosses Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Sludge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that U. S District Judge Nancy
Rosenstengel dismissed a class action complaint over Chrysler
warranties on March 18, and questioned her jurisdiction over a
remaining claim of consumer fraud.

She set an April 15 deadline for plaintiffs Chris Hanusek and Jesse
Swafford to set forth the basis for her jurisdiction.

Hanusek and Swafford claim that in Jeep Wrangler models from 2012
to 2017, coolant reacts with aluminum to produce sludge in heating
and cooling systems.

They claim the defect puts them at risk in extreme heat and cold.

Greg Coleman of Knoxville, Tenn. filed the suit last February in
association with Eric Johnson of John Simmons's firm in Alton.

The complaint alleged breach of express and implied warranties,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and fraud under
Illinois consumer law.

Chrysler counsel Kathy Wisniewski moved to dismiss the warranty
claims, arguing that plaintiffs failed to provide notice before
suing.

She moved to dismiss the consumer fraud claims, arguing that
plaintiffs failed to support the requisite element of causation.

Coleman then moved to amend the complaint, and Chrysler opposed
amendment.

Rosenstengel reserved ruling on the amendment and gave Coleman a
week to respond to the motion to dismiss.

Coleman responded with reasons why the notice requirement didn't
apply.

Discovery proceeded while the parties awaited a decision.

In October, former magistrate judge Stephen Williams allowed
Chrysler to inspect vehicles of Hanusek, Swafford, and plaintiff
Brian Kochman.

In November, Kochman voluntarily dismissed his claim.

This Feb. 8, Mitchell Breit from the New York City office of the
Simmons firm entered an appearance.

He represented Hanusek and Swafford at a status conference that
day, along with Mark Silvey of Coleman's firm.

On Feb. 27, Thien An Truong from the New York office entered an
appearance.

Rosenstengel dropped bad news on the growing team.

"Plaintiffs first argue that Chrysler was put on notice for
purposes of the Illinois express warranty statute when plaintiffs
took their vehicles in to be serviced at authorized dealerships
after the defect manifested," Rosenstengel wrote.

She cited their precedent that presenting a vehicle to a dealer for
repair of a defect provides sufficient notice.

In that case, she wrote, plaintiff gave the dealer specific
information about the defect and the warranty.

"Here, however, the complaint does not allege that the dealership
was made aware of such specific information regarding the defect,"
she wrote.

She wrote that plaintiffs argued that Chrysler had the requisite
actual knowledge necessary to overcome the notice requirement.

"Importantly, the actual knowledge exception is not available to
plaintiffs when the seller knows only the concerns of third
parties," she wrote.  "Instead, the seller must have actual
knowledge of the litigating buyer's problem with the purchased
product."

She wrote that even though there are public reports about a general
problem with a product line, a seller has no way of knowing whether
a particular product actually suffers from the defect until the
buyer provides notice.

She wrote that plaintiffs alleged Chrysler had access to complaints
filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but
that this demonstrated only that Chrysler was aware of third party
complaints.

"Additionally, none of these complaints mentions Chrysler's use of
a coolant that negatively reacts with aluminum components," she
wrote.

"Nowhere in the complaint or proposed amended complaint do
plaintiffs allege that Chrysler's knowledge of the sludge
necessarily means Chrysler also had knowledge of a reaction between
the manufacturer installed coolant and the aluminum components of
the engine."

She dismissed warranty claims with prejudice.

She wrote that without Magnuson-Moss in the case, her only basis
for jurisdiction was the Class Action Fairness Act.

Rosenstegel further found that plaintiffs made only a conclusory
allegation that the controversy met the $5 million minimum for
federal jurisdiction.

She also questioned whether plaintiffs showed that the number in
their class met the jurisdictional prerequisite.

Jury trial is sent for April 2020. [GN]


CLUB EROTICA: Jackson Hits Tip Pool, Fees; Claims Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Club Erotica, Club Erotica, Inc., V.I.
Corporation, James W. Shepard, Vincenzo Isoldi, Franco Isoldi and
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00229, (E.D. N.Y., February
28, 2019) seeks minimum wages and to recover improper deductions
taken from their wages and tips in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendants operate "Club Erotica," an adult entertainment bar where
Jackson worked as a dancer. She claims to be misclassified as an
independent contractor and deprived of the mandated minimum wage
for all hours worked, forced to improperly share a percentage of
their tips, denied reimbursements for her business expenses and was
charged certain club fees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
      Edward Ciolko, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             eavery@carlsonlynch.com


COFFEE MEETS BAGEL: Bonell Hits Data Breach Over Security Lapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Bonell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH02663 (Ill. Cir., February 28, 2019), seeks statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
resulting from breach of implied and express contract, negligence,
and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act,.

Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc. (CMB) owns and operates a dating service
via a smartphone application called "Coffee Meets Bagel" where
users must create a profile using their full names, email
addresses, gender, registration date and other sensitive
information. Starting in late 2017 and ending in the middle of
2018, CMB suffered a series of data beach incidents resulting in
the unauthorized disclosure of over six million CMB's users,
including Bonell. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      David L. Gerbie, Esq.
      Jad Sheikali, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
             dgerbie@mcgpc.com
             jsheikali@mcgpc.com


CONDUENT EDUCATION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Chery Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY CHERY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONDUENT EDUCATION SERVICES, LLC,
formerly known as ACS, ACCESS GROUP, INC., and ACCESS FUNDING
2015-1, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-CV-75 (N.D. N.Y.), Judge
David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On Jan. 18, 2018, Plaintiff Chery instituted the putative class
action against the Defendants, student loan holders and their
servicer, for interfering with his ability to consolidate his loans
in accordance with a federal loan program.

Chery is a Virginia resident who took out nine student loans
through the Federal Family Education Loan Program ("FFELP"), while
he lived in Queens, New York.  ACS, a Delaware company that
maintains an office in Utica, New York, initially serviced the
Plaintiff's loans.  Access Group, a Delaware corporation registered
to do business in New York, owned seven of the Plaintiff's Loans,
and Access Funding, another Delaware Company, owned the other two.

Each of Chery's loans is governed by a Master Promissory Note
("MPN"), which included certain form disclosure statements that
"identified the amount of the loan and additional terms of the
loan."  The Disclosure Statements received by Chery for each of the
loans was sent by ACS, contained the ACS logo, and identified
Access Group as the lender.

On Feb. 4, 2016, Chery submitted a Federal Direct Consolidation
Loan Application to FedLoan Servicing, an entity that services
federal loans for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program
("PSLF").  FedLoan received Chery's Application and, in turn, sent
a Loan Verification Certificate ("LVC") to ACS, a document which in
essence required ACS to certify the balance of each of the
Plaintiff's loans for purposes of consolidation and transfer to
FedLoan, the new servicer.  

However, on Feb. 23, 2016, FedLoan e-mailed Chery to notify him
that his Application had been denied "through no fault of his own."
The Plaintiff called FedLoan, where a representative explained
that the denial resulted from ACS's failure to return a completed
LVC in the required 10-day time frame.  Finally, in December 2016,
approximately 10 months after Chery applied to FedLoan to
consolidate his loans for the PSLF payment program, FedLoan
received the LVC from ACS and approved plaintiff's application.
Compl. ¶ 34. According to plaintiff, he lost up to ten qualifying
PSLF payments as a result of ACS's delay.

Chery alleges that certain documents produced by ACS in response to
an information request he made revealed that ACS's failure to
deliver timely or complete LVCs "was a pervasive problem."
According to the Plaintiff, these documents show that ACS's failure
to return the LVCs in the mandated time period was caused by a
systemic flaw in ACS's servicing system that harmed thousands of
similarly situated student loan borrowers.

Chery's amended complaint alleges six claims: (1) a violation of
New York General Business Law Section 349; (2) a breach of
contract; (3) a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; (4) a request for declaratory judgment; (5)
negligence; and (6) unjust enrichment.

On April 24, 2018, the Defendants moved pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) to dismiss Chery's complaint.
They contend Chery's entire complaint must be dismissed because his
clams are premised on ACS' alleged breach of its duties under the
Higher Education Act of 1965 ("HEA"), a statute that does not
provide for a private cause of action.  In the alternative, the
Defendants argue the Plaintiff cannot identify any "actionable
damages" flowing from the conduct about which he complains.  Beyond
these two arguments in support of complete dismissal of the
Plaintiff's complaint, the Defendants advance a series reasons why
each of the Plaintiff's individual claims must be dismissed.

The Defendants argue Chery's claims are entirely premised on ACS'
alleged delay in processing his LVC within the 10-business-day
return period specified by the HEA and its corresponding
regulations.  Judge Hurd rejects this argument.  He finds that
argument does not provide a basis for dismissal.  Other courts in
the Circuit have permitted breach of contract-based claims to go
forward where, as in the present case, the contract involves some
aspect of a servicer's obligations under a federal student loan.

The Defendants next argue that Chery has not identified any
actionable damages flowing from ACS's delay in processing his LVC.
The Judge also rejects this argument.  Whatever the merit of this
logic, the Judge holds it does not apply to Chery's claims.  The
Plaintiff's Section 349 claim is not premised on a theory that
certain disclosures mandated by federal law had a misleading effect
on him as a borrower.  Rather, Chery alleges defendants engaged in
a deceptive practice; i.e., the Defendants knew full well that
their servicing system could not handle repayment requests made by
borrowers in accordance with the provisions of their loan contracts
(including those provisions incorporated by reference) and that the
Defendants concealed this fact from borrowers to their detriment.
The Defendants have failed to establish that this allegedly
deceptive practice was either authorized by the Secretary of
Education or conformed to any explicit dictates of federal law.

The Defendants argue Chery's breach of contract claim must be
dismissed because he failed to allege any breach of the loan
agreements.  Upon review, neither of the Defendants' argument
justify dismissal.  The Judge finds that Chery alleges that the
Defendants provided him with a standard form contract on ACS
letterhead that incorporated the MPNs and the Disclosure
Statements.  The Plaintiff further alleges that defendants breached
the terms of those agreements because they failed to permit him to
prepay the loans in accordance with the terms of those agreements.
Whether the Defendants failed to perform these contractual duties,
and whether they are in privity with Chery, are fact-specific
questions that would be inappropriate to resolve on a motion to
dismiss.  As the Plaintiff's complaint alleges, he dealt directly
with ACS and its representatives when making payments and when
attempting to have his LVC issue resolved.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of contract
claim will be denied.

The Defendants contend that Chery's claim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails because it is
duplicative of his claim alleging a breach of the express contract.
At this early stage, Chery has sufficiently alleged distinct
misconduct to survive dismissal of this claim.  The Defendants
deprived the Plaintiff of the "fruits" of his bargain -- the
Plaintiff had the contractual right to pay off his loan at any
time, but was prevented from doing so for many months.  The
Plaintiff alleges this was the result of bad faith attributable to
the Defendants because, among other things, they knowingly chose to
continue employing a system that was unable to provide accurate
account balances/payoff amounts.  Accordingly, the Judge will deny
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's implied covenant
claim.

The Defendants contend Chery's claim for declaratory relief fails
because it is duplicative of his breach of contract claim and, in
any event, there is no longer any "actual controversy" between the
parties.  The Judge holds that Chery has sufficiently alleged that
he suffered an actual injury, and that the misconduct giving rise
to this injury implicates the same set of concerns possessed by
other members of the alleged class.  Accordingly, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory judgment
will be denied.

The Defendants contend Chery's negligence claim must be dismissed
because he cannot identify any duty owed to him.  In the
alternative, they argue that this claim is barred by New York's
economic loss doctrine.  Upon review, the Judge finds that the
claim survives dismissal for now.  The conduct about which Chery
complains is almost certainly covered by his breach of contract
claims.  However, as the Plaintiff emphasizes, the Defendants
contest the Plaintiff's claim that they are bound by the contracts
at issue.  As relevant in the case, the Plaintiff alleges the
Defendants acted unreasonably in accepting money from a "large
volume" of loan borrowers, including him, without properly
accounting for that money.  Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's negligence claim will be denied.

Finally, the Defendants contend that Chery's claim for unjust
enrichment must be dismissed because the parties' relationship is
governed by an express contract.  Chery's argument is well taken.
The basis of a claim for unjust enrichment is that the Defendant
has obtained a benefit which in 'equity and good conscience' should
be paid to the Plaintiff.  As relevant in the case, teh Judge holds
that a quasi-contract theory of recovery like unjust enrichment may
survive a motion to dismiss where the parties dispute the existence
of a valid contract governing the disputed conduct.  Accordingly,
the Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim will be denied.

based on the foregoing, Judge Hurd concludes that the Defendants'
arguments require fact-bound inquiries suitable for disposition
after discovery takes place.  Therefore, he denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The Defendants will file and serve an answer to
the complaint by April 12, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum Decisiona
and Order is available at https://is.gd/BO6Vph from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Chery, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin A. Kuehn --
jkuehn@moorekuehn.com -- Moore Kuehn, PLLC & Lawrence P. Eagel --
eagel@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Conduent Education Services, LLC, formerly known as ACS, Access
Group, Inc. & Access Funding 2015-1, LLC, Defendants, represented
by John Grugan -- GRUGANJBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard, Spahr Law
Firm, Eleanor Huyett, Ballard, Spahr Law Firm & Elizabeth
Seidlin-Bernstein -- SEIDLINEBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard, Spahr Law
Firm.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Vargas Fair Hearing Claim Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE VARGAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COOK COUNTY
SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 1598
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles Ronald Norgle of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part the
10 separate motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Thomas Dart,
Toni Preckwinkle, and Cook County.

Plaintiffs Vargas, Joel Mireles, Juan Licea, Miguel Saucedo, Ronnie
McGregor, Kathy Valentine, William Valentine, and Jamie Mireles
bring the putative class action against Defendants Cook County
Sheriffs Merit Board, Cook County Sheriff Dart, in his official and
individual capacity, Cook County Board President Preckwinlde, in
her official and individual capacity, Cook County, Illinois, and
Nicholas Scouffas, in his individual capacity.  The Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") sets forth claims for violations of
their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights and
various state law claims.

The Plaintiffs are either past or present employees of the Cook
County Sheriff's Office.  They were, or are, employed as deputy
sheriffs.  They were charged by Dart with violating various
policies and rules of the Sheriffs Office and were subsequently
prosecuted and tried before the Merit Board.  Thereafter, the
Plaintiffs were terminated by the Merit Board, with the exception
of Licea, who was suspended for 90 days.  The Plaintiffs allege
that they had completed their probationary periods of employment
and had a constitutionally protected property interest in their
employment as deputy sheriffs.

In Count I, the Plaintiffs claim that Dart and Preckwinkle
improperly appointed certain members of the Merit Board in
violation of Illinois state law, and therefore they were deprived
of due process because they were terminated or suspended by an
illegally constituted Merit Board.  In Count II, they claim that
they were deprived of a fair hearing because the Merit Board was
pressured and intimidated into terminating Plaintiffs by Dart and
his General Counsel, Scouffas.  The FAC also sets forth claims for
declaratory relief, mandamus, negligence, common law fraud, breach
of contract, willful and wanton conduct, and "class certification."
The Plaintiffs further allege that there are hundreds of
similarly-situated officers who were also subjected to unlawful
disciplinary proceedings by the Merit Board.

Before the Court are 10 separate motions to dismiss filed by
Defendants Dart, Preckwinkle, and Cook County, all of which move to
dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

The Defendants argue that based on the facts presently before the
Court, the Plaintiffs are unable to state a cognizable claim for
violation of procedural due process.  Judge Norgle agrees.  The
Plaintiffs claim in Count I that that Dart and Preckwinkle
terminated them without due process by appointing certain members
of the Merit Board in violation of 55 ILCS 5/3-7002, thus
subjecting them to an illegally constituted Merit Board.  As
discussed by the Illinois appellate court in Taylor v. Dart,
whether the Merit Board was "illegally constituted" is strictly a
matter of Illinois state law.  Therefore, Dart and Preckwinkle's
conduct as alleged in Count I does not provide a valid basis for a
procedural due process claim.  Accordingly, Count I is dismissed
with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs allege in Count II that they were deprived of a fair
pre-deprivation hearing because Dart and Scouffas essentially
assumed control of the Merit Board through political means and by
threatening Merit Board members with removal if they issued
decisions adverse Dart's position.  Thus, the Plaintiffs claim that
Dart and Scouffas violated the central provision of the Merit Board
Act, that the Merit Board has the exclusive authority to terminate
deputy sheriffs or suspend them for a period of more than 30 days.
The Plaintiffs do not, however, challenge the adequacy of the
procedures provided by the Merit Board Act.  Thus, Plaintiffs due
process claim in Count II is a challenge to Dart and Scouffas'
"random and unauthorized" actions, i.e., "their unforeseeable
misconduct in failing to follow the requirements of existing law."
Therefore, Count II must be dismissed if Illinois law provides a
sufficient post-deprivation remedy.

Judge Norgle agrees with the list of cases which hold that the ARL
provides a sufficient post-deprivation remedy.  Count II is
dismissed with prejudice because the ARL provides a
constitutionally sufficient post-deprivation remedy.  Moreover,
having dismissed the Plaintiffs' due process claims with prejudice,
the Judge relinquishes the Court's jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367(c)(3).

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Norgle dismissed with prejudice
the Plaintiffs' due process claims, as set forth in Counts I and II
of the FAC.  Having resolved all claims over which the Court has
original jurisdiction, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.  The civil case
terminated.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/5x4gp8 from Leagle.com.

Jose Vargas, Joel Mireles & Juan Licea, Plaintiffs, represented by
Arthur S. Gold -- asg@gcjustice.com -- Gold & Associates, Ltd.,
Christopher Cooper -- cooperlaw3234@gmail.com -- Law Office of
Christopher Cooper, Inc. & Cass Thomas Casper -- ctc@talonlaw.com
-- Talon Law, LLC.

Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board, Defendant, represented by Lyle
Kevin Henretty, Cook County State's Attorney, Joi Kamper, Cook
County State's Attorney & Jordan Lane Matthis -- jmatthis@grsm.com
-- Gordon & Rees.

Thomas Dart, Off. & Ind. Cap., Defendant, represented by George D.
Sax, Scharf Banks Marmor LLC, Sarah R. Marmor, Scharf Banks Marmor
LLC, Stephanie Ann Scharf, Scharf Banks Marmor LLC, Jay Rahman,
Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Jordan Lane Matthis, Gordon
& Rees & Morgan Geoffery Churma, Scarf Banks Marmor LLC.

Toni Preckwinkle, Off. & Ind. Cap., Defendant, represented by Jay
Rahman, Cook County State's Attorney's Office & Jordan Lane
Matthis, Gordon & Rees.

Cook County, Illinois, a unit of local government as joint employer
and indemnitor, Defendant, represented by Jay Rahman, Cook County
State's Attorney's Office, Jordan Lane Matthis, Gordon & Rees &
Natalie Nicole Ellis, Cook County State's Attorney Office.


CORECIVIC: Securities Suit Granted Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------
Jamie McGee, writing for Nashville Tennessean, reports that a
federal judge has granted class action status to shareholders suing
Nashville-based CoreCivic for securities fraud in a lawsuit that
reveals new details about the company's operations and staffing
issues.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2016 against the company and four
executives, alleges CoreCivic, formerly named Corrections Corp. of
America, made false and misleading statements about its operations
related to safety, security and effectiveness and committed
securities fraud violations.

In an order filed on March 26 in U.S. District Court of Middle
Tennessee, Judge Aleta Trauger granted the lawsuit class action
status. Trauger had denied the status in January, and the
plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration and
submitted new evidence.

Among the executives named in the lawsuit are CEO Damon Hininger,
David Garfinkle, Todd Millenger and Harley Lappin.

CoreCivic said it does not comment on active litigation.

The lawsuit concerns an announcement made Aug. 18, 2016, that the
U.S. Department of Justice would phase out contracts with private
prison operators. Then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates had
instructed the Bureau of Prisons to end or reduce contracts with
privately run prisons and cited concerns about safety and security
in privately run facilities outlined in a separate report from the
Office of the Inspector General.

The OIG report said that privately run prisons had more safety and
security incidents per capita than those run by the bureau of
prisons and that CoreCivic prisons had the highest rates of fights
and inmate-on-inmate assaults.

After Yates' announcement, CoreCivic shares tumbled by 39 percent,
and shareholders suffered financial losses because of the company's
acts and omissions, the shareholders allege.

Hininger in March 2016 told shareholders that its facilities "meets
the needs of our government partners" and that the company has a
"strong record of operational excellence," according to the new
order. The order also referred to other company reports in which
the company claimed to be compliant with government standards.

The order says the BOP regularly notified CoreCivic about
"inadequate staffing and its failure to provide sufficient medical
services to its inmates."  In 2015, the BOP said unless conditions
related to health services are cured, the government may terminate
its contract.

In October 2015, according to the order, a CoreCivic executive
wrote in an email to Hininger, "apparently we had a bad day with
BOP medical audit at Cibola," a detention center in New Mexico.
Another email said the matter "is going to kill us at both Cibola
and Eden," a facility in Texas.  In June 2016, as the BOP reviewed
medical services at Cibola County Correctional Center, an executive
wrote, "We're dead."

That same month, Hininger said at an investor forum, "We have
operationally made sure that we are providing high quality and
standard and consistent services to our partners."

When CoreCivic employees were given an advance version of the 2016
OIG report, an executive wrote, "What I'm shocked over is they
totally overlooked the consequences of our staff vacancies. They
mentioned staffing at the end but could have been much more
critical," according to the order.

In a separate order filed in December 2017 that denies CoreCivic's
motion to dismiss,  an affidavit by a correctional officer
describes a 2012 incident that resulted in the death of another
employee at a CoreCivic prison in Mississippi. The correctional
officer said she was instructed to climb onto a roof after being
warned about inmates planning "something big" and to eventually
deploy gas canisters at inmates climbing a ladder to the roof,
according to the court filing, citing the affidavit. The inmates
threw the canisters back at two staff members, along with garbage
cans and rocks before beating a staff member with a metal pan and
food tray. That correctional officer said after she gained
consciousness, she saw the other staff member lying motionless on
the roof.

She and her coworkers had told Corecivic officials on numerous
occasions that they lacked the staff needed to control inmates and
the shortage created a dangerous environment. She said she was told
to "put my big girl panties on and get back to work," according to
the order, citing the affidavit.

The BOP sent CoreCivic several notices about staffing shortages and
health services deficiencies at the Mississippi facility and a
separate facility, Cibola, in New Mexico, according to the 2017
court filing. "Unsatisfactory" reviews were given to both sites.
The company's Eden Detention Center in Texas received notices
related to health services deficiencies and the BOP said its
response to tuberculosis had been "inadequate." [GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bond Seeks to Stop Deceptive Sale of Kona Coffee
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bond and Mark Morris, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
Amazon.Com, Inc., Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee, Ltd., LLC, Cost
Plus/World Market, BCC Assets, LLC d/b/a Boyer's Coffee Company,
Inc., Java LLC, Mulvadi Corporation, Copper Moon Coffee, LLC, Gold
Coffee Roasters, Inc., Cameron's Coffee and Distribution Company,
Pacific Coffee, Inc., The Kroger Co., Walmart Inc., Bed Bath and
Beyond Inc., Albertsons Companies Inc., Safeway Inc., MNS Ltd.,
Marmaxx Operating Corp. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00305 (W.D.
Wash., March 1, 2019) seeks to recover compensation for lost
profits, disgorgement of profits of the Defendants, corrective
advertising damages, and statutory attorneys' fees and costs,
equitable relief in the form of an injunction permanently
prohibiting the Defendants from producing, marketing, selling or
distributing any coffee products labeled Kona, an injunction
prohibiting the retail of any coffee products that falsely
designate Kona as the source of origin in violation of the Lanham
Act.

Kona coffee is grown on farms located within the Kona District of
Hawaii. Defendants are coffee distributors, wholesalers, and
retailers who allegedly pass off ordinary commodity coffee as Kona
coffee and have flooded the market with counterfeit Kona coffee
products. Plaintiffs purchased coffee from the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan T. Paine, Esq.
      KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 223-1313
      Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
      Email: npaine@karrtuttle.com

             - and -

      Paul Richard Brown, Esq.
      KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 223-1313
      Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
      Email: pbrown@karrtuttle.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kona Coffee Farmers File Mislabeling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Corker, Colehour Bondera and Melanie Bondera (husband and
wife) and Robert Smith and Cecelia Smith (husband and wife), on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, Amazon.Com, Inc., Hawaiian Isles Kona
Coffee, Ltd., LLC, Cost Plus/World Market, BCC Assets, LLC d/b/a
Boyer's Coffee Company, Inc., Java LLC, Mulvadi Corporation, Copper
Moon Coffee, LLC, Gold Coffee Roasters, Inc., Cameron's Coffee and
Distribution Company, Pacific Coffee, Inc., The Kroger Co., Walmart
Inc., Bed Bath and Beyond Inc., Albertsons Companies Inc., Safeway
Inc., MNS Ltd., Marmaxx Operating Corp. Sprouts Farmers Market,
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00290 (W.D. Wash., February 27, 2019) seeks to recover
compensation for lost profits, disgorgement of profits of the
Defendants, corrective advertising damages, and statutory
attorneys' fees and costs, equitable relief in the form of an
injunction permanently prohibiting the Defendants from producing,
marketing, selling or distributing any coffee products labeled
Kona, and an injunction prohibiting the retail of any coffee
products that falsely designate Kona as the source of origin
pursuant to the Lanham Act.

Kona coffee is grown on farms located within the Kona District of
Hawaii. Defendants are coffee distributors, wholesalers, and
retailers who allegedly pass off ordinary commodity coffee as Kona
coffee and have flooded the market with counterfeit Kona coffee
products. Plaintiffs are Kona coffee producers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan T. Paine, Esq.
      Mark A. Bailey, Esq.
      KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 223-1313
      Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
      Email: npaine@karrtuttle.com
             mbailey@karrtuttle.com

             - and -

      Paul Richard Brown, Esq.
      Daniel T. Hagen, Esq.
      KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 223-1313
      Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
      Email: pbrown@karrtuttle.com
             dhagen@karrtuttle.com


CSX CORP: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself against Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.

In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated in
federal court in the District of Columbia, where they are now
pending. The suit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by
purported class members as well as attorneys' fees and other
relief. Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to
the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal
the District Court's class certification decision.

In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the
class certification decision and remanded the case to the District
Court to reconsider its class certification decision.

On October 10, 2017, the District Court issued an order denying
class certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
is reviewing the District Court's denial of class certification and
held oral argument on September 28, 2018, with a decision yet to be
issued.

The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the
case pending the outcome of the class certification proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and
applied lawfully and that the case is without merit. Accordingly,
the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, penalties
for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and resolution of this
matter or an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or liquidity in that particular period.

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

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
rail-based freight transportation services. The company offers rail
services, as well as transports intermodal containers and trailers.
CSX Corporation was founded in 1978 and is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


DITECH HOLDING: Kamimura Class Suit in Nevada Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Ditech Holding Corporation 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 case styled as,
Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, has been stayed.

In Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, filed on April 8,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech
Financial is subject to a putative nationwide class action suit
alleging FCRA violations by obtaining credit bureau information
without a permissible purpose after the discharge of debt owed to
Ditech Financial pursuant to Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The plaintiff in this suit, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, seeks actual and punitive damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

On February 11, 2019, the action was stayed pursuant to section 362
of the Bankruptcy Code.

Ditech Holding Corporation operates as an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans, and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans. The company operates through three segments: Servicing,
Originations, and Reverse Mortgage. Ditech Holding Corporation was
founded in 1958 and is based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. On
February 11, 2019, Ditech Holding Corporation, along with its
affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under
Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York.


EDEN MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Worker Fingerprint Scans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
operator of a group of assisted living homes in Chicago and
elsewhere in Illinois has been hit with a class action lawsuit,
accusing it of violating its workers rights by making them scan
their fingerprints when they punch in and out of work shifts,
allegedly in violation of an Illinois privacy law.

Louis Bermudes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on March 13 in Cook County Circuit
Court against Eden Management LLC.

According to its website, Eden Management operates four supportive
living centers in Illinois, incliding locations in Chicago,
suburban North Aurora and downstate Champaign.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges Eden required
workers to use the company's biometric time clocks for clocking in
and out, requiring them to scan their fingerprints for each punch.
The plaintiff alleges workers weren't informed the defendant would
be retaining the biometric information and claims the defendant was
in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The plaintiff is seeking damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation,
plus attorney fees and court costs. The plaintiff is represented by
attorneys David Fish, Seth Matus, Kimberly Hilton, John Kunze of
The Fish Law Firm P.C. in Naperville.

Circuit Court of Cook County Case No. 2019-CH-03300 [GN]


ELLIE MAE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 26 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Ellie Mae, Inc.
("Ellie Mae") (NYSE: ELLI) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Ellie Mae by affiliates of Thoma Bravo Fund
XIII, L.P. ("Thoma Bravo") announced on February 12, 2019 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ellie Mae and its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Kent v. Ellie Mae, Inc., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00473 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On February 11, 2019, Ellie Mae entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Thoma Bravo.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Ellie Mae will
receive $99.00 in cash for each share of Ellie Mae they own (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, Ellie Mae's financial projections and the analyses
performed by Ellie Mae's financial advisor.  The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of
Ellie Mae common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 27, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]


EMPATH LLC: Technicians Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonaser Castaneda and Greg Paliaro, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Empath LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00131 (E.D. La., February 28, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, illegal deductions, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Empath provides telecommunication and installation service,
specifically installing DirecTV and Exede Internet, for residential
and commercial clients where Plaintiffs worked as technicians. They
claim to have worked more than 40 hours per week without being paid
the overtime rate and penalized for "charge-backs" that were
deducted from their pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      George B. Recile, Esq.
      Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
      Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
      Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
      Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
      CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY
      RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
      One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Metairie, LA 70001
      Telephone: (504) 833-5600
      Facsimile: (504) 613-4528


FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Settles TCPA Class Action for $4MM
---------------------------------------------------
Pat Sweet, writing for Asset Finance International, reports that
sub-prime auto lender Flagship Credit Acceptance has made a $4
million settlement to resolve a class action over claims the
company called consumers using a computerised autodialing system in
violation of federal law.

The claim -- which has been strongly denied by the finance company
-- relates to individuals who were called by Flagship through any
version of a TCN, LiveVox, or Aspect dialing system and/or with an
artificial or prerecorded voice between 2013 and 2018.

According to the Flagship Credit class action lawsuit, the auto
loan company "bombarded" plaintiff Robert Ward with unwanted
prerecorded messages even though he is not a Flagship customer.

Ward claims that he repeatedly waited on the line to speak with a
live agent to inform them that they were calling the wrong number.

The auto loan financing class action also claims that Ward was
often assured by Flagship agents that the automated calls would
stop, but in fact they continued over his objection.

Ward states that because Flagship did not have his permission to
call his mobile phone and the prerecorded messages were not made
for "emergency purposes", the auto financing company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The TCPA is a federal law designed to protect consumers from
harmful telemarketing practices. These include placing robocalls
through an autodialing machine or prerecorded message, sending
unsolicited text messages, not providing consumers with an opt-out
option during telemarketing calls, and calling numbers on the Do
Not Call Registry, among other issues.

Under the regulation, consumers can be eligible for compensation of
between $500 and $1,500 per violation by taking offending
businesses to court.

Flagship does not admit any wrongdoing and "vigorously denies" the
claims against it, but is settling the class action for $4 million
to avoid the costs of future litigation and the uncertainty of a
trial verdict.

Headquartered in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania with offices in Irving,
Texas, Phoenix, Arizona, Irvine, California and Indianapolis,
Indiana, Flagship helps credit-challenged auto shoppers secure
financing through partnerships with auto dealers and through its
direct lending site, CarFinance.com.

It has a portfolio of $2.9 billion in managed receivables. The
company currently purchases indirect auto contracts from a
nationwide network of more than 9,400 dealers and originates direct
to consumers in 46 states. [GN]


FORMEL D: McMurray Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN L. MCMURRAY, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORMEL D, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00548-JHE (N.D. Ala., April 9, 2019) is a collective action
lodged to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to Mr. McMurray and
other similarly situated employees.  

The Plaintiff alleged that Formel D violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay its technicians overtime for
all hours worked. Formel required McMurray and other similarly
situated individuals to perform unpaid work in excess of forty
hours per week without paying them overtime wages. Formel used a
computerized system to keep track of the hours worked by the
Plaintiff and the putative class he seeks to represent. However,
whenever employees complained of that their paycheck stubs did not
reflect their overtime hours, Formel stated that they would fix the
issue. They have intentionally failed to do so, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Allen L. McMurray, is over the age of nineteen (19) and
is employed with Formel as a Tech I. McMurray has expressly
authorized the filing of this action.

Defendant Formel is a global provider to the automotive and
component supply industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
     Charity M. Davis, Esq.
     WINSTON COOKS, LLC
     The TLC Financial Center
     505 20th Street North, Suite 815
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 502-0940
     Email: rcooks@winstoncooks.com
            charity@gilchristdavis.com


GOOGLE INC: Gibson Dunn Attorney Discusses Cy Pres Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Perry, Esq. -- mperry@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the Supreme Court
determined that questions concerning plaintiffs' standing to
challenge Google's alleged violations of user privacy prevented the
Court from deciding whether cy pres-only class action settlements
are fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).

Decided March 20, 2019

Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961

Background:
Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of 129 million users of
Google's search engine, alleged that Google violated users' privacy
under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., by
disclosing the search terms they used to third-party websites. The
parties agreed to an $8.5 million class action settlement
consisting of $2 million in attorneys' fees and costs and $6.5
million distributed as a cy pres award to various institutions
studying internet privacy and information sharing. Under the
proposed settlement, class members would receive no money. The
district court approved the settlement, concluding that it would
not be feasible to distribute the $6.5 million portion of the
settlement to class members. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue:
Whether a class action settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) when class members
receive no direct, monetary relief and instead all of the
settlement funds are distributed to cy pres beneficiaries.

Court's Holding:
The lower courts should decide in the first instance whether any
named plaintiff has Article III standing.

"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."

Per Curiam

What It Means:
Although the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide an
important question concerning cy pres awards, the Court, in
response to an argument raised by the Solicitor General in an
amicus brief, ordered supplemental briefing on whether any named
plaintiff had Article III standing. The Court ultimately accepted
the Solicitor General's view that the case should be remanded for
the lower courts to address that question in the first
instance—thus demonstrating the effect that an amicus brief can
have on the outcome of a case.

In the lower courts, the plaintiffs alleged that they had Article
III standing because Google, by disclosing their search terms,
allegedly violated their rights under the Stored Communications Act
to be free from unlawful disclosure of certain communications. But
the Supreme Court questioned whether those allegations established
Article III standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.
1540 (2016), which recognized that the alleged violation of a
statutory right does not automatically satisfy Article III's
injury-in-fact requirement.

Justice Thomas dissented. As in his concurring opinion in Spokeo,
Justice Thomas reiterated that "a plaintiff seeking to vindicate a
private right need only allege an invasion of that right to
establish standing." He would have held that the named plaintiffs
had standing based on the alleged violation of Google's private
duties owed to them under state and federal law. Justice Thomas
also would have reversed the class certification and class
settlement orders and held that the absent class members' interests
were not adequately represented because only the named plaintiffs
and class counsel received significant benefits, and the lack of
relief for absent class members rendered the settlement unfair and
unreasonable under Rule 23(e). [GN]


GREAT-WEST LIFE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Tenth Circuit handed a win to Great-West
Life & Annuity Insurance Co. on March 27 in an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act class action over how it distributed investment
profits. [GN]


HILL'S PET: Dog Owners Sue Over Toxic Pet Food
----------------------------------------------
Amanda Chapman, Betty Lee and Diane McDaniel, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hill's
Pet Nutrition, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00070, (E.D. Tenn.,
February 27, 2019), seeks monetary relief and an order forcing
Hill's to pull out all potentially toxic products from shelves; and
redress for breach of contract, duties and covenants of good faith
and fair dealing, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977.

Hill's manufactures and sells pet food at veterinary clinics and
pet retailers across the United States, including the Specialty Dog
Foods. It has allegedly manufactured, sold and warranted Specialty
Dog Foods containing toxic and often fatal levels of vitamin D,
which can cause symptoms such as vomiting, loss of appetite,
increased thirst, increased urination, excessive drooling, and
weight loss, and can lead to serious health issues in dogs
including renal dysfunction and failure and death. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      Jeffrey H. Glaspie, Esq.
      William A. Ladnier, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
             mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
             jeff@gregcolemanlaw.com
             will@gregcolemanlaw.co


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Kanefsky Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against a class action suit initiated by
David Kanefsky.

On September 13, 2018, following completion of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance's review
of our prior accounting for liabilities for unasserted
Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC Division of Enforcement
advised that it has opened an investigation related to this matter.
Honeywell intends to provide requested information and otherwise
fully cooperate with the SEC staff.

On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior
accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.

Honeywell said, "We believe the Complaint has no merit."

Honeywell International Inc. operates as a diversified technology
and manufacturing company worldwide. Its Aerospace segment supplies
products, software, and services for aircrafts and vehicles.
Honeywell International Inc. was incorporated in 1985 and is based
in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


INT'L BUSINESS: Ex-Employees File Age-Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gosselin, writing for ProPublica, reports that a group of
former employees has filed a lawsuit against IBM that accuses the
tech giant of failing to comply with a federal law that requires
companies to disclose the ages of people they lay off who are 40 or
older. The suit, filed in federal district court in New York City,
also alleges that the company has improperly prevented workers from
combining to challenge their ousters.

It is the second broad legal action against IBM since a 2018
ProPublica story that documented widespread age discrimination by
the company in its global restructuring. The former employees are
asking the court to invalidate a written agreement that IBM
requires its employees to sign to receive severance pay. Under the
document's provisions, workers agree to give up any right to
challenge their dismissal in court.

Until now, most age-related legal actions contesting an IBM layoff
have been brought by the rare ex-worker who refused to sign the
agreement and left without severance. If the district court were to
agree that IBM's separation agreement is invalid, it could open the
company up to lawsuits by tens of thousands of older workers IBM
has laid off in recent years.

The lawsuit and the string of other cases filed in the wake of
ProPublica's story face steep odds as a result of decisions by the
Supreme Court and federal appeals courts that curtailed workers'
ability to challenge employers' staffing decisions. The rationale
is to limit what federal judges view as cumbersome, costly cases
that hamstring both employers and the courts.

"The Supreme Court is hostile to class action, to collective action
and to employees," said Cliff Palefsky, a prominent San Francisco
attorney who frequently represents employees. "Congress needs to
step in to preserve the integrity of its own civil right laws, not
just involving age, but also race and gender. So far, it hasn't."

ProPublica reported in March 2018 that IBM, which had annual
revenue of $79 billion last year, had ousted an estimated 20,000
U.S. workers ages 40 and over during the preceding five years. In
some instances, it used money saved from the departures to hire
young replacements to, in the words of one internal company
document, "correct seniority mix."

The new lawsuit follows legal action last fall by Boston
class-action lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who filed a class-action
case on behalf of 60 ex-IBM employees who had not signed the
severance agreement and argued they had been discriminated against
because of their age. In tandem, Liss-Riordan filed scores of
arbitration claims for ex-employees who had signed the document,
which only permits workers to pursue age claims in individual
arbitration hearings.

The New York lawsuit opens a new legal front, challenging the IBM
agreement's one-at-a-time restriction as a violation of workers'
rights under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The
law allows laid-off workers to take legal action against their
employers as a group, either in court or arbitration.

"IBM against one person is not a fair fight," said David Webbert,
an Augusta, Maine, lawyer who, together with his partner, Jeffrey
Young, and a Washington-based law firm, filed the new case. "IBM
against thousands of people who've been laid off because of their
age, that's a legitimate legal proceeding.

"IBM is afraid of a fair fight," Webbert said.

A spokesman said the company had no comment on the latest lawsuit.
In response to ProPublica's initial findings in 2018, IBM said: "We
are proud of our company and our employees' ability to reinvent
themselves era after era, while always complying with the law. Our
ability to do this is why we are the only tech company that has not
only survived but thrived for more than 100 years."

The new suit is filed in the name of four ex-employees who were in
their mid-50s when they were ousted by the company, including
Cheryl Witmer of Firestone, Colorado.

Witmer said in an interview she began her career repairing IBM
Selectric typewriters in 1984 and was a program manager in the
company's cloud division in 2016 when she unexpectedly received a
bad job-performance rating and was told she was retiring.

"But I'm not retiring," she said she told her manager.

"Yes, you are," she quoted the manager as replying. ProPublica
documented dozens of similar employee ousters that began as layoffs
but were converted to retirements, a change that kept down IBM's
layoff counts, where high numbers can trigger public disclosure
requirements.

Witmer said she felt she had little choice but to sign the
company's severance agreement because she needed the money while
she looked for a new job. "I couldn't afford not to" sign, she
said.

The ADEA requires that workers over 40 who are being laid off be
told the job positions and the ages of the position holders who are
being laid off with them so they can decide whether to pursue an
age-discrimination case or to waive the right to do so.

IBM stopped providing this information to employees in 2014 when it
rewrote its severance agreement. Under the previous agreement,
departing employees could not receive severance unless they agreed
to waive their right to pursue legal action. The new agreement
employees were required to sign to receive severance did allow them
to file claims of discrimination, but only in individual hearings
before an arbitrator.

IBM executives appear to have concluded that this change in the
document permitted them to stop providing the ages of employees
were being laid off. Legal experts say this made it much harder to
find evidence of age discrimination, which requires establishing a
pattern drawn from large numbers of layoffs.

Until the newly filed suit, IBM's decision to stop disclosing age
information has not faced legal challenge. [GN]


KONA GRILL: Boots Suit Against Kona Sushi Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Kona Grill, 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 Kona Sushi, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Mitchell Boots.

On July 27, 2017, a class action complaint was filed against Kona
Sushi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, by Mitchell
Boots, individually and on behalf of a Proposed Rule 23 Class, in
the United States District Court for Minnesota claiming, among
other things, that the Company violated Minnesota gratuity/tip
pooling laws with respect to certain classes of restaurant
employees.

The plaintiff has brought claims on behalf of a putative Minnesota
class and a putative national class of employees.

On October 25, 2017, the plaintiff amended the complaint to
withdraw the national class claims and other common law claims,
leaving one claim on behalf of a putative Minnesota class, and
added a second named Plaintiff, Tracy Fortman.

The parties participated in mediation on August 3, 2018, which
concluded without resolution. Therefore, the matter is proceeding
in accordance with the court-scheduled dates.

Kona Grill said, "As we intend to diligently defend this matter we
believe the possible loss or range of loss cannot be determined at
this time, and therefore we have not accrued any costs associated
with this matter as of December 31, 2018. Given the Company's
current liquidity, a negative result in this matter could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's cash position, financial
condition and operations."

Kona Grill, Inc. owns and operates upscale casual restaurants under
the Kona Grill brand name. As of December 31, 2017, it owned and
operated 46 restaurants in 23 states of the United States and
Puerto Rico; and 3 franchised restaurants in Mexico, the United
Arab Emirates, and Canada. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.


L&K COFFEE: Faison Sues Over Counterfeit Kona Coffee
----------------------------------------------------
Walter Faison individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L&K Coffee Co., LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01248 (E.D. N.Y., March 3, 2019), seeks restitution and
disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages and
interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for
attorneys and experts and such other and further relief resulting
from unjust enrichment and violations of New York general business
laws.

Kona coffee is grown on farms located within the Kona District of
Hawaii. L & K Coffee Co. sells coffee products under the Magnum
Exotics label, available to consumers nationwide at
brick-and-mortar retailers including Costco, Walmart, T.J. Maxx and
Marshalls, third-party websites and online. They allegedly pass off
ordinary commodity coffee as Kona coffee.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


LEON COUNTY, FL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Knight Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRITTANY KNIGHT, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF OF LEON
COUNTY, Respondent, Case No. 4:17cv464-RH/CAS (N.D. Fla.), Judge
Robert L. Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class.

An infant died in Ms. Knight's care in Leon County on June 9, 2015.
The record includes allegations that Ms. Knight was operating an
illegal daycare center, was impaired, and gave the child an
overdose of sleep medicine.  The record includes a proffer that,
after the death, Ms. Knight went to her mother's home in Cairo,
Georgia, perhaps 35 miles away, and that at some later point, Ms.
Knight became employed at another childcare facility.

More than a year after the death, on June 17, 2016, a Leon County
grand jury indicted Ms. Knight for aggravated manslaughter.  The
court issued a capias for Ms. Knight's arrest setting bail at
$500,000.  Ms. Knight was arrested that same day.  At her first
appearance on June 18, 2016, bail remained at $500,000, a result
apparently required because the capias did not authorize a court to
reduce bail at first appearance.  Ms. Knight was unable to make
bail and so remained in custody.

On June 28, 2016, Ms. Knight moved to reduce bail.  The court
conducted a hearing on the motion on Aug. 11, 2016.  Ms. Knight
said she could afford bail of no more than $10,000.  She noted her
lack of a criminal record and her ties to the community.  The court
reduced bail to $250,000 and imposed nonmonetary conditions of
release: that Ms. Knight submit to drug testing and have no contact
with children other than her own or with the victim's mother.  Ms.
Knight could not make bail and so remained in custody.

On Sept. 23, 2016, Ms. Knight filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the Florida First District Court of Appeal.  She asserted
that $250,000 was excessive, that she had in effect been detained,
and that detaining her without considering alternatives was
unconstitutional.  The court denied the petition on Feb. 21, 2017.
The court said that to prevail on the claim that $250,000 was
excessive, Ms. Knight would have to show that any amount over
$10,000 was excessive, because she had said she could afford
nothing more than that.  The court rejected without explanation the
contention that any amount above $10,000 would be excessive.  And
the court said any further constitutional claim had not been
presented in the trial court and thus could not be considered on
the habeas petition.

On Feb. 28, 2017, Ms. Knight filed in the trial court a second
motion to reduce bail.  When the trial court did not take up the
motion, Ms. Knight sought relief in the First District.  That court
ordered the state to notify it by April 28, 2017 whether the trial
court had ruled on the motion to reduce bail.  Perhaps not
coincidentally, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion
on April 28.

Ms. Knight made essentially the same arguments she now makes in the
Court: that unaffordable bail is unconstitutional unless the Court
finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that no alternative
is available that would reasonably assure the Defendant's
appearance as required and the safety of the community.  The trial
court implicitly rejected the constitutional argument but noted
that the critical factors in setting bail are risk of nonappearance
and danger to the community.  It explicitly found that Ms. Knight
posed "a danger to the community."  It seemed to find also that Ms.
Knight posed a risk of nonappearance; the court said she fled to
Cairo after the death of the child.

Ms. Knight filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the First District on May 4, 2017.  The court denied the writ on
Oct. 2, 2017 in an order consisting of one sentence and a
citation.

Shortly before Oct. 9, 2017, Ms. Knight agreed to accept the
state's plea offer, under which she would plead nolo contendere to
the charge of aggravated manslaughter and receive a nine-year
prison sentence.  On October 9, a plea hearing was set for October
18.  On October 13, Ms. Knight filed the federal petition,
challenging her pretrial detention.  On October 18, Ms. Knight
appeared in state court and entered the nolo plea.  The state court
accepted the plea and sentenced Ms. Knight to nine years.  She is
serving that sentence.

When Ms. Knight entered the plea, she had been in custody for 16
months.  Despite her repeated efforts, no state court had addressed
her constitutional claim on the merits.

The proposed class action presents a constitutional challenge to
the bail practices of the state court in Leon County, Florida.  The
record would support a finding that the court routinely sets
unaffordable bail with the effect, and sometimes with the purpose,
of detaining a defendant pending trial.  The court set unaffordable
bail for Brittany Knight.

Ms. Knight filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. Seciton 2241.  The respondent is the Sheriff of Leon County
-- the official in whose custody Ms. Knight was held when she filed
the action.  Ms. Knight seeks to represent a class of individuals
detained on unaffordable bail in Leon County.   Pending are
cross-motions for summary judgment. Also pending is a motion to
certify the class.

Ms. Knight's claim rests on two propositions.  The first is that
unaffordable bail is constitutionally equivalent to pretrial
detention.  The second is that pretrial detention is constitutional
only if a court finds -- Ms. Knight says by clear and convincing
evidence after timely notice and an adequate opportunity to be
heard -- that no alternative is available that would reasonably
assure the Defendant's appearance as required and the safety of the
community.  Ms. Knight's claim does not address the separate
question of how long a Defendant can be detained from the time of
arrest until an initial bail hearing.

Judge Hinkle finds that the state courts never explained their
rejection of Ms. Knight's constitutional claim.  Perhaps she did
not make her position sufficiently clear.  Or perhaps the courts
thought her position so plainly unfounded that it was not worthy of
a response.  If so, the courts were wrong.  Ms. Knight's
constitutional claim was substantial.

As to whether detaining Ms. Knight was substantively
unconstitutional, the Judge finds that the substantive
constitutional issues break down this way.  Ms. Knight's
unaffordable bail was equivalent to detention.  The detention was
constitutional only if Ms. Knight posed a danger to the community
or risk of nonappearance -- the state has proffered no other
compelling interest supporting detention.  The state courts'
implicit contrary rulings on these constitutional issues are
entitled to no deference and are incorrect.  But the state trial
court's explicit finding that Ms. Knight posed a danger to the
community and its implicit finding that Ms. Knight posed a flight
risk -- findings that the First District Court of Appeal apparently
upheld -- are entitled to deference and cannot be set aside in this
Section 2241 proceeding.  The question whether there were
alternatives to detention that would adequately serve the state's
compelling interests was not addressed in state court and would
properly be resolved in this court de novo.  As it turns out, a
ruling on that issue is not necessary -- the outcome in this
Section 2241 proceeding would be the same either way.

With respect to the unconstitutional procedures, the Judge holds
that Ms. Knight is not entitled to relief on this basis in this
Section2241 proceeding because any violation was cured before she
filed the proceeding.  To be sure, the state court ruled against
her.  So did the First District Court of Appeal when she sought
review there.  But due process means notice and an opportunity to
be heard -- there is no guarantee of a favorable result.  Ms.
Knight says, in effect, that the court missed the issue, but
missing the issue, without more, is not a due-process violation.

Next, as to the availability of relief in this Section 2241
proceeding on Ms. Knight's individual claim, the Judge finds that
Ms. Knight had been detained -- rightly or wrongly -- for more than
a year.  Release at that point would have posed a risk of
nonappearance substantially greater than existed earlier.  Had the
Judge been called on to decide on Oct. 13, 2017 whether any
alternative would adequately serve the state's compelling
interests, he would have said no.  He would have continued Ms.
Knight's detention.  Any constitutional violation had been cured or
no longer had any effect when Ms. Knight filed the action.  Under
the Lyons principle, she was not entitled to relief.

As to class certification, the Judge holds that Ms. Knight's
individual claim is unfounded and her unique circumstances -- her
agreement to enter a plea before filing the action, and the
imposition of a substantial prison term soon after -- make her an
inadequate class representative.  And for these same reasons, her
claim is not typical of the proposed class claims.

Ms. Knight's individual claim became moot when she was sentenced to
prison.  The claim was unfounded, but not moot, when she filed the
action.  But as set out, a class will not be certified in the case.
In the absence of class certification, the mootness of Ms.
Knight's claim requires dismissal of the action.

For these reasons, Judge Hinkle denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify a class.  The Clerk must enter judgment stating, "The
Plaintiff Brittany Knight's claims against the defendant Sheriff of
Leon County, Florida are dismissed as moot."  The Judge denied as
moot all other pending motions.  The Clerk must close the file.

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

BRITTANY KNIGHT, Petitioner, represented by JACQUELINE NICOLE AZIS,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA, NANCY GBANA ABUDU --
nancy.abudu@splcenter.org -- ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC. &
BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON -- bstevenson@aclufl.org -- ACLU
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC.

SHERIFF FOR LEON COUNTY FLORIDA, Respondent, represented by MATTHEW
JOSEPH CARSON -- mcarson@sniffenlaw.com -- SNIFFEN & SPELLMAN PA.

ROCHE SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY INC, Amicus, represented by ADAM
ROBERT ALAEE -- aalaee@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP.

JONATHAN SJOSTROM & JACK CAMPBELL, Amicuss, represented by EDWARD
M. WENGER, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, KAREN ANN BRODEEN,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STEPHANIE ALLISON DANIEL, FLORIDA
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE & WILLIAM HENRY STAFFORD, III, STATE OF
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL.


LESAINT LOGISTICS: Worker Files Lawsuit Over Fingerprint Scans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a Romeoville-based trucking and
warehousing company has been hit with a class action lawsuit under
a state biometrics privacy law, accusing the company of violating
employees' rights by compelling them to scan their fingerprints
each time they punch in and out of a work shift.

On March 15, Brandon Diller, individually and as representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, filed a complaint in Cook
County Circuit Court against Lesaint Logistics LLC.

According to the complaint, Diller worked for LeSaint at its
Bolingbrook facility from June 13-July 29, 2018. The plaintiff had
to scan his fingerprint for timekeeping and payroll purposes each
time he began and ended a work shift or took unpaid breaks. The
complaint accuses LeSaint of scanning, retaining and storing
Diller's and other workers' biometric information without their
authorization, and without explaining in writing how the company
would safeguard and ultimately destroy their records.

The plaintiff is seeking damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation,
which can be interpreted to include each time he and other workers
punched in or out on the company's biometric time clock. He is also
seeking attorney fees and court costs. The plaintiff is represented
by attorneys Phillip A. Bock, Tod A. Lewis, David M. Oppenheimer,
Mara A. Baltabois of Bock, Hatch, Lewis and Oppenheim LLC in
Chicago.

Circuit Court of Cook County Case No. 2019-CH-03410 [GN]


LINN STAR TRANSFER: Aguilar Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Arturo Aguilar, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated and on behalf of the State of
California, Plaintiff, v. Linn Star Transfer, Inc., Kevin Abbey and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19004033 (Cal.
Super., January 25, 2019), was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 1,
2019, under Case No. 19-cv-01162.

Plaintiff accuses Defendants of alleged wage and hour violations
from failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay
hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements
and failure to timely pay all final wages under the California
Labor Code.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Boggs, Esq.
      Roman Zhuk, Esq.
      FINE, BOGGS & PERKINS LLP
      80 Stone Pine Road, Suite 210
      Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
      Telephone: (650) 712-8908
      Facsimile: (650) 712-1712

Defendants are 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
      Email: mburks@grsm.com
             skhalsa@grsm.com


LM FUNDING: Settlement in Solaris Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
LM Funding America, 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 court in Solaris
at Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. LM Funding, LLC,
entered an order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

The company was a defendant in an action entitled Solaris at
Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. LM Funding, LLC,
which was brought before the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, Miami-Dade Civil Division on July 31, 2014.  

In this matter, which was initially preliminarily settled in August
2017, the plaintiff (an association under contract with the
company) alleged claims such as a usurious loan transaction, state
and federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
claims, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA")
violations, and other related claims, and the plaintiff requested
rescission of their agreement with the company, forfeiture of all
amounts lent by us to the plaintiff, a declaratory judgment that we
have violated FDUTPA, other damages for breach of contract and
violations of FDUTPA, and attorneys' fees.  

On August 4, 2017, an order by the court was entered on Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
Agreement. In the order, the motion of the Plaintiff, Solaris at
Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc., individually and on
behalf of the certified plaintiff class ("Plaintiffs"), for
approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") with Defendant LM Funding, LLC was granted.

Despite the company's beliefs that it is not liable for the claims
asserted and that the company have good defenses thereto, the
company nevertheless agreed to enter into the Settlement Agreement
in order to: (1) avoid any further expense, inconvenience, and
distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation and its
consequential negative financial effects to its operations; (2)
obtain the releases, orders, and final judgment contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement; and (3) put to rest and terminate with
finality all claims that had been or could have been asserted
against us by the Plaintiffs arising from the facts alleged in the
lawsuit.

Pursuant to the agreement subsequently reached between counsel, all
required actions and deadlines set forth in the Settlement
Agreement are currently stayed. On March 1, 2018 a continuation of
the abatement was granted until April 2, 2018.

As of December 31, 2017, the company had accrued costs of $505,000
as part of the Settlement Agreement. The settlement amount was
contingent upon the company obtaining sufficient financing within
the allotted time frame of the Settlement Agreement. On April 2,
2018, the Plaintiffs withdrew from the Settlement Agreement. On
August 14, 2018, the parties to the Solaris class action litigation
entered into a revised settlement in which the Plaintiffs amended
their complaint (the Fourth Amended Complaint) to reflect no demand
for damages and only a claim for declarative and injunctive relief
and amended the class definition to reflect a requirement that
class members must have active units still under contract with LMF
under a "Traditional Model" waterfall in the Allocation of
Collection Proceeds.  

This was submitted to the court who approved the amended Complaint
and Class Action Settlement Agreement. On November 6, 2018, the
court entered an order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement. The New Settlement Agreement
also reimbursed the Plaintiff's opposing counsel $99,000 plus an
administrative fee.

LM Funding said, "As such, we adjusted the class action accrual to
$100,000 and recorded a $405,000 class action reversal to the
statement of operations. The amount was paid during fiscal year
2018."

LM Funding America, Inc., through its subsidiary, LM Funding, LLC,
operates as a specialty finance company. It provides funding to
nonprofit community associations (Associations) primarily located
in the state of Florida, as well as in the states of Washington,
Colorado, and Illinois. The company was founded in 2008 and is
based in Tampa, Florida.


LORAIN, OH: Lawsuit Over Water Rates Certified as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Morning Journal reports that a lawsuit over Lorain's water
rates for out of city customers was certified March 26 as a class
action suit.

A news release from O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley Pecura, the firm
representing the plaintiffs in the case, the certification came
after Lorain County Common Pleas Court Judge Mark A. Betleski ruled
against the city's motion to have the case thrown out.

The release said the case arose from Lorain imposing "significant"
surcharges and fees against out of city customers, specifically
those in the hidden Valley subdivision in Amherst Township, in
2012.

The city was shown to have "double-charged" the Hidden Valley
residents for the cost of operating, maintaining and repairing
sewer lines which their own records showed were in relatively good
repair, the release said.

The release said the city's motion was based on the belief it had
an "unfettered right to charge any rates or fees to outside-city
customers."

The suit will enter the trial phase in the next few weeks,
according to the release.

City attorney Pat Riley declined to comment citing he has not
received notification of the certification. [GN]


MARLY BUILDING: Bar Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Amay Bar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marly Building Supply Corp., Kim Kum Ma
and Tommie Sui, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01187,
(E.D. N.Y., February 28, 2018), seeks to recover damages for
violations of New York State labor laws and the Fair Labor
Standards Act, compensatory and liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.

Bar worked as a construction worker and general laborer for Marly
from in or around July 2002 until in or around November 2017. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per day without
overtime premium and failed to provide accurate wage statements.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Aronstein Appeals Case Ruling to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jesse Aronstein filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Aronstein v. Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-12864-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of Massachusetts, Springfield.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's
alleged bait and switch scheme, specifically by advertising,
marketing, and selling fixed annuities and receiving and retaining
funds, on the basis that they had a Minimum Guaranteed Interest
Rate, but then unilaterally reducing that rate below the guaranteed
rate.

The appellate case is captioned as Aronstein v. Mass. Mutual Life
Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 19-8005, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form was due April 22, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner JESSE ARONSTEIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin B. Love, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Ct
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com

               - and -

          Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East
          2 Seaport Ln
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com
                  ehaber@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. O'Connor, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY J. O'CONNOR
          29 Wards Lane
          Albany, NY 12204
          Telephone: (518) 426-7700
          E-mail: tjo@tjolaw.com

Defendants-Respondents MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
          Eric S. Mattson, Esq.
          Stephen W. McInerney, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 S Dearborn St., Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com
                  emattson@sidley.com
                  smcinerney@sidley.com

               - and -

          Jodi Kim Miller, Esq.
          John P. Pucci, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main St., Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 272-6249
          E-mail: jmiller@bulkley.com
                  jpucci@bulkley.com


MDL 2516: Calif. Appeals Ruling in Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The People of the state of California filed an appeal from the
District Court's ruling on pending motions dated February 25, 2019,
in the multidistrict litigation styled In Re: Aggrenox Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 14-md-2516, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order on July 19, 2018, granting Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal Approving Indirect Purchaser Class Settlement
and Dismissing Indirect Purchaser Class Claims Against Boehringer
and Teva.

The Court certified a class for purposes of settlement (Indirect
Purchaser Class):

     All persons or entities in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
     Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia,
     Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
     Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
     Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
     Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
     Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, who,
     in one of the listed states, indirectly purchased, paid
     and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the
     purchase price for branded or generic Aggrenox, for
     consumption by themselves, their families, or their members,
     employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, other
     than for resale, from November 30, 2009 through December 22,
     2017.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court approves the Settlement in the amount of $50,229,193.00, and
finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and
adequate to Indirect Purchaser Class members. The Court approves
the amount deposited by the Defendants into the Settlement Fund.
The final net amount of the Settlement is $50,229,193.00, which is
the Settlement Fund Amount of $54,000,000.00 minus the agreed-upon
drawdown amount. Accordingly, the Settlement will be consummated in
accordance with the terms and provisions of the Settlement
Agreement.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Aggrenox Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 19-754, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Buildings Trade Welfare
Plan, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health &
Welfare Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; United Food And Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health And Welfare Fund, on its own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Man-U Service
Contract Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; AGC-International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701
Health & Welfare Trust Fund; School Cafeteria Employees Local 634
Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; Afscme District Council 47 Health & Welfare
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
Neca-Ibew Health & Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Twin City Iron Workers Health And
Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation
Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated; International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 49 Health and Welfare Fund; Pipefitters Union Local
NO 537 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; Electrical Workers' Insurance Fund; and
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund are
represented by:

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1676
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Buildings Trade Welfare
Plan, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated; International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, on its own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; United Food And
Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health And
Welfare Fund, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; AGC-International Union
of Operating Engineers Local 701 Health & Welfare Trust Fund;
School Cafeteria Employees Local 634 Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Afscme District
Council 47 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated; Neca-Ibew Health & Welfare Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Twin
City Iron Workers Health And Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated; Welfare Plan of the International
Union of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and Welfare Fund;
Pipefitters Union Local NO 537 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; Electrical Workers'
Insurance Fund; and Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and
Welfare Fund are represented by:

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLC
          1135 West 6th Street
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (717) 903-1177
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

               - and -

          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132
Health and Welfare Fund, on its own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health
& Welfare Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Afscme District Council 47 Health & Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Afscme District
Council 47 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated; Neca-Ibew Health & Welfare Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; United
Food And Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers
Health And Welfare Fund, on its own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
AGC-International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701 Health &
Welfare Trust Fund; School Cafeteria Employees Local 634 Health and
Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Twin City Iron Workers Health And Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated; Welfare Plan of the
International Union of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B,
137C, 137R, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and
Welfare Fund; Pipefitters Union Local NO 537 Health & Welfare Fund,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Electrical
Workers' Insurance Fund; and Sergeants Benevolent Association
Health and Welfare Fund are represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Marvin Alan Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: mmiller@MillerLawLLC.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Afscme District Council 47 Health & Welfare
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
Neca-Ibew Health & Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Twin City Iron Workers Health And
Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation
Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated; International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 49 Health and Welfare Fund; Pipefitters Union Local
NO 537 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; Electrical Workers' Insurance Fund; and
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund are
represented by:

          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Boulevard
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          E-mail: sconnolly@cwg-law.com

               - and -

          Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Twin City Iron Workers Health And Welfare
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated;
Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation Engineers
Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated; International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 49 Health and Welfare Fund; Pipefitters Union Local
NO 537 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; Electrical Workers' Insurance Fund; and
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund are
represented by:

          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: jmacoretta@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Welfare Plan of the International Union of
Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated; International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and Welfare Fund; Pipefitters
Union Local NO 537 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated; Electrical Workers' Insurance Fund;
and Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund are
represented by:

          Heidi M. Drewes-Silton, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Pipefitters Union Local NO 537 Health &
Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Electrical Workers' Insurance Fund; and Sergeants
Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund are represented by:

          Robin A. Van der Meulen, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: rvandermeulen@labaton.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Electrical Workers' Insurance Fund and
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund are
represented by:

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

Appellant People of the State of California is represented by:

          John Alden Meade, Esq.
          MEADE YOUNG LLC
          909 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 799-3102
          E-mail: jameade@meadelawllc.com

Defendants-Appellees Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, now known as Barr Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH, a German Limited Liability
Corporation, are represented by:

          Brian Timothy Burgess, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4215
          E-mail: bburgess@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy Gerard Ronan, Esq.
          PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLP
          107 Elm Street
          Stamford, CT 06902
          Telephone: (203) 674-7933
          E-mail: tronan@pullcom.com

Defendant-Appellee Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, now known as Barr Pharmaceuticals, LLC, is represented
by:

          Robert D. Carroll, Esq.
          Gerard Justin Cedrone, Esq.
          Christopher Holding, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          E-mail: rcarroll@goodwinlaw.com
                  gcedrone@goodwinlaw.com
                  cholding@goodwinlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, a
German Limited Liability Corporation; Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Duramed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware Corporation, now known as Teva
Women's Health, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & Co. KG;
Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., a Delaware Corporation; Teva
Women's Health, Inc., FKA Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Barr Laboratories Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, are represented by:

          Brian Timothy Burgess, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4215
          E-mail: bburgess@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter James Carney, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-3662
          E-mail: pcarney@whitecase.com


MDL 2741: 12 Suits Transferred to N.D. Cal. for Roundup Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve lawsuits were transferred on March 26, 2019, or March 28,
2019, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco):

    (1) Estate of Mary Hazel v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00018, from the U.S. District Court for
        the Eastern District of Missouri.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01560-VC;

    (2) Elmer v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00260, from
        the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Missouri.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01569-VC;

    (3) Drew, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00251,
        from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Missouri.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01567-VC;

    (4) Crisovan v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 0:19-cv-60594-KMM,
        from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
        Florida.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01554-VC;

    (5) Carriger v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00254,
        from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Missouri.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01568-VC;

    (6) Florquist v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 1:19-cv-00030,
        from the U.S. District Court for the District Court of
        Wyoming.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01557-VC;

    (7) Kempf, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
        Case No. 4:19-cv-00271, from the U.S. District Court for
        the Eastern District of Missouri.
        New Case No. 3:19-cv-01580-VC;

    (8) Jett, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00268,
        from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Missouri.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01579-VC;

    (9) Herr v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00056, from
        the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Missouri.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01563-VC;

   (10) Gunn, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00267,
        from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Missouri.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01578-VC;

   (11) Garner v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00051, from
        the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Missouri.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01562-VC; and

   (12) Ledvina v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00048, from
        the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Missouri.  New Case No. 3:19-cv-01561-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]

Plaintiffs SIDNEY C. DREW JR. and NARUMOL DREW; RICHARD A.
CARRIGER; JASON T. ELMER; GARY C. KEMPF and MARY C. KEMPF; TOMMY J.
GUNN and SHARI L. GUNN; and ROBERT F. JETT and BECKY R. JETT 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

Plaintiffs ESTATE OF Mary Hazel, by and through her representative
Rhonda Romines, on behalf of all legal heirs of Mary Hazel; JAMES
GARNER; MICHAEL HERR; and RONALD LEDVINA 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

Plaintiff JACK FLORQUIST is represented by:

          Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
          OCHS LAW FIRM, PC
          690 US 89, Suite 206
          PO Box 10944
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 739-3959
          Facsimile: (307) 235-6910
          E-mail: Jason@ochslawfirm.com

Plaintiff L.B., a minor, by his parent and natural guardian,
GRATZIELA CRISOVAN, is represented by:

          Laura V. Yaeger, Esq.
          YAEGER LAW, PLLC
          834 3rd Avenue South
          Tierre Verde, FL 33715
          Telephone: (727) 202-5015
          Facsimile: (727) 217-5823
          E-mail: laura@yourlegalcounsel.net

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 S. Fourth Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
                  ashton@moorelawgroup.com


MDL 2895: KPH Seeks Transfer of Four Antitrust Cases to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking to transfer Sensipar-related class actions has
been filed by KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., in the case styled as,
IN RE: SENSIPAR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2895 (E.D. Pa.).
Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. moves the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for the transfer and coordination or
consolidation of four-related antitrust class actions to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The cases allege violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Sensipar is a calcium-sensing receptor agonist indicated for
secondary hyperparathyroidism in adult patients with chronic kidney
disease on dialysis. The related actions, which assert antitrust
claims under the Sherman Act, allege that the drug manufacturer
defendants conspired to delay the entry of lower-priced generic
Sensipar.

KPH says there is substantial overlap among the drug manufacturer
defendants in these antitrust class actions. The related actions
also involve one or more common questions of fact. As a
consequence, the transfer and coordination or consolidation of the
related actions will prevent duplication of discovery, eliminate
the possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings, and conserve
judicial resources.

KPH contends that the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania is the appropriate forum for coordination
or consolidation of antitrust actions concerning Sensipar. The
Eastern District of Pennsylvania is well-suited to manage this
litigation because it has the experience, resources, and the
personnel necessary for the management of a multidistrict
litigation proceeding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
     Erin C. Burns, Esq.
     Michael Tarringer, Esq.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: (215) 923-9300
     Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
     E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
             eburns@nastlaw.com
             mtarringer@nastlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
     Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
     ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
     20 Rahling Circle

     Mailing Address: P.O. Box 241790
     Little Rock, AR 72223
     Telephone: (501) 821-5575
     Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
     E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
             debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
             Stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us


MHP PHARMACY: Frank Hits Misclassification, Claims Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Demetrius Frank, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MHP Pharmacy, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-10617, (E.D. Mich., March 1, 2019), seeks recover
unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, and obtain declaratory
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

MHP offers home delivery of prescription medication where Frank
worked as a as a non-exempt delivery driver from January 2018 to
July 2018. He was classified as an independent contractor and
compensated on a per-job basis and denied overtime for hours worked
in excess of forty hours in certain weeks throughout the duration
of his employment, notes the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
      Warren D. Astbury, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Tel: (313) 251-1399
      Fax: (313) 739-1975
      Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com
             wastbury@forthepeople.com


MICHAEL P. MORTON: Denial of Ortez Class Certification Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HERMAN ORTEZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL P. MORTON, P.A.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-561-MN-CJB (D. Del.), Magistrate
Judge Christopher J. Burke of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware recommended the denial of the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel.

In the action he filed against Michael P. Morton, P.A., Plaintiff
Ortez alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  Ortez is a resident of New Castle County, Delaware, who
formerly owned property at Le Pare Condominiums.  The Defendant is
a law firm based in Greenville, Delaware, which represents the
Association of Unit Owners of Le Pare Condominiums.

On Feb. 21, 2018, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff
explaining that there is a substantial and critical life-safety
infrastructure problem at Le Pare and that in order to address that
issue, an assessment on all Unit Owners was made last summer to
bring in dollars to begin the first phase of the professional work
that must be done.  The letter states that although 58% of the Unit
Owners had by then paid the full assessment, the Plaintiff had not
done so, nor had the Plaintiff agreed to a payment plan with the
Association.  The letter goes on to explain that due to tge
Plaintiff's non-payment, the Association referred collection of his
assessment to the Defendant.

In the letter, the Defendant encourages tge Plaintiff to either pay
the assessment or arrange for a payment plan within the next 10
days.  However, the Defendant explains that if the Association did
not hear from him within 10 days of the date of the letter, then
the Association would be left with no choice but to move forward in
the manner that is provided for by the Delaware Uniform Common
Interest Ownership Act, the Le Pare Condominium Association
Declaration and the Code of Regulation.

In all, the Defendant issued a total of 17 letters that were
substantially similar to the letter described.  A total of 18
individuals residing in Delaware were mailed one of those 17
substantially similar letters; all of these letters were mailed to
an address at Le Pare.  Another such letter was mailed to an
address in Delaware, but it was returned as undeliverable; the
Defendant subsequently re-mailed that letter to an address in
Texas.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the instant case on April 13,
2018.  The Complaint, which is styled as a class action complaint
against the Defendant, contains two Counts alleging that Defendant
violated certain provisions of the FDCPA.  More particularly, the
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the statute because
the Feb. 21 letter: (1) does not set forth the amount of the Debt
owed by the Plaintiff, allegedly in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(1); (2) does not set forth a statement that, upon the
consumer's written request within a 30-day period, the debt
collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of
the original creditor, if different from the current creditor,
allegedly in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(5); and (3)
includes a demand for payment within 10 days that, when read in
conjunction with other portions of the letter, contradicts the
FDCPA's validation notice," in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(b).

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff defined the putative class,
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), as
all persons (a) with a Delaware address, (b) to whom Michael P.
Morton, P.A., (c) within one year before the date of this
complaint, (d) in connection with the collection of a consumer
debt, (e) mailed an initial debt collection communication not
returned to Michael P. Morton, P.A. as undeliverable (f) that (1)
did not state the amount of the debt, or (2) advised the consumer
that he should within 10 days from the date of the letter, either
pay the now overdue assessment, fees and penalties in full, or
contact the creditor to discuss how the consumer could arrange for
a payment plan that will postpone collection actions by Michael P.
Morton, P.A., or (3) did not state that upon the consumer's written
request within the 30-day period, Michael P. Morton, P.A. would
provide the consumer with the name and address of the original
creditor, if different from the current creditor.

Then, in his opening brief regarding the Motion, the Plaintiff
sought to modify that proposed class definition slightly, to now
include al persons with an address in the United States to whom
Michael P. Morton, P.A. mailed an initial communication that had
the characteristics described in the referenced portion of the
Complaint.  Thus, in light of the way the class is now defined by
the Plaintiff and in light of the facts set out in Section I.A
above, 19 persons (including the Plaintiff) could possibly be a
part of that class.

The Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on Aug. 31, 2018, and the
Motion was referred to the Court by District Judge Maryellen
Noreika on Sept. 7, 2018.  The briefing on the Motion was completed
on Oct. 4, 2018.  The case is currently stayed pending the
resolution of the Motion.

The Defendant's only challenge to the Plaintiff's showing regarding
class certification relates to one of the four factors set out in
Rule 23(a): the numerosity requirement.  The Defendant argues that
the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy that requirement, and that this
is fatal to the Plaintiff's request for class certification.

Magistrate Judge Burke recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion be
denied.  He holds that the factors relevant to the numerosity
requirement are mixed.  The two factors that are of "primary
importance" are split, with one (judicial economy) favoring joinder
and the other (the claimants' ability and motivation to litigate as
joined Plaintiff's) favoring class certification.  As for the other
factors, two favor joinder (the ability to identify future
claimants and whether the claims are for injunctive relief or for
damages), one favors class certification, though only slightly (the
geographic dispersion of class members) and one is neutral (the
financial resources of class members).  This outcome is not
necessarily surprising, considering the facts of the case.  It is a
case that, on the one hand, involves the FDCPA, a statute that
typically lends itself to class action suits.  And yet on the other
hand, it is a manageable case involving a limited number of
potential class members (who are largely concentrated in Delaware,
due to the fact that the dispute originated over an assessment at
one Delaware condominium).

In the end, the he concludes that the Plaintiff has not met his
burden to show that the evidence weighs in favor of class
certification.  The relevant factors seem more heavily weighted
toward joinder; at best for the Plaintiff, the evidence on each
side balances out.  And in light of that, he returns to the Third
Circuit's guidance: that classes of 20 or fewer are usually
insufficiently numerous.  That is the case here, as the Court will
be well able to manage the litigation -- one consisting of a
limited, known number of Plaintiff's and narrow legal and factual
questions at issue -- without certifying a class.

The Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR
72.1.  The parties may serve and file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and
Recommendation.  The failure of a party to object to legal
conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review
in the district court.

The parties are directed to the Court's Standing Order for
Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated Oct. 9, 2013, a
copy of which is available on the District Court's website, located
at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.

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

Herman Ortez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Vivian A. Houghton --
vivianhoughton@comcast.net -- Vivian A. Houghton, Esq. & James L.
Davidson -- jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil
PLLC, pro hac vice.

Michael P. Morton, P.A., Defendant, represented by Artemio C.
Aranilla, II -- acaranilla@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin & Andrew M. Schwartz -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com --
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, pro hac vice.


MONTAIRE FARMS: Plaintiffs Will Have Voice in DNREC Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insurancenews.net reports that plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit
against Mountaire Farms will have a voice in any agreement between
the poultry company and the state of Delaware.

A district court judge granted a "motion to intervene" filed by the
nearly 700 people suing Mountaire after the company's wastewater
upset in 2017.

The motion came after the Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control and Mountaire entered a consent decree,
much like a settlement, in June. Now, those lawyers' clients will
be able to shape that settlement.

There was no comment on March 27 from any of the parties involved.
[GN]


MORAN FOODS: Brown Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------
Andre Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Moran Foods, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH02576 (Ill. Cir., February 27, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; and statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendant Moran operates the discount grocery chain "Save-a-Lot"
with over 1,300 stores in 36 states, including throughout Chicago,
Illinois. Its employees are required to scan their fingerprint in
its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication,
instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards. Brown
alleges that Moran improperly disclosed employees' biometrics data
without their informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 N. LaSalle, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Email: brichman@edelson.com
             ewadescott@edelson.com


MOUNT ZION: Castanon Suit to Recover Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Castanon, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Mount Zion Holdings, Inc., Isabella Montealegre and
Peter Montealegre, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-20804, (S.D. Fla.,
February 28, 2019), seeks to recover regular wages, overtime
compensation, retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a dry-cleaning establishment which provides
laundry services to commercial accounts where Plaintiff worked as a
non-exempt full-time laundry attendant, from approximately November
1, 2017 to approximately October 29, 2018. She claims to have
worked 40 hours weekly and was not paid for overtime hours at the
rate of time and one-half her regular rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCAA: Flasher Seeks Damages Over Injuries Sustained as an Athlete
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Flasher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00896 (S.D. Ind., March 1,
2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Flasher played football at Florida State University from 1981 to
1986. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as countless
sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay.
Akinbiyi now suffers from headaches, dizziness, memory loss, loss
of impulse control, loss of concentration, depression, suicidal
thoughts, fatigue, anxiety, sleeping difficulties, irritability,
numbness and tingling and cognitive disorder.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Flasher alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

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


NCAA: Mum About Football Brain Hazard, Akinbiyi Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Akinbiyi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00897 (S.D. Ind., March 1, 2019),
seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and
punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other
out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future
earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and
such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied
contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust
enrichment.

Kevin Akinbiyi played football at Saint Peter's University from
2001 to 2003. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as
countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and
gameplay. Akinbiyi now suffers from motor impairment, loss of
impulse control, loss of inhibition, short-term memory loss and
speech and language impairment.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Akinbiyi alleges NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

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


NIO INC: Faces Class Action Over 2018 IPO
-----------------------------------------
Nickeesha Swaby, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer NIO faces a class action
alleging the company misled investors about a new manufacturing
facility during its billion dollar 2018 initial public offering.

Filed in New York Supreme Court by investor Sumit Agarwal, the
complaint names NIO Inc., CEO Bin Li, and the company's other
senior officers as defendants. The suit also names numerous
underwriters including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Merrill
Lynch who collectively earned more than $40 million in fees since
the IPO.

According to the lawsuit, NIO sold 160 million shares at $6.26 per
share in September 2018. Shareholders claim the company filed an
incomplete registration statement with the Securities Exchange
Commission, deemed effective by the SEC, the day prior.

The lawsuit says NIO executives, through the SEC statements, led
investors to believe the company planned to build its own
manufacturing facility in Shanghai, to be completed by 2020,
boasting it would expand manufacturing capability for one of its
current vehicles and future models. However, NIO instead planned on
keeping a "little-known Chinese state-owned auto manufacturer,
Jianghuai Automobile Group Co. Ltd. or JAC Auto, to manufacture its
electric vehicles."

The suit also alleges that NIO failed to tell investors that the
Chinese government's decision to reduce subsidies to purchasers of
electric vehicles would affect company's sales.

On March 5, 2019, NIO publicly announced the termination of its
agreement with the Shanghai government to build the facility to
continue to rely on JAC Auto, and that delivery of its vehicles
fell from over 3,000 in December 2018 to 1,805 in February 2019,
blaming the slowdown on the government subsidy reduction.

Following the announcement, NIO shares, which traded above $8 in
early March, fell over 37 percent to close at $6.39 per share on
March 12, 2019. The stock has since fallen further, closing just
below $5 a share on March 26.

Investors are represented by Phillip Kim and Laurence M. Rosen of
the Rosen Law Firm in New York. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Dodson Says Vehicle Seat Sensor Defective
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey W. Dodson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nissan North America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04043 (C.D. Ill., March 2, 2019), seeks
actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs and
attorneys' fees for breach of written and implied warranty pursuant
to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Dodson purchased the 2015 Nissan Altima and claims that its
"occupant classification system" software may incorrectly classify
the front passenger seat as empty despite being occupied, causing
the passenger airbag not to deploy as designed in a crash,
increasing the risk of injury to the front passenger seat occupant,
notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Levin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Phone: (312) 212-4355
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


NPS PROPERTY: Cohen Milstein Files Housing Discrimination Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk County residents, together with fair housing and disability
rights organizations, filed a federal class action lawsuit on March
22 accusing a prominent Long Island-area property manager of
rampant housing discrimination.

The suit, building on individual claims brought forth in recent
months, alleges that NPS Property Corporation engaged in a pattern
of intentional discrimination against prospective renters with
disabilities, those with public sources of income, as well as
African Americans. In particular, the amended complaint alleges the
discriminatory practices targeting applicants with disabilities and
those with public sources of income were more widespread than
previously known, including policies designed to discourage
individuals with disabilities and those who use housing subsidies
from applying to live at NPS's properties.

The plaintiffs in the suit are represented by Joseph M. Sellers and
Brian Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

"NPS's actions constitute a blatant act of targeted discrimination
designed to deny people with disabilities and other vulnerable
communities one of their fundamental rights – fair access to
housing," said Brian Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
and a lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "Working together with our
plaintiffs, we have uncovered a culture of discrimination and
prejudice not simply limited to a few individuals, but rather one
that permeates throughout the company. We look forward to securing
justice for victims of NPS's behavior and fighting to ensure that
its discriminatory policies come to an end."

"As a result of NPS's discrimination, I was forced to move to a new
apartment far from where I receive medical treatment, jeopardizing
my ability to get transportation," said Lori Gerardi, a plaintiff
in the suit. "No one should be denied a home based on their health
status, race or use of public income, and we must hold companies
who violate these rights accountable."

NPS Property Corporation is a New York-based property management
company that owns or operates more than half a dozen apartment
buildings and residential complexes in Suffolk County, including
Holiday Square, Northwood Village, Brightwaters Garden, Lakeside
Garden Apartments, East Newbrook Gardens, South Shore Gardens,
Normandy Gardens and Monroe Gardens.

The lawsuit, filed by two Suffolk County residents, as well as Long
Island Housing Services (LIHS) and Suffolk Independent Living
Organization (SILO), alleges that NPS has engaged in a pattern of
egregious and intentional discrimination against prospective
renters on the basis of disability, source of income and race.
According to the complaint, Doreen Kernozek, a Suffolk County
resident and a named plaintiff in the suit, inquired in November
2016 about an apartment at the NPS-owned Holiday Square complex.
Kernozek suffers from a number of debilitating health issues and
participates in the Nursing Home Transition and Diversion (NHTD)
Medicaid Waiver, a housing subsidy program. The lawsuit alleges
that while initially receptive to Kernozek's application, NPS staff
reversed course upon learning of her health status and access to
subsidies, asserting she could not be approved for the apartment.
According to the suit, NPS has argued that Kernozek would not meet
the unit's income threshold for renting an apartment at Holiday
Square, despite the fact that Kernozek's income, derived from
Social Security, far exceeded the amount she was required to pay
towards rent under the NHTD subsidy.

Furthermore, over the course of their conversation, the complaint
asserts that NPS staff used derogatory language about individuals
with disabilities, telling Kernozek that these residents "bring
their own set of problems."

The amended complaint similarly outlines the experiences of Lori
Gerardi, another named plaintiff who attempted to apply for an
apartment at the NPS-owned South Shore Gardens complex. According
to the lawsuit, Gerardi, who has been approved for a Mainstream
Program housing subsidy in light of her medical conditions,
submitted an application noting her participation in the subsidy
program. Despite earning an income that was over three times the
portion of the rent that the subsidy required her to pay, the
complaint alleges NPS staff told Gerardi that the complex had
"reached its quota" for individuals using such subsidies.

In both the case of Ms. Gerardi and Ms. Kerzonek, the suit alleges
the company's application stated it could reject any candidate
whose weekly income did not equal the monthly rent for an
apartment, effectively discouraging anyone using a housing subsidy
from applying for an NPS apartment.

According to the lawsuit, these experiences echo findings by LIHS,
a fair housing advocacy organization, and SILO, which administers
state-approved grants to improve housing access for individuals
with disabilities. The complaint alleges these organizations
uncovered a wide-reaching pattern of intentional discrimination at
NPS-owned properties. The complaint states that on multiple
occasions, SILO and LIHS staff were informed by staff at NPS's
Holiday Square complex that it had "reached its quota" for
admitting tenants who rely on public assistance related to
disabilities.

Furthermore, according to the amended complaint, LIHS's
investigation into NPS's rental policies found that White
applicants at the company's Northwood Village complex were told
about upcoming availabilities and given contact information for
property representatives, while Black applicants were routinely
informed that no units were available and were directed to a
non-functional phone number for further inquiries.

The federal class action lawsuit filed today in the Eastern
District of New York alleges that NPS's actions constitute
violations of the federal Fair Housing Act and the New York State
Human Rights Law, both of which bar housing discrimination on the
basis of disability and race. Furthermore, the suit accuses NPS of
violating the Suffolk County Human Rights Law, which forbids
discriminatory housing practices on the basis of race, disability
or lawful source of income, including income through Social
Security and the use of housing subsidy programs.

The suit urges the Court to prohibit NPS from continuing to engage
in these discriminatory practices, as well as mandate that NPS make
all necessary changes to its policies to conform with federal,
state and local housing laws. It also seeks punitive damages and
compensatory relief for plaintiffs harmed by NPS's actions, as well
as other relief as deemed proper by the Court.

If you believe you have been turned away from an NPS property
because of a disability or use of housing subsidies, please contact
LIHS at 631.567.5111 ext. 312, or email Info@LIFairHousing.org.

                       About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is recognized as one of the
premier law firms in the country handling major, complex
plaintiff-side litigation. With more than 90 attorneys, Cohen
Milstein has offices in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Ill., New York,
N.Y., Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., Philadelphia, Pa. and Raleigh, N.C.
For additional information, visit www.cohenmilstein.com or call
202.408.4600.

           About Suffolk Independent Living Organization

Suffolk Independent Living Organization (SILO) is a non-profit
disability rights organization serving Suffolk County, New York and
is organized under the laws of New York. SILO's mission is to
provide programs and services to people with disabilities in
Suffolk County, and to ensure that people with disabilities have
the same rights and responsibilities as their peers who do not have
disabilities. SILO provides comprehensive services to individuals
with disabilities in communities throughout Suffolk County. As an
advocacy agency, SILO works with individuals, businesses, and other
government and private agencies to promote equal access and equal
housing opportunities for people with all disabilities. [GN]


NRA GROUP: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Isaac FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALDEAN ISAAC AND JULISSA ORTIZ, Plaintiffs, v. NRA
GROUP, LLC D/B/A NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY AND STEVEN C. KUSIC,
Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-5210 (JFB) (SIL) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Joseph F. Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (i) granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to Count 1; and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' request to
dismiss Count II.

Isaac and Ortiz bring the putative class action against NRA and
NRA's CEO, Steven C. Kusic, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  They filed the complaint on
Sept. 19, 2016.  

The Plaintiffs assert one cause of action ("Count I") against both
NRA and Kusic, alleging that debt collection letters sent by NRA to
the Plaintiffs in September 2015 misrepresented the amount of debt
that they owed in violation of FDCPA Sections 1692g and 1692e.  The
second cause of action ("Count II") alleges that both the
Defendants violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA because
the September 2015 letters falsely implied that NRA had the legal
right to collect interest and fees from plaintiffs.

In a Memorandum and Order, dated March 28, 2018, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the first
cause of action as against NRA.  In particular, it held that even
the least sophisticated consumer -- who is presumed to possess a
rudimentary amount of information about the world and a willingness
to read a collection notice with some care -- would not be misled
by the September 2015 letters.

Presently before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.  In response to the Defendants' summary judgment motion,
the Plaintiffs request that the second cause of action be
voluntarily dismissed, and the Court grants that request.  With
respect to the first cause of action, the Defendants argue that the
Court's ruling in the March 28, 2018 Memorandum and Order -- that
is, that the September 2015 Letters do not violate Section 1692e or
Section 1962g -- warrants summary judgment in their favor.

Judge Bianco agrees.  He concludes that the Defendants are entitled
to summary judgment on the only remaining cause of action because
the September 2015 Letters did not violate Section 1692e or Section
1692g as a matter of law.  The Defendants also argued, in the
alternative, that Kusic is not a debt collector within the meaning
of the FDCPA.  Given the uncontroverted evidence in the record that
Kusic had no personal involvement in connection with the collection
of the Plaintiffs' debts, the Judge concludes that Kusic cannot
have any individual liability under the FDCPA for any violations
under 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692g and 1692e.

For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the
Court's March 28, 2018 Memorandum and Order, Judge Bianco granted
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count 1.  In
addition, he granted the Plaintiffs' request to dismiss Count II.
The Clerk of the Court will enter judgment accordingly and close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/YBpXs7 from Leagle.com.

Aldean Isaac & Julissa Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Craig B.
Sanders -- csanders@sanderslawpllc.com -- Sanders Law, PLLC, David
M. Barshay, Sanders Law, PLLC, Jonathan Mark Cader --
info@aronovaassociates.com -- SANDERS LAW, PLLC & Todd D. Muhlstock
-- tmuhlstock@bakersanders.com -- The Muhlstock Law Firm PC.

NRA Group, LLC, doing business as National Recovery Agency,
Defendant, represented by Hilary Felice Korman --
hkorman@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP & Scott Evan Wortman --
swortman@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.

Steven C. Kusic, Defendant, represented by Hilary Felice Korman,
Blank Rome LLP & Scott Evan Wortman, Blank Rome LLP.


OHANA MILITARY: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Lake Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH LAKE, CRYSTAL LAKE, HAROLD BEAN, MELINDA BEAN,
KYLE PAHONA, ESTEL PAHONA, TIMOTHY MOSELEY, ASHLEY MOSELEY, RYAN
WILSON, and HEATHER WILSON, Plaintiffs, v. OHANA MILITARY
COMMUNITIES, LLC, FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC., DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-00555 LEK (D. Haw.), Judge
Leslie E. Kobayashi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why their Motion for
Class Certification should not be denied.

On March 22, 2019, the Named Plaintiffs filed their Motion.  The
Motion is currently scheduled for hearing on May 17, 2019 at 9:45
a.m.

The Judge ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why the Motion
should not be denied because their operative pleading, the First
Amended Complaint, did not provide either Defendants Ohana Military
Communities, LLC and Forest City Residential Management, LLC or the
Court with notice that they intended to pursue the instant case as
a class action.  Even if the Court construed the Motion as a motion
for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint, the Motion does not
address the applicable standards governing the amendment of a
complaint.  In particular, they must address whether allowing them
to amend the First Amended Complaint to add class allegations would
unduly delay the case and whether their failure to propose a class
action until seven months before trial demonstrates "bad faith or
dilatory motive."

The Plaintiffs are ordered to file their response to the Order to
Show Cause by April 12, 2019.  The Plaintiffs' response will not
exceed seven pages and must comply with the requirements of Local
Rule 10.2.  They're cautioned that, if their response fails to
address the issues identified in the Order to Show Cause, the
Motion will be summarily denied.

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the hearing on the Motion will
proceed as scheduled on May 17, 2019 at 9:45 a.m.  The Defendants'
memorandum in opposition will remain due by April 26, 2019.  The
memorandum in opposition must address both the Plaintiffs' Motion
and their response to the Order to Show Cause.  Unless the Court
orders otherwise, the Plaintiffs' optional reply in support of the
Motion will remain due by May 3, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QKPjWC from Leagle.com.

Kenneth Lake, Crystal Lake, Harold Bean, Melinda Bean, Kyle Pahona,
Estel Pahona, Timothy Moseley, Ashley Moseley, Ryan Wilson &
Heather Wilson, Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick Kyle Smith,
Smith Law, & Terrance M. Revere -- main@revereandassociates.com --
Revere & Associates, LLC.

Ohana Military Communities, LLC & Forest City Residential
Management, Inc., Defendants, represented by Christine A. Terada
-- cterada@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP,
Joachim P. Cox -- jcox@cfhawaii.com -- Cox Fricke A Limited
Liability Law Partnership LLP, Kamala S. Haake --
khaake@cfhawaii.com -- Cox Fricke LLP, Lisa W. Munger --
lmunger@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP &
Randall C. Whattoff  -- rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com -- Cox Fricke LLP.


PACIFIC BELL: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of Angela Rel's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA REL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES et al., Defendants and Respondents,
Case No. A152225 (Cal. App.), Judge Gordon B. Burns of the Court of
Appeals of California for the First District, Division Five,
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the proposed class action
lawsuit.

The trial court dismissed the proposed class action lawsuit because
the Plaintiffs failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure
section 583.310, which requires an action to be brought to trial
within five years after the action is commenced against the
defendant.  The main issue is whether a pretrial order dismissing
the class claims qualifies as a "trial" for purposes of the
five-year dismissal statute.  In class action lawsuits, such a
pretrial order is treated as a final judgment and is therefore
immediately appealable under the so-called death knell doctrine.  A
second issue is whether an appellate decision reversing a death
knell order triggers a three-year extension under section 583.320,
subdivision (a)(3).  Both are issues of first impression.

The operative seventh amended complaint was filed in August 2013.
According to the seventh amended complaint, Rel had not been a
subscriber since November 2004, and Cingular later discovered
Monica Hodge voluntarily changed her rate plan in mid-2014.
Cingular filed a motion to strike the class claims in the seventh
amended complaint, arguing Hodge lacked standing.  The trial court
granted the motion, and Hodge filed a second death knell appeal.

The Court reversed in Rel, concluding the trial court erred because
whether a plaintiff may obtain a particular type of relief -- such
as restitution or an injunction -- does not dictate whether a
plaintiff lacks standing to assert the underlying cause of action.
The remittitur issued on Aug. 15, 2016.

Over the last few years, the trial court repeatedly raised concerns
about the five-year dismissal statute.  In 2013, the trial court
cautioned the parties that the case would need to proceed to class
certification and ordered counsel to be ready to discuss the five
year statute end date.  The following month, it ordered the parties
to determine the time remaining for trial.

In January 2014, the parties stipulated that the Plaintiffs were
initially required to bring this action to trial by Dec. 8, 2008,
but the parties agreed to toll the deadline 2,327 days for various
reasons, including the death knell appeal in Tucker II.  They
further stipulated that the five-year statute currently expires no
earlier than April 23, 2015.  

A year later, the court again expressed concern about the five-year
statute and ordered the parties to submit letter briefs on their
view of the deadline.  Cingular calculated the deadline to be Sept.
7, 2015, which it later (following the decision in Rel) revised to
Feb. 20, 2017.  It is worth noting this last date assumes the
deadline had been tolled approximately 3,000 days.

In March 2017, Cingular moved for mandatory dismissal, arguing the
five-year statute had run on Feb. 20, 2017.  Hodge contended that
section 583.310 had no application because a "trial or partial
trial" already occurred on two separate occasions -- when the
orders appealed in Tucker II and Rel were decided.  Hodge also
argued that our decisions in Tucker II and Rel triggered a
three-year extension to bring the case to trial pursuant to section
583.320, subdivision (a)(3) and the death knell doctrine.  At
argument on the motion, Hodge's counsel conceded Cingular's
calculation of the five-year deadline but argued section 583.320,
subdivision (a)(3) applied and provided an additional three years
after the Rel remittitur.

The trial court granted Cingular's motion for mandatory dismissal,
under section 583.310, noting application of the three-year statute
following a successful interlocutory appeal under the death knell
doctrine presented an issue of first impression.

Hodge argues the five-year dismissal statute is inapplicable
because the trial court's two death knell orders were tantamount to
trials and that the decisions in Rel and Tucker II triggered a
three-year extension of the deadline.

Judge Burns finds the argument to be without merit.  First, the
rationale for the death knell doctrine does not apply to the
five-year dismissal statute.  Due to unique aspects of class
actions, the death knell doctrine was created to fix a problem
(unreviewable dispositive orders) caused by application of the
general rule (the one final judgment rule).  Second, a special rule
for death knell orders would contradict the language and structure
of the statute.  Third, unsurprisingly, the Judge sees no practical
or policy reason for an automatic extension for death knell orders.
The Judge declines Hodge's invitation to expand the definition of
a trial beyond that established by longstanding authority from our
high court.  He agrees with Cingular -- neither of the two death
knell orders was a trial under section 583.310.

The Judge also rejects Hodge's argument that our decisions
reversing the two death knell orders, in Tucker II and Rel,
triggered the three-year extension in section 583.320, subdivision
(a)(3).  He is not persuaded the Court should import the concept of
de facto final judgments from the death knell doctrine into section
583.320, subdivision (a)(3), when the plain language does not in
any way hint at such a legislative intent.  From the Court's
conclusion regarding what is a trial for purposes of section
583.310, it follows there has been no "judgment," much less a
"remand for a new trial.  Section 583.320, subdivision (a)(3), does
not apply.  The Judge holds he need not address the parties'
remaining contentions.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Burns concludes a death knell order
does not constitute a trial under the five-year dismissal statute
and an appellate decision reversing such an order does not trigger
the three-year extension. Accordingly, he affirmed the order of
dismissal.  The Respondents are entitled to their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zW4rAK from Leagle.com.

Franklin & Franklin, J. David Franklin -- jdfranklaw@san.rr.com;
Law Offices of Anthony A. Ferrigno and Anthony A. Ferrigno for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Drinker Biddle & Reath, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld, Michael
J. Stortz -- mstortz@akingump.com -- and Matthew J. Adler --
matthew.adler@dbr.com -- for Defendants and Respondents.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Biganini Files FDCPA Suit in New York Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Silvio Biganini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01174, (E.D. N.Y., February 28, 2019)
seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies, resulting
from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio allegedly failed to provide Biganini notices needed for
him to resolve his alleged debt for his debt originally owed to
Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. for a consumer credit card.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company that acts as a debt collector. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Mauro, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
      306 McCall Ave.
      West Islip, NY 11795
      Tel: (631) 669-0921
      Fax: (631) 669-5071


POWERCOMM HOLDINGS: Oral Argument in Randolph Suit on May 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
PowerComm Holdings 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 U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit has set May 8, 2019, to hear oral argument
on the issue on the award of attorney's fees in the class action
suit initiated by Gregory Randolph.

In April 2014, Gregory Randolph, a former employee of the Company
filed a Class Action Labor Lawsuit against the Company in the
Maryland Federal District Court. The lawsuit alleged that he and 48
other flaggers of the Company were not paid overtime pay which in
Maryland is time and a half.

The Company asserted that Mr. Randolph's testimony as to the amount
of hours he worked was completely false and that he was correctly
paid for the hours he worked per his time slips. As of December
2015, the Company has offered $100,000 to settle the case, which
the Court subsequently approved after having conducted a fairness
hearing.

The Company accrued contingent loss of $100,000 during the year
ended December 31, 2014. No additional contingent liability was
accrued during the year ended December 31, 2015. On April 28, 2016,
as stated, the settlement agreement was approved by the Court and
judgment for plaintiffs was entered in the amount of $100,000.

On April 29, 2016, the Company made payments to plaintiffs in the
total amount of $100,000. On November 21, 2016, the Court ordered
that the plaintiffs' revised petition for award of attorneys' fees
and costs was granted, and that the Company is responsible for
payment of $188,616, payable in 24 installments starting December
2, 2016.

In 2017, the Company appealed the attorney fee award to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ("4th Circuit"). On
October 31, 2017 the 4th Circuit ruled in the Company's favor and
reversed and remanded the attorney fee award back to the trial
court as excessive.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company had paid approximately
$86,000. Based on the 4th Circuit's reversal and remand, the
accrual of the remaining prior amounts recorded was reversed, and
the Company believes that its payments made through December 31,
2017 to be sufficient under the 4th Circuit's instructions provided
in the remand back to the trial court.

Recently, on June 1, 2018, and based on the 4th Circuit's remand,
the trial court issued a ruling which reduced the attorney fee
award by approximately $6,000. Subsequently, in 2018, the Company
asserts that the trial court's ruling is erroneous, as the
reduction should have been far greater, and appealed again to the
4th Circuit (the second appeal).

Presently, the parties have completed briefing to the 4th Circuit
on the second appeal, and the 4th Circuit has set a date of May 8,
2019 to hear oral argument. A ruling from the 4th Circuit on the
second appeal will be made subsequent to the May 2019 oral
argument.

PowerComm Holdings Inc., through its subsidiary, PowerComm
Construction, Inc., engages in the electric utility, fiber optic,
and telecommunications construction and maintenance services
businesses in the United States. The company was formerly known as
White Grotto Acquisition Corporation and changed its name to
PowerComm Holdings, Inc. in September 2015. The company was
incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia.


PRESS ENERGY: Burdett Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Cory Burdett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Press Energy Services, LLC, Paul M. Palyu,
and KJP Transportation, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00054 (W.D.
Tex., February 27, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages and all other available remedies under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Press Energy Services and KJP Transportation are full service field
service providers in the energy industry providing short-haul
trucking services, hauling produced water, fresh water, brine
water, blowback water, mud, cuttings and chemicals from oil wells.
Burdett is employed or jointly employed by the Defendants as a
crude oil tanker driver. He claims to be misclassified as an
independent contractor thus denied overtime compensation hour
rendered in excess of 40 per week.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Borsellino, Esq.
     Borsellino, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Tel: 817.908.9861
     Fax: 817.394.2412
     Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Gerbie TCPA Action in Illinois Ends
-----------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, 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 case
entitled, Gerbie, et al. v. Professional Diversity Network, Inc.,
has been concluded.

The Company is a party to a proceeding captioned Gerbie, et al. v.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. (N.D. Ill.), a putative class
action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

A settlement has been reached and case has been dismissed by the
court.

The Company believes that its practices and procedures were
compliant with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and admitted
no fault.

Professional Diversity Network, Inc. operates online professional
networking communities with career resources in the United States.
The company operates through three segments: Professional Diversity
Network, National Association of Professional Women, and Noble
Voice Operations. The company was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Professional Diversity Network,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Cosmic Forward Limited.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Class in Martinez-Santiago TCCWNA Suit Decertified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACKELINE MARTINEZ-SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself and
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC STORAGE,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-cv-302 (JBS-AMD) (D. N.J.), Judge
Jerome B. Simandle of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion for decertification.

The case is a certified class action lawsuit concerning alleged
violations of New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty,
and Notice Act ("TCCWNA").  Plaintiff Martinez-Santiago, on behalf
of herself and all similarly situated individuals, generally
alleges that Defendant Public Storage violated TCCWNA with respect
to four provisions within the rental agreements that were
previously used in its lease of private storage spaces to consumers
in New Jersey.

The class, as certified, consists of approximately 160,000 members
defined as follows: All natural persons who since Sept. 7, 2007
entered into lease agreements with Defendant in the State of New
Jersey.  The Plaintiff seeks at least the minimum $100 statutory
penalty under TCCWNA for each class member.

Currently pending before the Court are the Defendant's motions to
decertify the class, and for summary judgment, as well as the
Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and motion
to preclude testimony of Ronald Schaible.  The Court heard oral
argument on these motions on Sept. 6, 2017.

Shortly thereafter, however, the Court was persuaded to temporarily
stay the action pending judgment of the Third Circuit in two
consolidated TCCWNA consumer contract cases, Spade v. Select
Comfort Corp., No. 16-1558 (3d Cir.) and Wenger v. Bob's Discount
Furniture, No.16-1558 (3d Cir.), wherein the Third Circuit
certified the following question of state law to the New Jersey
Supreme Court: "Is a consumer who receives a contract that does not
comply with the Furniture Delivery Regulations, but has not
suffered any adverse consequences from the noncompliance, an
'aggrieved consumer' under the TCCWNA?" The New Jersey Supreme
Court has since answered that question with a resounding "no,"
holding that in the absence of evidence that the consumer suffered
adverse consequences as a result of the Defendant's regulatory
violation, a consumer is not an `aggrieved consumer' for purposes
of the TCCWNA.

The principal issues to be determined at this stage are whether the
Plaintiff and the class can satisfy Article III's standing
requirements and, if so, whether the class should remain certified
following the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Spade.

Judge Simandle concludes that the named Plaintiff, who undoubtedly
suffered a "concrete" injury, has standing under Article III to
bring suit on behalf of absent class members, but nevertheless
finds that the certified class no longer satisfies the requirements
of Rule 23, FED. R. CIV. P., in light of the New Jersey Supreme
Court's holding in Spade which, when applied, determines that at
least 99.98% of the class will be unable to state a TCCWNA claim,
as a matter of New Jersey law.  Accordingly, the Court granted the
Defendant's motion for decertification.

Because the litigation landscape has changed from some 160,000
members of the class to just one Plaintiff, it would be imprudent
to address remaining motions that addressed themselves to a much
different set of issues.  Accordingly, the remaining motions are
dismissed without prejudice.  The counsel will meet and confer and,
within 14 days, file a joint-proposal regarding how they wish to
proceed with the remaining claims of Martinez-Santiago, if any.  An
accompanying Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/77FuZh from Leagle.com.

JACKELINE MARTINEZ-SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW P. BELL, LOCKS
LAW FIRM LLC, CHARLES N. RILEY -- criley@rileysandilos.com -- RILEY
& SHAINE, JAMES A. BARRY -- jbarry@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM
LLC & MICHAEL A. GALPERN -- mgalpern@lockslaw.com -- JAVERBAUM
WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM &SININS.

PUBLIC STORAGE, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM PATRICK REILEY --
REILEYWBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR & CASEY GENE WATKINS --
watkinsc@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vecchio Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action captioned MARIA VECCHIO, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Quest
Diagnostics Inc., ExamOne World Wide, Inc. and  ExamOne LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 652069/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., New York Cty.,
April 9, 2019) seeks remedy from alleged violations of the
Defendants of New York state law, specifically New York Labor Law,
("NY Labor Law").

Plaintiff and the class she seeks to represent are Mobile Examiners
who visit patients (most commonly insurance applicants) at their
homes or places of business, and conduct physical examinations and
basic lab work for the purposes of insurance and benefits
eligibility and underwriting.

Mobile Examiners also routinely work more than ten hours per day
and more than 40 hours per week, but do not receive any overtime
compensation or spread-of-hours pay. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants regularly and routinely failed to pay minimum wage, fail
to pay overtime, fail to pay spread-of-hours pay, fail to reimburse
for necessary business expenses, and fail to accurately calculate
hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as Mobile Examiners,
and/or serve(d) as an Independent Contractor providing services as
Mobile Examiners.

Quest Diagnostics is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Danielle J. Marlow, Esq.
     Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
     360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 397-1000
     Fax: (646) 843-7603
     Email: dmarlow@napolilaw.com
            sbadala@napolilaw.com


REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP  ("GPM") on March 27 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bishop v.
Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. et al., (Case No.
1:19-cv-02722), on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
RVLT ) ("Revolution" or the "Company") securities between March 14,
2014, and November 14, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On September 22, 2017, the Company reduced its 2017 full year
revenue guidance to a range of $180 - 185 million, compared to
prior guidance of $195 to 205 million, due in part to "slippage of
a number of Energy Source division projects." On this news, the
Company's share price fell $1.32 per share, or more than 17%, to
close at $6.26 per share on September 22, 2017, thereby injuring
investors.

On August 2, 2018, the Company reported second quarter 2018 revenue
of $36.5 million, which fell below expectations, reportedly due to
project delays. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.53
per share, or nearly 14%, to close at $3.37 per share on August 2,
2018, on unusually high trading volume. The Company's shares
continued to decline over the course of the next two trading
sessions, dropping $0.33 per share on August 3, 2018 and $0.22 per
share on August 6, 2018. The total decline over the course of these
two trading sessions was $0.55, or 18%, thereby further injuring
investors.

On October 17, 2018, Revolution announced that revenue for the
third quarter of 2018 would be $33 million, compared to previous
guidance of $40-$41 million, and that the Chief Executive Officer
had offered to acquire all of the Company's common stock at a price
of $2.00 per share. On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$0.98 per share, or over 38%, to close at $1.58 per share on
October 17, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume, thereby
further injuring investors.

Then, on October 19, 2018, the Company disclosed an ongoing SEC
investigation regarding revenue recognized from transactions
between 2014 through the second quarter of 2018. The Company
estimated that the net effect on the reported revenue based on
shipment of products, as opposed to the Company's policy of bill
and hold revenue recognition, "would have been to reduce revenue by
$5.0 million, $6.3 million and $6.3 million in each of 2014, 2015
and 2016, respectively, and increase revenue by $11.6 million and
$5.1 million in 2017 and 2018, respectively." On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $0.16 per share, or over 10%, to close
at $1.43 per share on October 22, 2018, on unusually heavy trading
volume, thereby further injuring investors.

On November 14, 2018, the Company announced that its CEO had
reduced his offer to $1.50 per share, partly due to the SEC
investigation and the Audit Committee's recently-announced review
of the Company's revenue recognition of bill and hold transactions.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.55 per share, or
nearly 40%, to close at $0.85 per share on November 15, 2018, on
unusually heavy trading volume, thereby further injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was improperly
recognizing revenue for certain transactions; (2) that, as a
result, the Company's financial statements were misstated; (3) that
the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; (4) that, as a result, Company would be subject to
regulatory scrutiny and incur substantial costs; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Revolution securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than  April 1, 2019  to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to  shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at  www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]


ROYAL BANK: Freddie Mac Appeals Judgment in N.J. Carpenters Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed an appeal from the
District Court's judgment issued on March 13, 2019, in the lawsuit
titled New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group PLC, et al., Case No. 08-cv-5310, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as New Jersey Carpenters Health
Fund v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, et al., Case No.
19-795, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Freddie Mac
filed an appeal from a District Court order dated September 14,
2017.  That appellate case is entitled New Jersey Carpenters Health
Fund v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, et al., Case No.
17-2859.[BN]

Appellant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is represented
by:

          Christopher P. Johnson, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH, PC
          1 Bryant Park
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 402-9416
          E-mail: cpjohnson@mckoolsmith.com

Plaintiff-Appellee New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Christopher Lometti, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: clometti@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants-Appellees The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC,
Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., DBA RBS Greenwich Capital,
Deutsche Bank Securities Incorporated, Greenwich Capital Holdings,
Inc., RBS Securities Inc., Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, FKA Wachovia
Securities LLC and Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC, sued herein as
Wachovia Securities, LLC, are represented by:

          James Gaal Gamble, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: jgamble@stblaw.com

Defendants-Appellees NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series
2006-3; NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-4; NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-5; NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Trust, Series 2006-6; NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series
2007-1; NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-2; Novastar
Mortgage Funding Corporation; Novastar Mortgage Incorporated; Scott
F. Hartman; Gregory S. Metz; W. Lance Anderson; and Mark A. Herpich
are represented by:

          William F. Alderman, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          The Orrick Building
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 773-5944
          E-mail: walderman@orrick.com


RUANE CUNIFF: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Ferguson ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL L. FERGUSON, MYRL C. JEFFCOAT, and DEBORAH
SMITH, on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING
PLAN, Plaintiffs, v. RUANE CUNIFF & GOLDFARB INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06685 (ALC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Andrew L.
Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Souther District of New
York denied the motion to intervene filed by Stephanie Ostrander
and her counsel as the Putative Class Representative, or, in the
alternative, on behalf of herself, invoking intervention of right,
or, alternatively, permissive intervention under Federal Rule 24.

The Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, bring the action under 29
U.S.C. Section 1132 against Ruane Cuniff & Goldfarb Inc. ("RCG");
DST Systems, Inc.; The Plan's Advisory Committee; and the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems,
Inc., for breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") on Sept. 1, 2017.


On Nov. 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  On
Dec. 1, 2017, they filed a Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan Report.  On
Dec. 29, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' letter motion
requesting a pre-motion conference for their anticipated motion to
dismiss, and RCG filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint.  On Nov.
5, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC")
and Defendants Moved to Dismiss all claims and allegations
concerning the 401(k) portion of the Plan on Dec. 14, 2018.  Before
these recent filings, the existing parties attributed the lack of
dispositive motions to their active settlement discussions and
Department of Labor ("DOL") participation.

On Sept. 7, 2017, Ostrander filed a putative class action against
DST Defendants and RCG relating to the Plan in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri -- Ostrander v. DST
Systems, Inc., et al., No. 4:17-cv-00747-BCW (W.D. Mo.).  On Sept.
18, 2017, Ostrander moved to consolidate Ostrander with DuCharme v.
DST Systems, Inc., an action previously brought by Ostrander's
counsel in the Western District and dismissed over two months
earlier.  Ostrander admitted that the purpose of her Consolidation
Motion was to maintain the claims originally asserted in DuCharme
on behalf of the Plan in Kansas City as the first filed case
number, ahead of the Ferguson case filed in New York.

On Oct. 17, 2017, RCG and the DST Defendants filed Motions to
Dismiss or Stay Ostrander in favor of Ferguson pursuant to the
first-filed rule.  On Feb. 2, 2018, the Western District dismissed
Ostrander pursuant to the first-filed rule.  The court considered
Ostrander and Ferguson parallel actions because they both alleged
claims on behalf of the Plan and Ferguson alleges claims against
the same defendants, arising from the same conduct and
circumstances.

On July 23, 2018, Ostrander and her counsel moved to intervene in
the present action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, arguing they
meet the requirements for intervention as a matter of right and
permissive intervention.  She argues intervention is not
prejudicial at this very early juncture and allows her to pursue
protections and procedural mechanisms ensuring all participants
interests, including her individual interests, are adequately
protected. The existing parties argue the Court should not allow
Ostrander to intervene because the motion is untimely, and
Ostrander's interests are adequately protected.

As indicated in her Consolidation Motion, Ostrander was aware in
September 2017 that her interests were directly at issue in
Ferguson.  Thus, Judge Carter finds that Ostrander's Motion to
Intervene nine months after having both constructive and actual
notice of her interests in Ferguson is untimely.  Courts have found
shorter delays untimely.

Next, the Judge finds that despite the recent dispositive motions
seeking to dismiss certain claims in the SAC, the Parties' are
engaged in resolving the matter as seen through settlement
discussions and numerous mediation sessions.  Granting Ostrander's
Motion to Intervene may complicate and delay litigation as well as
any settlement by adding plaintiffs and the counsel seeking to
recover for the same allegations.  Ostrander fails to demonstrate
how intervention will not prejudice the existing parties' interests
and prevent the the potential for undermining the settlement
process.

He also finds that Ostrander has not made a rigorous showing of
inadequacy to overcome the presumption that the Plaintiffs
adequately represent Ostrander's interests, and has thus failed to
prove her right to intervene under Rule 24(a).  

Finally, the Judge finds that Ostrander has failed to provide the
Court with any compelling reasons to permit intervention.  Her
intervention may prejudice the existing parties and her interests
are adequately represented.  Furthermore, the motion's severe
untimeliness prevents the Court from inferring intervention would
not unduly complicate and further delay the litigation.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Carter denied Ostrander's motion
to intervene.  The Judge has considered all arguments raised by the
parties.  To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments
are either moot or without merit.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/rcTy21 from Leagle.com.

Michael L. Ferguson, Myrl C. Jeffcoat & Deborah Smith, on behalf of
the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Plaintiffs,
represented by Chiharu Gina Sekino -- csekino@sfmslaw.com --
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, James Edward Miller --
jmiller@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP,
Kolin C. Tang -- ktang@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLC, Monique Olivier, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP,
pro hac vice, Nathan C. Zipperian, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLP, Ronald Scott Kravitz, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLP & Laurie Rubinow -- lrubinow@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC.

Ruane Cuniff & Goldfarb Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank
Walter Olander -- frank.olander@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel
LLP, Robert J. Ward -- robert.ward@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel
LLP & Ronald E. Richman -- ronald.richman@srz.com -- Schulte Roth &
Zabel LLP.

DST Systems, Inc., The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc.
401(K) Profit Sharing Plan & The Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Scott D. Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
Alexander C. Drylewski, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
James R. Carroll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L.L.P. &
Michael S. Hines, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Stephanie Ostrander, individually and as representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B. Katz, Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP & Andrew Schermerhorn,
The Klamann Law Firm, pro hac vice.


SAGAL FILBERT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jackson FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRYSTAL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. STUART L. SAGAL, et
al., Defendants, Civil Case No. GLR-18-495 (D. Md.), Judge George
L. Russell, III of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Hearing.

The putative class action arises from a debt collection dispute
between SFQB, a law firm representing The Maryland Management Co.
("MMC"), and Plaintiff Jackson, a former MMC lessee.  From 2009
until 2010, Jackson and her husband lived in a property MMC
managed.  After wearying of various living conditions on and around
the property, Jackson ultimately gave MMC 60 days' advance notice,
and then moved out.

In 2014, SFQB, on behalf of MMC, sued Jackson in the District Court
of Maryland for Baltimore City for owed rent, late fees, court
costs, utilities, and attorney's fees.  The court awarded judgment
for SFQB but did not award attorney's fees.  On Aug. 15, 2017, the
judgment was vacated, and the lawsuit was dismissed in response to
a class-action settlement in another case, Claiborne v. The
Maryland Management Co., 24-C-16-004505 (Circ. Ct. Balt. City filed
Aug. 11, 2016).

On Oct. 26, 2017, Sagal sent Jackson a collection letter on SFQB
letterhead that stated she owed, $1253.58 plus attorney fees of
$188.03 and interest.  The Letter also stated that unless suitable
arrangements are made to liquidate the indebtedness, they will have
no alternative but to instigate legal proceedings.  Such action
will require additional cost and expense to Jackson as well as the
inconvenience of appearing at the trial of the case.

On Feb. 16, 2018, Jackson filed three-count Class Action Complaint
for Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against
the Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  She alleges that the Defendants' Letter
falsely stated that she: owed attorney's fees when no fees were due
(Count I); would inevitably owe additional costs and expenses if
she were sued (Count II); and would be forced to attend court in
person if she were sued.  Jackson seeks compensatory damages,
statutory damages, and attorney's fees.

On March 30, 2018, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, or
in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for
Hearing.  On April 19, 2018, Jackson filed an Opposition.

The Defendants argue that the statements in the Letter regarding
attorney's fees, additional cost, and appearance at trial were not
false, deceptive, or misleading under the FDCPA.  Alternatively,
they contend that the statements are immaterial, and therefore, not
actionable.  Jackson counters that the statements in the Letter
regarding attorney's fees, additional cost, and appearance at trial
are false, deceptive, or misleading under to the FDCPA and are also
material.

Judge Russell finds that Jackson's Rule 56(d) affidavit
sufficiently establishes that discovery is necessary.  As a result,
he will not convert the Motion and will construe it as a motion to
dismiss.

Next, the Judge finds that Jackson plausibly pleads a violation of
the FDCPA related to the Letter's demand for attorney's fees.  The
least sophisticated consumer would reasonably face confusion when
deciding how to respond to the Letter.  As a result, such a demand
for attorney's fees is material to the least sophisticated
consumer.  Accordingly, he will deny the Motion as to Count I.

He also finds that Jackson plausibly alleges the statement about
additional cost and expense is false, deceptive, or misleading and
that it is material in violation of the FDCPA.  The Letter's
statements would likely lead the least sophisticated consumer to
understand that legal action was unavoidable and would require
"additional cost and expense."  Accordingly, he will deny the
Motion as to Count II.

As to Count III, the Judge finds that Jackson plausibly alleges an
FDCPA violation related to the statement regarding attendance at
trial. The fact that no suit was filed at the time of the Letter is
irrelevant to the least sophisticated consumer's decision-making
process.  Such language signifies to the least sophisticated
consumer to pay the amount demanded before suit or be forced to
appear in court.  Accordingly, he will deny the Defendants' Motion
as to Count III of the Complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Russell denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary
Judgment and Request for Hearing, construed as a motion to dismiss.
A separate Order follows.

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

Crystal Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emanwel Josef Turnbull --
eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com -- The Holland Law Firm PC, Peter A.
Holland -- peter@hollandlawfirm.com -- The Holland Law Firm PC &
Scott C. Borison -- Borison@legglaw.com -- Legg Law Firm LLP.

Stuart L. Sagal, Defendant, represented by Shirlie Norris Lake --
lake@ewmd.com -- Eccleston and Wolf PC.

Sagal, Filbert, Quasney & Betten, P.A., Defendant, pro se.


SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Pays $190,000 in Bedingfield Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Science Applications International Corporation said in its Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on
April 18, 2019, that the company has agreed to pay $190,000 to
plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full
satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the
Jason Perlow v. Robert A. Bedingfield, et al., class suit.

On September 9, 2018, Science Applications International
Corporation ("SAIC" or "the Company") and Engility Holdings, Inc.
("Engility") entered into a merger agreement pursuant to which SAIC
would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Engility common
stock in an all-stock transaction for total consideration of
approximately $2.5 billion, and assume $900 million of Engility's
debt (the "Merger").

On October 18, 2018, the Company filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") a Registration Statement on Form S-4,
which also served as the joint proxy statement, to solicit votes in
favor of the Merger and approve the issuance of common stock of
SAIC for the purposes of the transaction.

On October 31, 2018, the members of the company's board of
directors were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class
action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") by one
of the company's stockholders.

The suit is captioned Jason Perlow v. Robert A. Bedingfield, et
al., C.A. No. 2018-0785-AGB.

The complaint alleged that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and/or disclosure by
failing to disclose to the Company's stockholders all material
information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the
Company's proposal to issue common stock in connection with the
Merger. Among other remedies, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the
Merger and to hold the Company's directors liable for allegedly
breaching their fiduciary duties.

After the complaint was filed, the company determined to include
additional disclosures in the Form S-4/A filed by the Company with
the SEC on December 3, 2018, to moot plaintiff's claims. On
December 5, 2018, the Court approved a stipulation under which the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to
himself only, but without prejudice as to any other putative class
member.

The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff's counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in
connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the
December 3, 2018 Form S-4/A.

The Company subsequently agreed to pay $190,000 to plaintiff's
counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. The Court
has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the
payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.

Science Applications International Corporation provides technical,
engineering, and enterprise information technology (IT) services
primarily in the United States. Science Applications International
Corporation was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Reston,
Virginia.


SOULJA BOY: Fans Mull Class Action Over Unfilled Web Store Orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ny Magee, writing for The Grio, reports that some of Soulja Boy‘s
fans are considering filing a class action lawsuit against the
rapper after waiting about four months to receive their
SouljaWatches and other online purchases.

The products have been steeped in controversy since they were
unveiled in December at Soulja's web store. Fans were quick to
point out that there was nothing unique about the items, as each
were allegedly inferior electronics, available on other websites
for lower prices, Complex reported.

Multiple customers noted in the emails that there's a possibility a
class-action lawsuit could be filed over the matter, the report
no.ted

The "Crank That" rapper then pulled his SouljaGame console from
souljawatch.com following rumors of a lawsuit from Nintendo.

Despite the setbacks, fans were assured that all orders would be
delivered. But when mid-January rolled around and the items still
had not shipped, Soulja Boy told Complex that his team fell behind
schedule when they received more orders than expected.

At the same time, his site, souljawatch.com, was taken offline. He
tweeted. "My ex-cameraman hacked my site and took it down." He then
launched a new site called souljastore.com.

Orders still haven't been fulfilled. And Complex reports that
customer service emails about refunds aren't being answered by
Soulja or his team. The story sparked a flurry of emails from folks
who purchased products and have yet to receive them.

"My 13-year-old son asked me to order a SouljaWatch for him on my
debit card," a customer named Temeisha wrote. "We have yet to
receive any watch! My son is still holding on to hope that maybe
it'll just take a while. I have no faith that he will ever receive
it."

Another fan purchased a SouljaWatch for his mother for Christmas
and he's still waiting for it to arrive.

"I purchased four smart watches for my nieces," a customer named
Raymond Thiefault wrote."They keep asking me REPEATEDLY over and
over for their watches! I'm a disappointed customer and deserve
full refund."

In a second email, he adds, "What will you do about this? I don't
want to file a claim report."

Soulja Boy, meanwhile, hasn't offered any updates about the status
of orders since January. However, he continues to encourage fans to
buy products from his e-store. [GN]


SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Amaraut Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Amaraut, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sprint/United Management Company,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00411 (S.D. Cal., February 28, 2019),
seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest
thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due to
terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California labor laws and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

Plaintiff is a former non-exempt, hourly employee who worked in a
salesperson role at a Sprint retail stores in San Diego selling
cellular phones, phone accessories, service plans and other
products and services. He claims overtime for pre-shift and post
shift duties, off-the-clock work and compensation for missed rest
periods. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Tel: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
            dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com


STAMPS.COM INC: Grabisch Hits Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
Alan Grabisch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stamps.Com, Inc., Kenneth McBride, Kyle
Huebner and Jeff Carberry, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01497 (C.D.
Cal., February 28, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Stamps.com is a provider of Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States operating under the Stamps.com and
Endicia brands and utilize the United States Postal Service (USPS)
services. Stamps.com shares trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker
symbol "STMP."

Plaintiffs, a STMP shareholder, allege that Stamps failed to
disclose that its financial results depended on the manipulation of
a USPS program that cost USPS an estimated $235 million per year
and that its business was unsustainable and its financial results
were highly misleading. On this news, the company's stock plummeted
to a close price of $83.65 on February 21, 2019, a decline of over
57% from the previous close price of $198.08. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-4565
      Fax: (619) 233-0508
      Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

             - and -

      Thomas L. Laughlin IV, Esq.
      Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Helmsley Building
      230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10169
      Tel: (212) 223-6444
      Fax: (212) 223-6334
      Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
             rswartz@scott-scott.com


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Admissions Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
the recent discovery of bribing scandals involving wealthy parents
and prestigious educational institutions has had a new development
as students have filed a lawsuit against the institutions over
allegations that the admissions process was unfair.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 13 by Stanford University student
Erica Olsen and Kalea Woods, who applied to the same universities
that have been involved in bribery and claim that they are owed
their admissions fees back since they never had a shot at getting
in. Defendants in the proposed class action suit include the
University of Texas at Austin, Georgetown University, The
University of Southern California and Stanford University.

Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy commented on this lawsuit and her
opinion of the students' argument.

"I cannot wait for this lawsuit to get smacked out of court. It's
ridiculous," Stone told The Northern California Record. "The whole
scandal is shocking and horrible, and I'm personally glad that the
FBI is going after the wrongdoers and is going to prosecute them
criminally to the full extent of the law -- which is fully
appropriate -- but the idea that tens of thousands of students who
were rejected from those schools suffered a harm that deserves to
be compensated is ridiculous."

Stone said that there were originally two named plaintiffs in the
lawsuit but that one has dropped out, the remaining named plaintiff
was rejected from a university and is seeking reimbursement from
that university. However, the plaintiff was accepted into another
university which is just as prestigious if not more so than the one
she was rejected from.

"The funny thing is, though, that she got into Stanford, which
isn't exactly a subpar institution. It's going to be hard for her
to have any credible damages," Stone said. "The complaint also
alleges that the degree from Stanford is somehow going to be worth
less than it would have been prior to the scandal because everybody
is going to think that she came from a rich family that bribed
somebody to get her in, which is laughable."

While Stone believes that wealthy families often have unfair
advantages over poorer families, she does not believe that a class
action lawsuit is the appropriate way to seek justice.

"Remedying that injustice through a class action lawsuit does not
make sense. When a student applies to college and pays the
application fee to apply, that is not a down payment or a purchase
of a ticket, that is more analogous to a lotto ticket: you are
paying for the chance of getting in, no matter what your SAT
scores, or grades or extracurricular activities are, there is no
guarantee of getting in," Stone said. [GN]


STICKY'S HOLDINGS: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Martinez, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Sticky's Holdings LLC
d/b/a Sticky's The Finger Joint, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02057
(E.D. N.Y., April 9, 2019) is a civil rights action brought against
Sticky's for  failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Sticky's provides to their non-disabled customers through
http//:www.Stickys.com. The Defendant' denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), says the complaint.

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

Defendant Sticky's Holdings LLC operates Sticky's Restaurants which
are located in New York City and provide food and beverage
items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
     44 Court St., Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555


SUNNIVA INC: Faces Class Action Over NHS EMR Privacy Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to CISOMAG, Sunniva Inc. recently reported that it has
been named in a class action lawsuit, along with its wholly owned
subsidiary, Natural Health Services Ltd. ("NHS"), in connection
with a privacy breach of the Electronic Medical Record ("EMR")
system used by NHS.

Sunniva and NHS will defend this action.

NHS identified that there was a data breach in the EMR system
between December 4, 2018 and January 7, 2019, during which period
NHS records containing personal health information of approximately
34,000 patients were accessed without authorization. The breach did
not involve any financial, credit card or social insurance number
information as NHS does not collect that information from its
patients.

NHS has been working with privacy protection and law enforcement
authorities to investigate and respond to this breach.

NHS has notified the patients whose data was accessed, provided
details about the breach and its investigation to date, and
guidance for other steps that patients can take to protect
themselves. NHS has established its own dedicated hotline to field
patient inquiries at 1-888-297-0573.

NHS has taken the following steps to protect personal health
information in its care from further harm or similar
circumstances:

   -- initiated a privacy investigation, with an independent
third-party consulting firm which specializes in cyber security
forensic services; and

   -- addressed operational and technology updates triggered by the
incident to improve the protection of patient personal health
information.

"We value our patients and understand the importance of protecting
personal information and apologize to the patients whose personal
information has been improperly accessed and for any frustration or
inconvenience that this may cause," said Dr. Mark Kimmins,
President of NHS. "We are taking this situation very seriously and
are taking the necessary steps to prevent a situation like this
from happening again. In addition, we are working with law
enforcement and the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner of Alberta to investigate this matter." [GN]


T-MOBILE NORTHEAST: Bid to Remand Edoff Data Breach Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD EDOFF, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE NORTHEAST LLC, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-18-3777 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen
L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denied Edoff's request for remand to State court.

On Oct. 5, 2018, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Edoff
filed a class action suit against Defendants T-Mobile Northeast LLC
and T-Mobile USA, Inc.  The Complaint assert that in August of
2019, unknown persons gained unauthorized access to T-Mobile's
servers, and took personal information of some 2.5 million
consumers from the same servers.  According to the Plaintiff,
reasonable security measures would have prevented the Data Breach.

Edoff brings the action on behalf of himself and all individuals in
the State of Maryland that were then cellular communication and or
data service subscribers of the Defendants' cellular communication
and or data services whose Personal Information was accessed
without authorization in August of 2018.  The Complaint estimates
that the Maryland Class may consist of tens of thousands of
members.  Edoff asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000, and he seeks monetary damages to the maximum extent
permitted by law, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On Dec. 7, 2018, T-Mobile timely removed the case to federal court.
The Notice alleges subject matter jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Pursuant to Section 1332(d),
T-Mobile explained in its Notice that the Court has jurisdiction
under CAFA because: (1) it is a class action brought by one or more
representative persons; (2) the number of proposed class members
exceeds 100 persons; (3) the action satisfies minimum diversity
requirements; and (4) "the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million, excluding interests and costs.

In an Order of Dec. 13, 2018, Judge Hollander asked the defense
counsel to clarify the basis for jurisdiction under CAFA.  T-Mobile
submitted a memorandum and the affidavit of Christopher Muzio, a
T-Mobile analyst and custodian of records.  

Edoff also filed a memorandum and an affidavit, requesting that the
Court remands the case to State court and award attorneys' fees and
costs.  He contends that T-Mobile has not adequately shown that the
amount in controversy exceeds the threshold amount of $5 million.

Judge Hollander finds that the Defendants plausibly allege that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.  They submitted the
Declaration of Christopher Muzio, who attests that the data breach
potentially impacted approximately 15,280 Maryland residents.  And,
the Plaintiffs seek statutory damages of $1,000 "per first-time
violation."  Therefore, the amount in controversy is well over $5
million (15,280 x $1,000 = $15,280,000).  As such, T-Mobile has
presented a reasonable basis to support its assertion as to the
amount in controversy.

In addition, the Judge finds that T-Mobile Northeast is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business in
Delaware.  Moreover, T-Mobile USA is the sole member of T-Mobile
Northeast and is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of Washington.  As such, none of the
Defendants in the case are citizens of Maryland, the state in which
the action was originally filed.  Upon review of the submissions of
the parties, she concludes that T-Mobile has demonstrated that
federal jurisdiction is proper.

For these reasons, Judge Hollander denied Edoff's request for
remand.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff may respond in opposition to
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration by April 19, 2019.
And, the Defendants may reply by May 3, 2019.  An Order follows,
consistent with the Memorandum.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/csIfTl from Leagle.com.

Chad Edoff, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua G. Whitaker --
help@adelphilaw.com -- Adelphi LLP.

T-Mobile Northeast LLC & T-Mobile USA, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Brian D. Frey -- brian.frey@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird LLP, Derin Bronson Dickerson -- derin.dickerson@alston.com --
Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Kristine McAlister Brown --
kristy.brown@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice & Mia
L. Falzarano -- mia.falzarano@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP,
pro hac vice


TERNIUM SA: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due May 15
-----------------------------------------------------
Ternium S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated amended
complaint in the class action suit pending before the Eastern
District of New York is due on May 15, 2019.

The Company is aware that, following its November 27, 2018
announcement that its chairman Paolo Rocca was included in an
Argentine court investigation known as the Notebooks Case, a
putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of Ternium securities from May 1, 2014 through November
27, 2018.

The individual defendants named in the complaint are the company's
chairman, its former CEO, its current CEO and its CFO. That
complaint alleges that during the class period (May 2014-November
2018), the Company and the individual defendants inflated the price
of Ternium's American Depositary Shares (ADSs) by failing to
disclose that sale proceeds received by Ternium when Sidor was
expropriated by Venezuela were received or expedited as a result of
alleged improper payments made to Argentine officials. The
complaint does not specify the damages that plaintiff is seeking.

In accordance with a schedule agreed upon between the parties and
ordered by the court, the plaintiff is expected to file a
consolidated amended complaint by May 15, 2019, and the Company's
response to the amended complaint will be due by July 15, 2019.

Ternium said, "Management believes the Company has meritorious
defenses to these claims; however, at this stage the Company cannot
predict the outcome of the claim or the amount or range of loss in
case of an unfavorable outcome."

Ternium S.A., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and processes
various steel products in Mexico, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile,
Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, the United States, Colombia, Guatemala,
Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. It operates in
two segments, Steel and Mining. Ternium S.A. was founded in 1961
and is based in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. Ternium S.A. is a
subsidiary of Techint Holdings S.a r.l.


TESLA INC: Srinivasan Appeals Ruling in Wochos Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Uppili Srinivasan and Kurt Friedman filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Gregory Wochos, et al. v.
Tesla, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05828-CRB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
claim that Tesla made certain alleged misstatements regarding its
Model 3 vehicle in May and August 2017.  Judge Charles R. Breyer
dismissed the claims in the case without prejudice in light of the
Plaintiffs' failure to plead any false or misleading statement.
Tesla's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the
Wochos litigation was filed on
November 20, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as GREGORY WOCHOS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, and UPPILI
SRINIVASAN; KURT FRIEDMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TESLA, INC.;
ELON MUSK; DEEPAK AHUJA; JASON WHEELER, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 19-15672, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

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

   -- May 8, 2019 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- June 7, 2019 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- July 17, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of
      record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- August 16, 2019 -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


TICKETMASTER LLC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Lee Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Allen Lee filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Allen Lee v. Ticketmaster L.L.C., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-05987-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that Ticketmaster has actually facilitated the sale of
tickets to the secondary market by secretly implementing a "Resale
Partner Program" supported by TradeDesk, which Ticketmaster
acknowledges it "built expressly for professional resellers."
Ticketmaster does this in order to receive a second cut on tickets,
that is even more than the original cut Ticketmaster receives.

The appellate case is captioned as Allen Lee v. Ticketmaster
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 19-15673, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Allen Lee's opening brief is due on June 7, 2019;

   -- Appellees Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster
      L.L.C.'s answering brief is due on July 8, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ALLEN LEE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Shayne Christopher Stevenson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  shaynes@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees TICKETMASTER L.L.C., a Virginia corporation,
and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, are
represented by:

          Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq.
          Daniel Murray Wall
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          E-mail: tim.o'mara@lw.com
                  dan.wall@lw.com


TQ PIZZERIA: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Villanueva Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JAIRO VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TQ PIZZERIA CORP. d/b/a LENNY'S
PIZZA; and BLERANT QOKU, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01695-RRM-SJB
(E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Villanueva was employed by the Defendants as kitchen
worker.

TQ Pizzeria Corp. d/b/a Lenny's Pizza is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York. The Company makes pizza.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRISTATE PARKING: Almonte Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Isidoro Aracena Almonte, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tristate Parking Inc., Nelson
Rodriguez , Kelvin Rodriguez and Henry Delgado, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-01204 (E.D. N.Y., February 28, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for Defendants'
failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a parking management company
where Almonte primarily worked in various locations in Queens and
Long Island. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Defendants also
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked,
notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TSR INC: Paskowitz Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
TSR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended February 28, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit initiated by Susan Paskowitz.

On October 16, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, by
Susan Paskowitz, a stockholder of the Company, against the Company;
Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes; current and former
directors Christopher Hughes, Raymond A. Roel, Brian J. Mangan,
Regina Dowd, James J. Hill, William Kelly, and Eric Stein; as well
as stockholders Zeff Capital, L.P. ("Zeff"), QAR Industries, Inc.
("QAR") and Fintech Consulting LLC ("Fintech," and collectively
with Zeff and QAR, the "Zeff Group").

The complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit asserting
claims on behalf of all minority stockholders of the Company. Ms.
Paskowitz alleges the following: the sale by Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes of an aggregate of 819,491 shares of the
Company's common stock ("controlling interest") to Zeff, QAR and
Fintech was in breach of Joseph F. Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes'
fiduciary duties and to the detriment of the Company's minority
stockholders; the members of the Board of Directors of the Company
named in the complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to immediately adopt a rights plan that would have prevented Joseph
F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes from selling their shares and
preserved a higher premium for all stockholders; Zeff, QAR, and
Fintech are "partners" and constitute a "group." Ms. Paskowitz also
asserts that the Zeff Group aided and abetted Joseph F. Hughes' and
Winifred M. Hughes' conduct and ultimately seeks to buy out the
remaining shares of the Company at an unfair price.

The complaint filed by Ms. Paskowitz on October 11, 2018 seeks
declaratory judgment and unspecified monetary damages.

The complaint requests declarations from the court that:

     (1) Joseph F. Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes' sale of their
controlling interest to the Zeff Group was in breach of their
fiduciary duties, and that those shares may not be voted or sold
back to the Company pending further court order;

     (2) the members of the Board of Directors named in the
complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing to timely
adopt a stockholder rights plan, which resulted in the loss of the
ability to auction the Company off to the highest bidder without
interference from the Zeff Group; and

     (3) the Zeff Group must make a number of disclosures regarding
their plans for the Company, their relationships with one another,
and any agreements with Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes.

The complaint has not assigned any monetary values to alleged
damages, but it seeks:

     (1) for Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes, and the Zeff
Group, to disgorge any benefit they received from the sale of the
Hughes' controlling interest;

     (2) for the Board of Directors of the Company to pay damages
equal to the reduced value of the class members' shares as
auctionable assets; and

     (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

TSR said, "Although the Company is named as a defendant, there are
no claims or damages allegations against the Company, and the
complaint states that it names the Company solely to effectuate
equitable relief if granted."

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

TSR, Inc. provides contract computer programming services in the
New York metropolitan area, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic
region. TSR, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Hauppauge,
New York.


UCLA HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $7.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie Garrity, writing for Becker's Health Review, reports that
UCLA Health has agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit brought by patients after a data breach put their personal
and health information at risk, according to the HIPAA Journal.

The university health system discovered suspicious activity on its
network in October 2014 and contacted the FBI for help. At that
time, it was assumed no medical records had been compromised, but
by May 2015, it was discovered that hackers had gained access to
patients protected health information.

About 4.5 million patients were affected by the breach.

The HHS Office for Civil Rights determined UCLA Health followed the
appropriate protocol and was satisfied with the university health
system's post-breach efforts to improve security, according to the
Journal.

But patients were not as satisfied and filed a class-action suit,
arguing UCLA Health failed to notify them about the data breach in
a timely manner, there had been a breach of contract, and that
failing to protect patients' privacy was negligence, according to
the report.

UCLA Health alerted patients July 15, 2015, about the data breach.
HIPAA requires that organizations notify affected personnel in less
than 60 days from the discovery that personal health information
has been affected. The patients claimed UCLA should have notified
them more promptly, as the incident happened nine months prior to
their notice.

Patients have until May 20 to object to the settlement. They can
claim up to $5,000 to cover identify protection costs and up to
$20,000 for any losses or damages caused by the data breach.

Of the $7.5 million settlement, $2 million has been set aside for
patient claims. The other $5.5 million will go toward UCLA Health
developing a cybersecurity fund to improve cybersecurity defenses.
[GN]


UCONN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that
the first lawsuit stemming from February's announcement that a
University of Connecticut Health Center data breach could have
affected 326,000 current and former patients has been filed in
federal court.

The putative class action lawsuit, filed March 18 on behalf of New
London resident Yoselin Martinez, alleges the health center
notified those affected months after the fact and also states the
center could have done more to prevent the breach.

The 31-page lawsuit states, "UConn disregarded the rights of
plaintiff and class members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure its data systems were protected."

The lawsuit said the health center announced Feb. 25, nearly two
months after the breach was identified, that a hacker had gained
access to a number of employee email accounts through a phishing
attack that subsequently exposed the personal data of the current
and former health center patients. The exposed personal
information, the lawsuit says, included patients' names, date of
birth, addresses, medical information and Social Security numbers.

According to the lawsuit, credit bureau Experian found in a study
that the average total cost of medical identity theft is about
$20,000 per incident, and that a majority of victims of medical
identity theft were forced to pay out-of-pocket costs for health
care they did not receive in order to restore coverage.

Martinez alleges shortly after being notified of the breach she
checked her bank account, which had been overdrawn. Upon speaking
with a bank representative, the lawsuit says, Martinez was informed
that the charge was a result of a fraudulent transaction on her
account.

"In addition to the fraudulent activity currently affecting Ms.
Martinez as a result of the breach, she will continue to be at
heightened risk for financial fraud and identity theft and their
attendant damages for years to come," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit maintains there were major problems with the health
center's security protocols from the get-go.

"The deficiencies in defendants' data security protocols were so
significant that the breach likely remained undetected for months,"
the suit says. "Intruders, therefore, had months to access, view,
and steal patient data unabated. . . . Timely action by UConn would
likely have significantly reduced the consequences of the breach."

The lawsuit seeks at least $5 million in damages. It also seeks
designation as a class and that the health center implement
improved security procedures and measures.

Delker Vardilos, the health center's interim health information
officer, said on March 26 the center does not comment on pending
litigation.

The lawsuit did include the health center's statement in February
after it announced the breach.

That statement reads: "UConn Health recently learned that an
unauthorized third-party illegally accessed a limited number of
employee email accounts. Upon learning of the incident, we
immediately took action, including securing the impacted accounts
to prevent further unauthorized access and confirming the security
of our email system. We also notified law enforcement and retained
a leading forensic security firm to investigate and conduct a
comprehensive search for any personal information in the impacted
email accounts."

Representing the plaintiff are Brian Murray of Glancy Prongay &
Murray and Jean Sutton Martin of North Carolina-based Morgan &
Morgan. Neither attorney responded to a request for comment on
March 26.

As of March 26, the health center had not assigned an attorney to
the matter.

The lawsuit cites six counts, including negligence, breach of
contract and invasion of privacy.

Judge Vanessa Bryant is scheduled to hear the case. [GN]


UNION PACIFIC: 8th Cir. to Hear Appeal from Class Cert. Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has granted the company's petition
for permission to appeal the U.S. District Court's decision
granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In 2016, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act relating to Fitness for Duty requirements for safety sensitive
positions.

On August 8, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted plaintiffs' motion to transfer their
claim to the U.S. District Court of Nebraska. On February 5, 2019,
the U.S. District Court of Nebraska granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the ADA allegations as a class action.

The company filed a petition for permission to appeal the U.S.
District Court's decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 13, 2019, the Eighth Circuit granted Union Pacific's
Petition.

The company have also subsequently filed a Motion to Stay the U.S.
District Court proceedings pending a decision by the Eighth
Circuit.

Union Pacific said, "We continue to deny these allegations, believe
this lawsuit is without merit and will defend our actions. We
believe this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on any
of our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity."

Union Pacific Corporation, through its subsidiary, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, engages in the railroad business in the United
States. Union Pacific Corporation was founded in 1862 and is
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


UNITED STATES: Williams Suit to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JODY WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01737-GMN-CWH (D.
Nev.), Magistrate Judge C.W. Hoffman, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs'
application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Williams brings a class action complaint on behalf of herself and
the members of Sex Workers Anonymous, challenging the
constitutionality of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online
Sex Trafficking Act of 2017.  The Plaintiff names the United States
of America, Facebook Inc., Googleplex, Amazon, Jesse Maley, and Sex
Workers Outreach Project as the Defendants in the complaint and
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.  She also alleges due
process violations, deceptive trade practices, conspiracy to
interfere with civil rights, and an assortment of state law
claims.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Williams and Trafficking
and Prostitution Services' application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, filed on Sept. 7, 2018.  Williams has submitted the
declaration required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a) showing an
inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them.

Having reviewed the complaint, Magistrate Judge Hoffman finds that
the Plaintiff's complaint fails to demonstrate that the United
States has waived its sovereign immunity.  The United States is
immune from suit, unless it consents to be sued.  Any such waiver
of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal.  The Plaintiff's
complaint fails to state whether the United States has made an
unequivocal waiver of its sovereign immunity.

Further, the Plaintiff cannot proceed with the class action as a
pro se litigant.  Given that she is a pro se litigant and does not
have the authority to represent the other Plaintiffs, the case
cannot proceed as a class action.

Lastly, the case cannot proceed as to the Plaintiff as an
individual, because she does not specify which factual allegations
pertain to her as an individual and which allegations pertain to
the other Plaintiffs.  Thus, even liberally construing her
complaint, the Judge is unable to determine which allegations apply
only to the Plaintiff.  He therefore will dismiss the complaint
without prejudice for the Plaintiff to file a new action solely on
her own behalf or to secure an attorney to represent the class.

If the Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint on her
own behalf, she is advised that all the Defendants must be
identified in the caption of the pleading and that she must specify
which claims she is alleging against which Defendants.  Although
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading
policy, the Plaintiff must give the Defendants fair notice of each
of the claims the Plaintiff is alleging against each Defendant.
Specifically, she must allege facts showing how each named
Defendant is involved and the approximate dates of their
involvement.

The Plaintiff is further advised that in drafting her second
amended complaint, all that is required is that she state, in short
and plain terms, a claim showing an entitlement to relief. Although
she must give the Defendants fair notice of the claims alleged
against them, intricately detailed and lengthy factual allegations
are not necessary.  The Plaintiff is further advised that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rely on discovery and summary
judgment, rather than the pleadings, to flesh out the disputed
facts of the case.  Thus, if the amended complaint survives the
screening process, the Plaintiff will have an opportunity to gather
evidence in support of her claims during discovery and to present
that evidence at summary judgment and/or at trial.

Finally, the Plaintiff is advised that if she files an amended
complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in
the case.  As such, if she files an amended complaint, each claim
and the involvement of each Defendant must be alleged sufficiently.
The Court cannot refer to a prior pleading or to other documents
to make her amended complaint complete.  The amended complaint must
be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings
or to other documents.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Hoffman granted the Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis.  The Clerk of Court must
detach and file the Plaintiff's complaint.  The Plaintiff's
complaint be dismissed without prejudice for her to file an amended
complaint solely on her behalf or to obtain an attorney to
represent the class.  The Plaintiff's deadline for filing the
amended complaint is May 2, 2019.  Failure to file an amended
complaint by that deadline will result in a recommendation that her
case be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8rDF5Y from Leagle.com.

Jody Williams, doing business as Sex Workers Anonymous, Plaintiff,
pro se.

Trafficking and Prostitution Services, both projects under the
umbrella of the nonprofit 501c3 corporation OMNI-SCII, Plaintiff,
pro se.



UQM TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Agrees to Dismiss Merger Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UQM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on April 16, 2019, that
plaintiffs in the lawsuits related to the Danfoss Power Solutions
merger transaction have agreed to voluntarily dismiss the cases.

On January 21, 2019, UQM Technologies, Inc. ("UQM", or the
"Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") with Danfoss Power Solutions (US) Company, a
Delaware corporation ("Danfoss"), and Danfoss-2019 Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Danfoss (the "Merger Sub").  

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged
with and into the Company (the "Merger"), as a result of which the
Company will continue as the surviving corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Danfoss.  On March 7, 2019, the Company
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC”) a
definitive proxy Statement (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with
respect to the special meeting of UQM shareholders scheduled to be
held on April 23, 2019 (the "Special Meeting") to vote on a
proposal to approve the Merger Agreement, among other actions.

Six legal complaints, including four putative class actions, were
filed in Colorado by purported stockholders of UQM challenging the
Merger. Five of the six actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.  

These actions are: (i) Carter v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. 19-cv-502; (ii) Lopez v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al., No.
19-cv-543; (iii) ETS Logistics Inc. v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et
al., No. 19-cv-602; (iv) Poston v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. 19-cv-648; and (v) Arukala v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. 19-cv-650.  

The single Colorado state court case is Franchi v. Vanlandingham,
et al., No. 19-cv-30217 (Weld County, Co.).  

On March 11, 2019, following mailing of the Definitive Proxy
Statement, a seventh complaint, a putative class action, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Gunderson v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. 19-cv-2219 (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively, such state and federal
actions are referred to herein as the "Lawsuits").  

The six federal lawsuits assert claims under Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, based
on an alleged failure to disclose certain information in the
February 22, 2019 preliminary proxy statement and the March 7, 2019
Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the SEC.  

The state lawsuit (Franchi) alleges, among other things, that the
Company's Directors' failure to disclose certain information in the
Company's February 22, 2019 preliminary proxy statement constituted
a breach of fiduciary duty.  Carter and Franchi also include other
breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Company's Directors in
connection with the Merger.  

Carter, Franchi, Poston, Arukala, and Gunderson seek, among other
things, certification of a plaintiff class.  

All of the Lawsuits seek: (i) injunctive relief to prevent the
parties from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Merger
Agreement and the subsequent merger contemplated by the Merger
Agreement unless certain omitted information is disclosed in the
proxy statement; (ii) an accounting by the Defendants for alleged
damages sustained by the plaintiffs; and (iii) unspecified costs
and attorneys' and experts' fees.

UQM continues to believe that the claims asserted in the Lawsuits
are without merit, and further believes that no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable law.  However, UQM has
determined that, to avoid the risk of litigation delaying or
adversely affecting the Merger, UQM will make a supplemental
disclosures. The plaintiffs in Carter, Franchi, ETS Logistics,
Arukala, and Gunderson have agreed to voluntarily dismiss all
claims asserted in their Lawsuits. Plaintiff's counsel in Poston
also agreed to voluntarily dismiss all claims asserted in that
Lawsuit, subject to confirmation by the plaintiff.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://urlzs.com/KPrF.

UQM Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and sells electric motors, generators, power
electronic controllers, and fuel cell compressors in the United
states and internationally. UQM Technologies, Inc. was founded in
1967 and is headquartered in Longmont, Colorado.


VALE SA: Bid to Dismiss Samarco Bondholders Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the
class action suit initiated by holders of bonds issued by Samarco
is still pending.

Vale, together with Samarco and BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda. (BHPB),
was named as defendant in class action alleging violations of U.S.
federal securities laws brought by holders of bonds issued by
Samarco in the U.S. Federal Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, and a
decision on this motion is still pending.

Discovery will not commence until after the court rules on the
defendants' pending motion to dismiss.

Vale S.A., together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells iron
ore and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in steelmaking in
Brazil and internationally. It operates through Ferrous Minerals,
Coal, and Base Metals segments. The company was formerly known as
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and changed its name to Vale S.A. in May
2009. Vale S.A. was founded in 1942 and is headquartered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.


VALE SA: Discovery Ongoing in ADR Investors' Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the securities class
action suit related to the company's American Depositary Receipts
(ADRs) is still in discovery phase.

Vale and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a
securities class action in the U.S. Federal Court for the Southern
District of New York brought by holders of Vale's American
Depositary Receipts (ADRs) under U.S. federal securities laws.

In March 2017, the judge issued a ruling dismissing a significant
part of the claims against the company and the individual
defendants, and allowing the case to continue based on more limited
claims. The claims that were not dismissed relate to certain
statements contained in the Company's 2013 sustainability report
concerning risk mitigation plans, policies and procedures, and
certain statements made in a conference call in November 2015
concerning Samarco. This lawsuit is currently in the discovery
phase.

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

Vale S.A., together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells iron
ore and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in steelmaking in
Brazil and internationally. It operates through Ferrous Minerals,
Coal, and Base Metals segments. The company was formerly known as
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and changed its name to Vale S.A. in May
2009. Vale S.A. was founded in 1942 and is headquartered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.


VALE SA: Suits Over Fundao Dam Collapse Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself against class action lawsuits related to the
operations of Samarco's Fundao dam.

The company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in civil class action suits in federal courts in New
York brought by holders of the company's securities and by holders
of Samarco's bonds, each under U.S. federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs allege that the company made false and misleading
statements or omitted to make disclosures concerning the risks of
the operations of Samarco's Fundao dam and the adequacy of the
related programs and procedures. The plaintiffs have not specified
an amount of alleged damages in these actions.

Vale said, "We believe that the claims have no merit, and we will
continue contesting them. However, given the preliminary status of
the actions, it is not possible to determine a range of outcomes or
reliable estimates of the potential exposure at this time, and no
provision has been recognized so far."

Vale S.A., together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells iron
ore and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in steelmaking in
Brazil and internationally. It operates through Ferrous Minerals,
Coal, and Base Metals segments. The company was formerly known as
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and changed its name to Vale S.A. in May
2009. Vale S.A. was founded in 1942 and is headquartered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.


VICE MEDIA: Settles Pay Discrimination Class Action for $1.87MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that Vice has
agreed to a $1.875 million deal to resolve a class action lawsuit
brought by some of the media company's female workforce. The
proposed settlement was quietly submitted for approval to a Los
Angeles Superior Court judge on March 25. By the looks of the court
papers, Vice was likely saved from paying millions more because the
company tends to employ younger women.

Elizabeth Rose was one of the named plaintiffs leading the charge
that Vice violated New York and California equal pay laws.
According to the complaint, she was employed as a channel and
project manager between April 2014 and February 2016. After the
filing, other women came forward and joined the suit, including
former managing editor Alyson Comingore, former assistant editor
Zoe Miller and former copywriter Averie Timm.

The suit alleges that Vice failed to pay men and women equally for
similar work because Vice relied on prior salaries. The pay gap is
said to be perpetuated as female employees moved within the
organization. For instance, the complaint details how Rose hired a
male project manager in 2015 for a joint project and despite the
fact that the two were the same age and had similar work
experience, Rose earned less than that man, who subsequently rose
through the ranks of the company.

Vice denies there was ever a centralized practice of using prior
salary history to determine pay rate, but after mediation in the
case, the company has decided to settle claims with a class of
female employees estimated to be about 675 individuals. Subtracting
the $650,000 earmarked for lawyers as well as the $15,000 service
fees for each of the named plaintiffs in the case, that leaves
$1.075 million to Vice's female employees in New York and
California during the relevant time period. The average payout will
be about $1,600 (minus taxes), though payouts will depend on
factors including service time and job classifications.

The court papers say that more than 60 witnesses were interviewed
for this litigation, and Vice agreed to provide anonymized data
about salaries of employees dating back to 2012. The plaintiffs
then hired a statistician to determine if there were any
statistically significant pay disparities between men and women.

"According to Plaintiff's expert, when controlling for job
family/level, tenure, and work location, the amount of underpaid
wages to female employees appeared to range between $7,000,000 and
$9,740,000," states the motion to approve the settlement.

And but . . .

"When the age of the employee is factored in to account for
differences in years of experience in the labor market, however,
the potential disparities plummeted to well-below one-million
dollars."

As such, the plaintiffs put aside any issue over how Vice
apparently loves younger female staffers, to frame the settlement
as being between 19 percent to over 200 percent of the total wages
believed to be owed.

"This is a fair and reasonable result given the legal and factual
hurdles," writes attorney Michael Morrison at Alexander Krakow, who
in his brief nodded to Vice's contention that compensation
decisions were made not by a centralized group of decision-makers
but rather managers within departments exercising independent
discretion during a time of rapid expansion.

After the lawsuit came amid news reports about Vice's culture
favoring men, Nancy Dubuc took the reins of the company from Shane
Smith with a plan to fix the media pioneer. Don't expect her to
publicly comment about the settlement, however. The agreement
includes the stipulation that neither side is to contact the press
about the resolution or post any information about it online, and
if contacted to say only that the matter has been settled.

Nevertheless, a Vice spokesperson provided the following comment:
"Vice's new management team is committed to maintaining a workplace
where all employees are compensated equitably. This is why we
provided our employees with the results of the company's pay equity
analysis, and have also settled the Rose case whereby we resolve
any claimed historical disparities. We are dedicated to the
equitable treatment of all people and we look forward to the
Court's approval of the settlement so that we can continue to
fulfill this mission." [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses Juan Olivo's Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN OLIVO, ANA J. OLIVO, and CATHERINE SOBERS, on
their behalf and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated. Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 18-CV-3222 (AMD) (LB) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for
failure to state a claim.

On June 1, 2018, the Named Plaintiffs brought the class action
against Wells Fargo, alleging a breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and violations of the New York
Deceptive Practices Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

In May of 2006, Juan and Ana Olivo took out a mortgage to purchase
a home at 96 Queen Street, Staten Island, NY 10314.  CSMC
Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-9 trust held
the Olivos' mortgage note, and Wells Fargo acted the CSMC Trust's
servicer.  In early 2008, due to a reduction in Mr. Olivo's pay,
the Olivos "struggled to pay their $4,452.40 mortgage payment;"
they contacted Wells Fargo seeking a loan modification, and were
told that they would need to stop making payments to qualify for a
loan modification.  According to the Plaintiffs, the Olivos
followed Wells Fargo's instruction, stopped making payments, and
then applied for a loan modification.  Wells Fargo denied that
request, as well as the Olivos' subsequent requests for loan
modifications.  The Plaintiffs claim that Wells Fargo's reasons]
for denial have been a moving target and changed over time
depending on the programs that were available.

On July 26, 2006, Catherine Sobers took out a mortgage to purchase
a home located at 114-09 27th Street, Cambria Heights, NY 11411.
The Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp., Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-15 ("WFASC Trust") acquired Ms. Sobers'
mortgage note; Wells Fargo serviced the WFASC Trust.  In 2008, Ms.
Sober could not pay her monthly mortgage amount of $2,764.13, and
sought a loan modification from Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo granted
her a loan modification under HAMP that required her to make three
trial payments of $2,375.74, and allegedly told her that once they
received the three payments, her loan would be permanently
modified.  Ms. Sobers made the three payments in September, October
and November of 2009, but did not receive permanent modification on
her loan. Ms. Sobers claims that she has submitted more than six
loan modification applications, none of which Wells Fargo granted.


The Plaintiffs brought the class action on June 1, 2018, alleging
that the Defendant misrepresented the purported restrictions on its
ability to modify their loan, and that it has modified other loans
governed by the same Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  They also
allege that the Defendant "ran out the clock" on any HAMP
modification to which they would be entitled to, by failing to
agree to a loan modification before the program's December 31, 2016
expiration.   They assert that the Defendant's representations led
them to believe that they could not obtain a loan modification and
as a result, their interest accrued and amounts owed on their
mortgages increased.

On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for an emergency temporary
restraining order to stay the auction of their properties; two days
later, Jude Donnelly heard the motion, granted the temporary
restraining order, and scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing.
On June 20, 2018, after a hearing, she denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction, and on Aug. 23, 2018, the
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint.

Judge Donnelly finds that the complaint is devoid of any
allegations that the Plaintiffs had an enforceable contract with
Wells Fargo that could create an implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the
implied covenant is dismissed.  She then finds that the Plaintiffs'
failure to plead the alleged fraudulent misstatements with
specificity is fatal to their claims.  Their state and federal law
fraud claims are dismissed.  She also finds that the Plaintiffs'
allegations relate to their individual mortgages, and do not
suggest that Wells Fargo's acts or practices had a broader impact
on consumers.  Hence, the Plaintiffs' Deceptive Practices Act claim
is dismissed.

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") when it denied their loan
modification requests without providing them with "a statement of
reasons" within 30 days after receiving the requests.  The Judge
dismissed the Plaintiffs' ECOA claim.  She finds that the Olivos'
loan modification requests -- with the exception of their initial
inquiry seeking modification in early 2008 -- were made after the
Olivos defaulted, and thus, do not trigger the ECOA's adverse
action "statement of reasons" requirement.  Likewise, Ms. Sobers
requested loan modifications only after she had already engaged in
trial payments and was in default; these requests do not fall
within the ambit of the ECOA.

Accordingly, Judge Donnelly granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  If the
Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must cure the
deficiencies discussed in the decision and be filed within 30 days
from the entry of the Order, or the case will be closed.

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

Juan Olivo & Catherine Sobers, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian
McCaffrey -- info@MyNYLawFirm.com -- Brian McCaffrey, Attorney at
Law.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Allison J.
Schoenthal -- allison.schoenthal@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Cameron Everett Grant -- cameron.grant@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP & Chava Brandriss --
chava.brandriss@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.


WEST MIAMI: Suarez et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
HECTOR SUAREZ, OSMEL A. FUENTES, YANSELL C. UGARDE, and other
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. WEST MIAMI
TOWING SERVICE, INC. and JORGE LUIS LOPEZ, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21195-RNS (S.D. Fla., March 29, 2019),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages, and
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, and all other current and former employees
similarly situated to Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during
one or more weeks on or after October 2017, without being
compensated minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA. The
Plaintiffs were hired at different dates, they worked different
schedules, and they were fired from their positions at different
date, but all Plaintiffs were subjected to the same illegal
employment practices of Defendants, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a towing company operating a 24/7 road side
assistance in Miami-Dade, and Monroe County.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

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

YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Admissions Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skakel McCooey, writing for Yale Daily News, reports that calling
Yale's admissions process "warped and rigged by fraud," two
students and their parents have filed a class-action lawsuit
against Yale and other universities and individuals implicated in
the admissions scandal.

Defendants include seven other universities, William "Rick" Singer
-- the scandal's ring-leader -- and Singer's for-profit college
counseling organization. A previous complaint filed by two Stanford
University students was submitted earlier in March and dismissed
"without prejudice" -- meaning that a new lawsuit can be filed. The
new complaint -- a full version of which was filed in federal court
in California on March 15 -- was filed by two college students,
Tyler Bendis and Nicholas James Johnson, and their parents.

Earlier in March, the Department of Justice indicted at least 50
individuals, including former women's soccer coach Rudy Meredith,
for cheating the admissions process to gain spots at Yale and other
top universities 00 the largest admissions scandal in recent
history.

The class-action lawsuit seeks reimbursement for the application
fees paid by applicants who "without any understanding or warning"
lacked the knowledge that "unqualified students were slipping in
through the back door of the admissions process by committing
fraud, bribery, cheating, and dishonesty." Yale's application fee
is $80 per applicant.

Documents from the lawsuit obtained by the News claim that the
universities mentioned in the lawsuit were negligent in their
failure to prevent this fraud.

University spokesperson Tom Conroy did not respond to multiple
requests for comment.

Johnson, who is currently enrolled as a student in the Honors
College at Rutgers University, had a 1500 out of 1600 on his SAT
and a 4.65 GPA -- a weighted score because of Advanced Placement
classes. He was rejected from Yale -- as well as from University of
Texas at Austin and Stanford -- despite securing high test scores,
playing varsity hockey and being the "star" of the school math
team, the lawsuit claims.

Bendis, now a community college student in California, was turned
away from Stanford, University of San Diego and University of
California, Los Angeles.

According to the lawsuit, had the students known the admissions
systems for these universities were as corrupt as the processes
allegedly were, they would never have applied in the first place.

David Levine, a professor at University of California Hastings
College of the Law told the News that a lawsuit which asked for
more damages -- like asking for the value of a Yale education in
damages -- would be "extremely unlikely." However, Levine, who is
an expert in civil procedure and remedies, said that a lawsuit
asking for a refund in application fees could be more successful.

"I could see that one winning," he said.

However, he noted that the plaintiffs will have to prove that
knowledge of the scandal's existence would have changed the
applicants' behavior. He added that it would be likely that
students would have to swear "on the penalty of perjury" that they
would not have applied had they known about the scandal. This
requirement may deter some students from trying to recoup their
application fees, he supposed.

University of Notre Dame law professor Jay Tidmarsh told the News
that lawsuits following accusations of fraud are "not unusual."

He said class-action lawsuits especially make sense when the amount
of damages is relatively small, but collectively the amount is
large. According to the complaint, application fees typically range
from $50 to $100, and the schools typically reject tens of
thousands of applicants. If the lawsuit is successful, the
potential payout for universities could be in the millions.

John Medler, one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, told the
News that he had "no comment" on the suit's chances.

The University of Southern California, Stanford, UCLA, University
of San Diego, University of Texas at Austin, Wake Forest University
and Georgetown University are also named in the lawsuit. [GN]


ZTO EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Nurlybayev Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the joint motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in Nurlybayev v. ZTO Express (Cayman)
Inc., et al., remains pending before the Court.

Starting in May 2017, the company and certain of directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants") have been
named as defendants in Nurlybayev v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et
al., 1:17-cv-06130 (S.D.N.Y., filed on August 14, 2017).

On October 16, 2017, three sets of purported shareholders filed
motions to appoint themselves as lead plaintiffs of the purported
plaintiff class and appoint their designated counsel as lead
counsel. On November 13, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff
and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.

On January 8, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On February 20, 2018, the company and the Underwriter Defendants
filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
remains pending before the Court.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. provides express delivery and other
value-added logistics services in the People's Republic of China.
The company offers delivery services for e-commerce and traditional
merchants, and other express service users. As of December 31,
2018, it operated a fleet of approximately 4,500 self-owned trucks.
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered
in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


ZTO EXPRESS: Birmingham Retirement & System Suit Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case entitled,
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. ZTO Express (Cayman)
Inc., et al., remains stayed.

Starting in May 2017, the company and certain of directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants") have been
named as defendants in City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 01-CV-2017-902004.00
(Cir. Ct. Jefferson County Ala., filed on May 16, 2017).

On June 28, 2017, the company removed the Alabama Action to the
federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and the
Underwriter Defendants joined in the removal. On July 14, 2017,
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System filed a Motion to
Remand the Alabama Action back to state court.

On August 4, 2017, the company and the Underwriter Defendants
submitted a joint Motion to Change Venue, requesting the court to
transfer the Alabama Action to the federal District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On August 29, 2017, the court issued
an order staying the proceedings of the Alabama Action pending the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty.
Employees Ret. Fund, and denying without prejudice City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System's Motion to Remand and our
company and the Underwriter Defendants' Motion to Change Venue.  

On April 17, 2018, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System
filed a motion to lift stay and remand the Alabama Action back to
state court, which motion was granted by the court on April 18,
2018. On May 9, 2018, the plaintiff and defendants filed a joint
motion to stay the Alabama Action in favor of the New York Action.
The court granted that motion on August 9, 2018, and the case
remains stayed.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. provides express delivery and other
value-added logistics services in the People's Republic of China.
The company offers delivery services for e-commerce and traditional
merchants, and other express service users. As of December 31,
2018, it operated a fleet of approximately 4,500 self-owned trucks.
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered
in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


ZTO EXPRESS: Guo and McGrath Suits Remain Stayed
------------------------------------------------
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the lawsuits
captioned as, Guo v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al. and McGrath
v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., remain stayed.

Starting in May 2017, the company and certain of directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering in October 2016 (the "Underwriter Defendants") have been
named as defendants in Guo v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 17
Civ. 03676 (Sup. Ct. Mateo County Ca., filed on August 11, 2017)
and McGrath v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., et al., 17 Civ. 03805
(Sup. Ct. Mateo County Ca., filed on August 21, 2017).

On September 15, 2017, the company removed the Guo Case and McGrath
Case to the federal District Court for the Northern District of
California and the Underwriter Defendants consented to the removal.
Also on September 15, 2017, the company and the Underwriter
Defendants filed a joint motion to transfer in the Guo Case and
McGrath Case, requesting the court to transfer the two cases to the
federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On September 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand these
two cases back to state court. On December 22, 2017, the court
granted plaintiffs' motions to remand and denied the company's and
Underwriter Defendants' joint motion to transfer. On February 15,
2018, the company and the Underwriter Defendants filed a joint
motion to stay the Guo Case and McGrath Case in state court. On
April 24, 2018, the court granted the Company and the Underwriter
Defendants' motion, and the case remains stayed.

ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. provides express delivery and other
value-added logistics services in the People's Republic of China.
The company offers delivery services for e-commerce and traditional
merchants, and other express service users. As of December 31,
2018, it operated a fleet of approximately 4,500 self-owned trucks.
ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered
in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


[*] Nick Sherry Expects Superannuation Fee Gouging to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Mather, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that fee gouging in superannuation will continue unless inactive
accounts above $6000 are consolidated and insurance is limited to
life cover, former Labor assistant treasurer Nick Sherry says.

He said new laws enabling the consolidation of inactive accounts
worth $6000 or less were a good start but the onus was on the next
federal Parliament to progressively raise that threshold.

Mr Sherry, who served as superannuation minister in the Rudd
government, also believes the sole purpose test should be updated
to make it unlawful for super funds to offer disability and income
protection insurance.

"If the argument is that you need higher contributions then why are
we reducing retirement income via insurance premiums?"

His rationale is that premiums for disability and salary
continuance insurance are eroding member returns when safety nets
exist outside the super system in the form of the National
Disability Insurance Scheme and Newstart Allowance.

"The cost of insurance comes off your retirement income," Mr Sherry
said. "If the argument is that you need higher contributions then
why are we reducing retirement income via insurance premiums? These
are fundamental questions to be asking in the context of any
examination of the sole purpose test."

Unintended multiple accounts were "a blight on the system", Mr
Sherry said. "At the moment it's $6000 or less, but I predict that
will go up the scale."

Mr Sherry, who helped establish Hostplus during his earlier career
as a trade unionist, also believes poor-performing funds are
exposed to legal action from members.

Regulators are turning to the courts, with the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission threatening to sue 30 sub-par
super funds.

Meanwhile, Slater & Gordon has launched a class action against the
Commonwealth Bank's super fund, alleging a breach of trust when it
tipped members' money into an inferior cash product.

Serious concern
Mr Sherry will tell an event hosted by wealth and asset management
business Northern Trust in Sydney on Wednesday that there is more
to come in this space.

"If I was a member in a sub-performing industry fund and I
discovered in 10 years' time that there was evidence the fund was a
sub-performer, I would be pretty angry about it and I'd be
contemplating legal action," he said.

"This is a serious concern for retail trustees post-Hayne. But it
is also a serious concern for trustees in under-performing
[industry and public sector] funds."

Slater & Gordon insists its claim against CBA's Colonial First
State super products could exceed $100 million and include hundreds
of thousands of members.

It was sparked by evidence heard during the royal commission that
Colonial First State invested members' money with CBA even though
better returns were available from other banks.

The Productivity Commission found the biggest problems in super to
be unintended multiple accounts and entrenched under-performance by
more than 30 funds. But it did not identify the miscreants.

Karen Chester, who led the Productivity Commission review before
joining ASIC, said the corporate regulator would act against super
trustees using recent legislative changes introducing civil
penalties for financial services licence holders who fail to act
"efficiently, honestly and fairly".

Independent inquiry
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority identified 18 months
ago 28 "outlier" funds. It is not clear whether the funds on APRA's
hit list are the same as those on ASIC's.

Thirteen of the outlier funds have agreed to restructure or exit,
another four have revised their fees and two are no longer
considered to be bad eggs, APRA deputy chairman Helen Rowell said
in March.

Of the nine remaining, three had not "responded adequately", and
these would soon be resolved, she said.

According to the Productivity Commission, 12 million people have
insurance through their super. It recommended an independent
inquiry to examine the role of insurance in super.

New legislation requires the transfer of all super balances below
$6000 to the Australian Tax Office if an account has been inactive
for a continuous period of 13 months.

The commissioner will proactively pay amounts held by the ATO into
a members' active account. The Coalition is also seeking to end
default insurance arrangements for under-25s but has not managed to
pass legislation. [GN]


[*] UCBA Sponsors Assembly Bill 1417 to Curb Illegal Cannabis Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As California's leading legal cannabis business trade association,
the United Cannabis Business Association (UCBA) announces
sponsorship of Assembly Bill 1417 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio.
Assembly Bill 1417 will attempt to reign in rampant advertisements
for illegal and unlicensed cannabis businesses in California,
beginning with the first steps in the California State Legislature.
The bill which would create civil penalties and injunctive relief
against webpages, apps and other forms of digital advertisement
that promote unlicensed cannabis business activity without
prominently including an active state license.

Jerred Kiloh, President of the UCBA stated "since voters approved
Proposition 64, which allows legal, licensed and regulated cannabis
operations, the illegal cannabis market has flourished and this
unchecked ability to advertise has given these illegal activities a
huge advantage over legal operators. Consumers have no way of
determining if the cannabis retailer they visit is safe, legal or
licensed. This means, the products are most likely not tested and
that illegal operators are not being held accountable to anyone,
including the police."

AB 1417 will attempt to distinguish legal operators from illegal
operators on popular webpages like Weedmaps, an advertiser that
consumers use to find and purchase cannabis products. Additionally,
billboards and other advertisements can direct consumers to
potentially illegal operations and untested products. A benefit of
AB 1417 is that it allows a civil class action lawsuit because of
the large number of potentially aggrieved persons who have been
impacted by the illegal advertisements.

Kiloh continued, "the total lack of regulation is creating a
massive public safety and public health issue in the City of Los
Angeles and throughout California. They are fooling consumers,
state and local regulators. It's not safe, it's not what voters
approved."

                           About UCBA

From introducing ballot measures locally and legislation at the
state, to taxation issues, licensing and social equity programs,
the UCBA is the leading voice for legal cannabis in California.
www.ucba.com [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***