CAR_Public/190501.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 87

                            Headlines

450 S. WESTERN: Tak Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums, Reimbursements
A A TOURIST: Chu Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
ABALUX INC: Collar Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
ABM INDUSTRY: Howard Files Time-shaving Class Action in Tenn.
ADDICTION RESEARCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Young Suit Alleges

ADVISORY BOARD: Court Narrows Claims in Plymouth County Suit
AETNA INC: Class Certification Bid in Peters RICO/ERISA Suit Denied
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Faces Foster Suit in D.N. Mexico
ALL WILL COUNTY: Ortiz Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
ALLIED METRO: Sosa Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages

ALTA MESA: Camelot Event Fund Files Securities Class Action in Tex.
AMERICAN INSURANCE: Lashbrook Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
AMERICO FINANCIAL: Amended Hancock Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
AMERIGROUP CORP: Sued by Dennis Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Midgarden Files Suit Over C3J Merger Deal

ANDREW J. DICK: Faces Suit over Debt Collection Practices
AON HEWITT: Failed to Provide Proper Wages, Calhoun Suit Alleges
APPLE INC: Priano-Keyser Sues over Defective Smart Watches
ARROW CONSULTATION: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Gallant Suit Says
ASPEN NATIONAL: Paul Sues over Debt Collection Practices

ATLANTIC DIAGNOSTIC: Does not Properly Pay Overtime Wages
AVALON HOLDINGS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Matusky Suit Granted
B.C. LIBERALS: Faces Class Action Over Partisan Advertising
BEMIS COMPANY: Dixon Files Securities Suit Over Amcor Merger Deal
BERGEN SHIPPERS: Escamilla Sues Over Discriminatory Actions

BLACK CAT: Hilmer Claims Overtime for Hrs Worked Over 40 per Week
BOFA SECURITIES: PR GERS Sues Over GSE Bond Price-fixing
BUDO MAINTENANCE: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BULLDOG AMUSEMENTS: Munteanu Sues Over Unpaid Wages
CANADA: Inmates Win Solitary Confinement Class Action v. CSC

CANTON PEDIATRIC: Hopper Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CARNIVAL PLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Moskalenko Suit
CENTURION SECURITY: Sutherland Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marcelino Says
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Mislabeling Suit Over Multivitamin Product

CLARUS GROUP: Chavez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium Under FLSA
CLUB EXPLORIA: Moore Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
CNX GAS: Summary Judgment Bid in Westmoreland Suit Partly Granted
COLDWELL BANKER: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
COMCAST CABLE: Azeveda Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

COMMONWEALTH SERVICING: Hobbs Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
CONAGRA BRANDS: Houston Municipal Employees Sue Over Share Drop
COTTER CORP: Banks Remanded to Circuit Court of St. Louis County
DAIMLER AG: Faces Callen Suit in Northern District of Georgia
DANNY'S INC: Waitresses Hit Illegal Tip Pool, Late Wages

DETROIT RENEWABLE: Opts to Close Incinerator Amid Class Action
DOW JONES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order/Judgment in Horton Suit
DP HOSPITALITY: Shushi Chef Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
DUTCH EXPRESS: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
EDS SERVICE: Martinez Hits Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missed Breaks

ESTEBAN ESTEPA: Garcia Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
EVENTBRITE INC: Gomes Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
FELDMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Pastor Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Walter Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Gress Sues Over Unreasonable Default Charges

FULTON COUNTY, GA: Summary Judgment Bid in Cunningham Wage Suit OKd
GEO GROUP: Indiana Court Narrows Claims in Figgs Suit
GLOBAL COURIER: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Nogales Claims
GONGOS INC: Court Denies Kraft's Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA
GREEN PATIO: O'Malley Hits Unpaid Wages, Tip Credits

GTX INC: Miller Seeks More Info on Oncternal Merger
HAIN CELESTIAL: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
HARBOR LEGAL: Faces Inoue Suit in District of Hawaii
HARCOURTS INT'L: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
HARDEE'S: Settles Class Action Over Hepatitis A Outbreak

HASS INTERESTS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Polk Suit Says
HEALTHALL CONSULTING: Dyse Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
HILL'S PET: Faces Conley Suit in E.D. Louisiana
HIRERIGHT: Stanley Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
HUNTLEIGH USA: Cole Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Abe Sues Over Illegal, Unsolicited Text Messages
IMEX GLOBAL: Lyles Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
INDECOMM HOLDINGS: Underpays Mortgage Underwriters, Engle Claims
INTEL CORP: N.D. Cal. Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
J & J & J PIZZA: Orth Seeks Proper Expense Reimbursements

JACKSON HEWITT: Newbauer Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
JBS USA FOOD: Duron Suit Removed to C.D. California
JOHN JACOBS: Schuller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
JOHNSTON NURSERIES: Faces Torres Suit in Kern County
JOUDEH GHAWALI: Onyeneho Seeks Overtime Wages for Exotic Dancers

JUUL LABS: Faces Nessmith Suit over Deceptive Marketing Practices
KINJO INC: Delivery Staff Sacked for Claiming Overtime Pay
KROGER CO: Cocomilk Product Hazardous to Health, Grausz Says
KURTZMAN CARSON: Aetna Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
LAMBERT CONSTRUCTION: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

LAWRENCE SCOTT: Class Certification Bid Granted in Settecasi Suit
LEGENDARY FIELD: Muirbrook Sues Over WARN Act Violation
LIFE CARE: Samuel Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
LYNEER STAFFING: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Vasquez Claims
M & G PIZZA: Does not Properly Pay Deliver Drivers, Ownbey Says

MANHATTAN LUXURY: Rosado Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
MARATHON FINANCIAL: Galloway Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
MARCOS: OSG Blocks Martial Law Victims Settlement Agreement
MARQUIS METAL: Foglesong Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
MDL 2492: Akinbiyi Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Aldrich Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Council Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Divalentino Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Flasher Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Gray Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Leammon Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Lett Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Pacchioni Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2573: Nicholson Appeals Decision in Silver Antitrust Litigation
MDL 2885: 8 Suits vs. 3M Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida

MDL 2886: 7 Suits v. Allura, et al. Moved to South Carolina
MERLOANDCO LLC: Mauriello Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MORGREEN SOLAR: Court Grants Default Judgment Bids in Prescott Suit
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS: Faces Antitrust Case in Illinois
NESTLE WATERS: Faces Poland Spring False Advertising Class Action

NEW PRIME: Lewis Brisbois Discusses Arbitration Ruling
NEW PRIME: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Arbitration Ruling
NGP MOTORS: Faces Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit
NPMC: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
NURSING HOME: Jetter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

OFFICIAL PEST: Faces Malahy Suit in Sacramento Court
OK GASMART: Underpays Gas Attendants, Hurtado Suit Alleges
OLIN CORP: Finch Paper Suit Asserts Caustic Soda Price-fixing
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Ryu Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PAFFORD EMS: Elizondo Seeks Proper Overtime Wages, Damages

PAK RITE: Warehouse Staff Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40
PILLARS PROTECTION: O'Bryant Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PREMIER COIL SOLUTIONS: Galvan Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PRUDENTIAL LIGHTING: Perez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Missed Breaks
PURDUE PHARMA: Hanlon et al. Sue over Sale of Opioid Drugs

RJD CONSTRUCTION: Class in Neris FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
RUSHMORE ENERGY: Perrong Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED: With et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Drivers
SELECTION MANAGEMENT: White Sues over Background Checks
SHARKS SPORTS: Faces Salsiccia et al. ADA suit in N.D. California

SHARP ELECTRONICS: Sells Defective Microwave Ovens, Haight Says
SHARP GROSSMONT: Sued for Secretly Recording Gynecology Surgeries
SIMPLEHUMAN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fewtrell Claims
SIX FLAGS: Masuda Funai Discusses Illinois Supreme Court Ruling
SNIDER INTERESTS: Faces Esquivel et al. Suit in Kern County

SOUTHERN VALLEY: Migrant Farm Workers Seek Unpaid Wages
SOUTHWEST SYSTEMS: Does not Pay Installers OT Wages, Glessner Says
SPIN EMPIRE: Construction Workers' Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUBARU OF AMERICA: May 22 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
SYNERGY FINANCIAL: Estese Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

TABOR COMMUNITY PARTNERS: Shaw Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
TAMPA BAY SPORTS: Hanley Sues Over SMS Ad Blasts
TARONIS TECH: Hatten Files Class Action Over Misleading Statements
TECTON CAFE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Morales Suit Says
TELIGENT INC: Mo-Kan Iron Workers Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop

TWIN VILLAGE:  Owes Sales Staff Overtime Pay, Says Smith
TWO JINN: Does not Properly Pay Fin'l. Service Reps, Medina Says
U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION: Ford & Harrison Discusses Pay Gap Suit
UBER TECH: $20MM Settlement in O'Connor Suit Has Prelim Approval
UNIFIED PARKING: Espinosa Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Cal. Labor Code

UNITED MEDICAL: Gordon Sues Over FDCPA Violation
UNITED STATES: ICE Blames Border Crisis on Flores Settlement
UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
VERSUM MATERIALS: Board Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Szabados Suit Asserts Labor Code Violation

VIP KIDZ: Curry Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
WELLS FARGO: Newsom Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Report Inquiries
WORKHORSE RESTAURANT: Maldonado Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
ZALE DELAWARE: Faces Leos Suit in Sacramento Court
ZOGENIX INC: Lake Files Class Action Over Misleading, False Reports


                            *********

450 S. WESTERN: Tak Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums, Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------------------
EUNICE Y. TAK, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 450 S. WESTERN, LLC, a California
limited liability company; GAJU MARKET CORPORATION, a California
Corporation; HYUN SOON RHEE, an individual; and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12979 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019) seeks unpaid overtime compensation
and interest thereon, premiums for missed or interrupted rest
period and meal periods, waiting time penalties, penalties and
relief for failure to provide itemized statements of total hours
worked, reimbursement for expenses, and non-economic damages where
applicable. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under applicable labor law.

Through Plaintiffs employment, she typically worked full-time in
excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week and often worked at
all hours of the night and on her days off upon Defendant Rhee's
demands.

The Defendants initially misclassified Plaintiff as an independent
contractor and later as an exempt employee for purposes of avoiding
the employers required state and federal taxes, overtime wages,
minimum wages, meal and rest periods, and other applicable labor
laws. The Defendants failed to comply with any and all of the
aforementioned provisions, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants from November 8, 2016
through July 7, 2017.

Defendant 450 Western is a California limited liability company,
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Dan Lee, Esq.
     Sasha A. Struthers, Esq.
     Daniella Restrepo Orozco, Esq.
     M.E.T.A.L. LAW GROUP, LLP
     725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3065
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (323) 289-2260
     Fax: (323) 289-2261
     Email: dlee@metallawgroup.com
            sstruthers@metallawgroup.com
            drestrepo@metallawgroup.com


A A TOURIST: Chu Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Wai Yee Chu, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
A A Tourist Inc. and Jamie Chung, Case No. 1:19-cv-02323 (S.D.
N.Y., March 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the New York Labor Law and Federal Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants have committed widespread violations of the FLSA and
NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours
worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation, as well as failing
to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements,
notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as an office clerk at the Defendants'
tourism company from January 2, 2017 to December 31, 2018.

The Defendant A A Tourist is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principal
business address at 149 Hester St., Suite 300, New York, NY 10002.
The Defendant Jamie Chung is the owner, chief executive officer,
and managing agent of AA Tourist. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Fax: (718) 353-6288


ABALUX INC: Collar Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jesus Lazaro Collar filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-20872-JAL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-11217, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
appealed a District Court decision in 2018.  That appellate case is
titled Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10676, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged failure
to pay overtime wages in excess of 40 hours worked weekly in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before May 13, 2019;

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

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before April 29, 2019, as to Appellee Abalux, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JESUS LAZARO COLLAR, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), is represented by:

          Stephen Michael Fox, Jr., Esq.
          J. Paxton Marshall, Esq.
          Alejandro Guillermo Martinez-Maldonado, Esq.
          Natalie Ann Staroschak, Esq.
          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, PA
          300 71st St., Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: stephen.fox.esq@gmail.com
                  paxtonmarshall@yahoo.com
                  martinez.zidelllaw@gmail.com
                  nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com
                  zabogado@aol.com

Defendants-Appellees ABALUX, INC. and JUAN D. CABRAL are
represented by:

          Leslie W. Langbein, Esq.
          LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN, PA
          7480 Fairway Dr., Suite 209
          Miami Lakes, FL 33014
          Telephone: (305) 556-3663
          E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net


ABM INDUSTRY: Howard Files Time-shaving Class Action in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Howard, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v. ABM
Industry Groups, LLC, and ABM Janitorial Services, Southeast, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02228 (W.D. Tenn., April 11, 2019) is
a lawsuit brought against Defendants as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime
compensation owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
janitorial/grounds keeping employees who worked for Defendants in
commercial buildings.

As a consequence of Defendants' timekeeping records not reflecting
actual hours worked, when the unpaid "off the clock" and "edited
out/shaved" time are added to their recorded time, Plaintiffs and
other members of the class have not been paid the applicable
overtime rate of pay as required by the FLSA, during all times
relevant to this action, asserts the complaint.

The net effect of Defendants' aforementioned plan, policy and
practice of requiring, inducing, suffering, or permitting,
Plaintiff and class members to perform "off-the-clock" work and,
"editing out/shaving" their compensable work time, saved
Defendants' payroll costs and payroll taxes. As a consequence,
Defendants willfully violated the FLSA and, thereby enjoyed
ill-gained profits at the expense of Plaintiff and the class, the
complaint says.

Plaintiff Charles Johnson was employed by Defendants as an
hourly-paid janitorial/grounds keeping employee.

Defendants provide (and have provided) janitorial and related
services to building owned by Highwood, throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
     Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 759-1745
     Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
            rbryant@jsyc.com
            rturner@jsyc.com
            rmorelli@jsyc.com


ADDICTION RESEARCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Young Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LANA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADDICTION RESEARCH & TREATEMENT, INC. d/b/a
BAART PROGRAMS; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
19CIVO1804 (Cal. Super., San Mateo Cty., March 28, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

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

Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc., doing business as Bay Area
Addiction Research and Treatment, provides drug treatment services.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVISORY BOARD: Court Narrows Claims in Plymouth County Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVISORY
BOARD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-1940 (RC)
(D. D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.

The co-lead Plaintiffs in the class action, the City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund and the City of Atlanta Police Officers'
Pension Fund, assert that The Advisory Board, its CEO, Robert W.
Musslewhite, and its CFO, Michael T. Kirshbaum, violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading public statements in
2015.  Those statements concerned Advisory Board's acquisition of
Royall & Co., and Royall's post-acquisition performance.  According
to them, the Defendants publicly touted the Royall acquisition's
success and Royall's 2015 performance, knowing that the acquisition
and Royall's performance were unlikely to meet the market's
expectations.

Based in part on information supplied by two confidential
witnesses, the Plaintiffs allege that from Jan. 21, 2015 through
Feb. 23, 2016, the Defendants made a series of false or misleading
statements and omissions regarding Royall's performance and its
integration into Advisory Board's business.  The touchstone of
these allegations is that the Defendants knew of certain
developments that would cause Royall to underperform its revenue
projections and fail to properly integrate with Advisory Board, at
least in the short-term.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants delayed revealing these
developments to investors, which caused Advisory Board's stock
prices to remain higher than they would have been if the market had
full information.  When the other shoe dropped and the market
caught wind of Royall's problems, Advisory Board's stock price
plunged.

The Defendants have asked the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint.  They argue that none of the challenged statements were
materially false or misleading when made, even if the statements
were wrong in hindsight.  The Defendants further argue that to the
extent their statements were materially false or misleading, they
did not possess the state of mind necessary to hold them liable.

Having combed through te Plaintiffs' voluminous allegations and the
relevant record submissions, Judge Contreras agrees that most of
the Defendants' statements were not false or misleading.  The
Plaintiffs' challenge of these statements amounts to inactionable
"fraud by hindsight."  On the other hand, certain statements about
Advisory Board's projected 2015 revenues were rendered misleading
by the Defendants' failure to tell investors that shortly before
the statements were issued, key executives had left the company.

Among other things, the Judge finds that despite the Plaintiffs'
voluminous allegations, he concludes that the only actionable
statements and omissions were those made on May 5, 2015, regarding
Advisory Board's projected revenue.  The Plaintiffs have also
sufficiently alleged that Advisory Board's revenue guidance issued
on May 5, 2015, and Mr. Kirshbaum's statement in support of that
guidance, were materially misleading because they failed to account
for the sudden departures of Royall's CEO and CFO.  At the very
least, those public statements were rendered misleading by the
Defendants' failure to disclose the departures.  On the other hand,
the Plaintiffs have failed to identify any other statement or
omission attributable to Defendants during the Class Period that
was materially false or misleading.

For these reasons, he granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion.  He denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
with respect to Advisory Board's May 5, 2015 revenue guidance and
Mr. Kirshbaum's statement, recounted in paragraph 83 of the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint, regarding that guidance.  The
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the remainder of the
Plaintiff's complaint.  An order consistent with the Memorandum
Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/z4fGza from Leagle.com.

PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Steven J. Toll
-- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC.

CITY OF ATLANTA FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND & CITY OF ATLANTA POLICE
OFFICERS' PENSION FUND, Plaintiffs, represented by Nancy Meredith
Juda -- nancyj@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP,
Alan I. Ellman, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice,
David A. Rosenfeld, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice
& Samuel H. Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP.

ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY, ROBERT W. MUSSLEWHITE & MICHAEL T.
KIRSHBAUM, Defendants, represented by Jennifer L. Spaziano --
jen.spaziano@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP & Scott D. Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, pro hac vice.


AETNA INC: Class Certification Bid in Peters RICO/ERISA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AETNA INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Civil
Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D. N.C.), Judge Martin Reidinger of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Asheville Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff Peters filed the putative class action
against the Defendants, asserting claims pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  In her
Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna engaged in a fraudulent
scheme with Optum and other subcontractors, whereby insureds were
caused to pay the subcontractors' administrative fees because the
Defendants misrepresented such fees as medical expenses.

The Plaintiff alleged that these misrepresentations allowed Aetna
to illegally (i) obtain payment of the subcontractors'
administrative fees directly from insureds when the insureds'
deductibles have not been reached; (ii) use insureds' health
spending accounts to pay for these fees; (iii) inflate insureds'
co-insurance obligations using administrative fees; (iv)
artificially reduce the amount of available coverage for medical
services when such coverage is subject to an annual cap; and (v)
obtain payment of the administrative fees directly from employers
when an insured's deductible has been exhausted or is
inapplicable.

The Plaintiff asserted two claims based on RICO violations.  In
Count I of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna and its
subcontractors, including Optum, violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c)
by engaging in acts of mail and wire fraud in furtherance of a
common purpose to collect administrative fees from Aetna insureds
and plans by improperly characterizing them as payment for covered
medical expenses, and as such, constitute an associated-in-fact
"enterprise" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(4).
Alternatively, she alleged that Aetna has conducted multiple
bilateral association-in-fact RICO enterprises with each of its
subcontractors.  

In Count II of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the
Defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d).  She also asserted two
claims under ERISA, alleging that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties as plan administrators, in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(2) (Count III) and 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1),
(a)(3), and/or 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 (Count IV).

Aetna and Optum moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
arguing that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert her claims and
that her Complaint otherwise failed to state claims upon which
relief can be granted.  On Aug. 31, 2016, the Court entered an
Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions.


Specifically, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had standing
to assert claims regarding Aetna's actions with respect to Optum
but that the Plaintiff lacked standing to assert any claims with
respect to Aetna's interactions with other subcontractors.
Further, the Court granted the Defendants' motions with respect to
the Plaintiff's RICO claims and dismissed those claims with
prejudice.  The Court denied the Defendants' motions with respect
to the Plaintiff's ERISA claims.

The Plaintiff now moves the Court to grant class certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3), or
in the alternative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c)(4).

The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class for purposes
of her claims under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3):

     - Plan Claim Class: All participants or beneficiaries of
self-insured ERISA health insurance plans administered by Aetna for
which plan responsibility for a claim was assessed using an agreed
rate between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the provider's
contracted rate with Optum for the treatment provided.

The Plaintiff also seeks to represent the following class for
purposes of her claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and
(a)(3):

     - Member Claim Class: All participants or beneficiaries of
ERISA health insurance plans insured or administered by Aetna for
whom coinsurance responsibility for a claim was assessed using an
agreed rate between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the provider's
contracted rate with Optum for the treatment provided.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, arguing that: (1) the proposed classes do not
satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement; (2) the Plaintiff
cannot demonstrate through classwide evidence that all proposed
class members suffered injury; (3) the proposed classes do not
satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements; (4) the
Plaintiff does not specify what "equitable" relief the proposed
members seek or how they would prove their entitlement to it; (5)
the proposed classes do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(1); (6) the proposed
classes fail Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority
requirements because individualized inquiries would overwhelm any
"class" proceeding; and (7) because the proposed classes are
overrun with individualized issues of liability, causation, and
injury, there is no basis for issue certification under Rule
23(c)(4).

The Court held a hearing on the motion for class certification on
March 1, 2019.

Judge Reidinger concludes that the Plaintiff has not offered the
Court a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for
determining which plans and participants fall within the proposed
class definitions.  To ascertain the members of the proposed
classes, the Court would be forced to engage in a highly
individualized inquiry of every plan, every participant and every
claim in those participants' claim histories, taking into account
the impact of each participant's deductible, copayments,
coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximum.  As the Fourth Circuit has
noted, certification of a class action is inappropriate where
identifying the class members would require extensive and
individualized fact-finding or mini-trials.

Moreover, the Plaintiff's flawed methodology for determining class
membership also reflects a lack of commonality among the putative
class members.  Commonality requires the Plaintiff to demonstrate
that the class members have suffered the same injury.  The evidence
indicates that, in the aggregate, the Aetna-Optum contracts saved
plans and their participants millions of dollars.  Indeed, many
proposed class members would be worse off if their claims were
reassessed using the Plaintiff's methodology of using only the
Optum Downstream Rates.  A proposed class challenging conduct that
did not harm -- and in fact benefitted -- some proposed class
members fails to establish the commonality required for
certification.

For all these reasons, Judge Reidinger in the exercise of his
discretion denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

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

Sandra M. Peters, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford --
dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice,
David M. Wilkerson -- dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle
Law Firm, Heather Whitaker Goldstein -- HGoldstein@vwlawfirm.com --
The Van Winkle Law Firm, Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com
-- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Jason M. Knott --
mclark@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, pro hac vice, Nell
Z. Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro
hac vice, Richard Miles Clark, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice
& Larry S. McDevitt -- lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van Winkle
Law Firm.

Aetna Inc. & Aetna Life Insurance Company, Defendants, represented
by E. Thomison Holman, Holman Law, PLLC, Geoffrey Manson Sigler --
gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice,
Jason N. Kleinwaks -- jkleinwaks@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Jason E. Neal, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
pro hac vice, Matthew Scott Roberson -- mroberson@mwblawyers.com --
Adams Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger, P.A. & Richard Joseph Doren --
rdoren@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice.

OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian
D. Boone, Alston & Bird LLP, Emily Claire McGowan --
emily.mcgowan@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Mark Timothy
Calloway -- mark.calloway@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Michael
R. Hoernlein -- michael.hoernlein@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP,
Rebecca L. Gauthier -- rebecca.gauthier@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP & Jahnisa T. Loadholt -- jahnisa.loadholt@alston.com -- Alston
& Bird LLP, pro hac vice.


ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Faces Foster Suit in D.N. Mexico
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City Of
Albuquerque. The case is captioned as COURTNEY FOSTER; and MATTHEW
KISCADEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00270-SCY-KBM (D.N.M., March 26, 2019). The case is
assigned to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough and referred to
Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen.

Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city, sits in the high desert.
Its modern Downtown core contrasts with Old Town Albuquerque,
dating to the city's 1706 founding as a Spanish colony. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Kennedy
          Adam C. Flores, Esq.
          Shannon L Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY KENNEDY & IVES, LLC
          1000 2nd Street, N.W.
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244-1400
          Facsimile: (505) 244-1406
          E-mail: jpk@civilrightslaw.com
                  acf@civilrightslaw.com
                  slk@civilrightslawnewmexico.com


ALL WILL COUNTY: Ortiz Sues over Collection of Biometric Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Edwin Ortiz and Leopoldo Reyes individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All Will County
Auto Parts and Wreckers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04187
(Ill. Cir., April 1, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's capture,
collection, use and storage of customers' biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by Defendant's conduct.

The case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting.
storing, and using Plaintiffs and other customer's biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and
the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA
protects. The Defendant does this in the form of finger scans,
which capture a person's fingerprint.

Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the
collection and use of biometric information, which risked the sale
or transfer of millions of fingerprint records to thehighest
bidder, the Illinois Legislature passed detailed regulations
addressing the collection, use and retention of biometric
information by private entities, such as Defendant.

The Defendant has implemented an invasive program that captures,
collects, stores and uses customer's fingerprints. While
disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy
interests it protects. When visiting Defendant's place of business,
Defendant's customers in Illinois have been required to scan their
fingerprints.

BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written
release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order
to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric
identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information
derived from it. BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform
individuals in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric
information is being collected or stored; to tell the individuals
in writing for how long it will store their biometric information
and any purposes for which biometric information is being captured,
collected, and used; and to make available a written policy
disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information.

In direct violation of the foregoing provisions, Defendant actively
captures, collects, stores. and uses. without obtaining informed
written consent or publishing its data and retention and deletion
policies, the biometrics of hundreds of individuals throughout the
State of Illinois whose fingerprints are captured and stored by
Defendant, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          James X. Bonnes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312 201 0575
          Facsimile: 312 332 0600
          E-mail: bormeslaweasbcglobal.net
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 726 3400
          Facsimile: 312 782 4519
          E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com

ALLIED METRO: Sosa Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ENRIQUE SOSA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class Members, Plaintiffs v. ALLIED METRO EQUIPMENT CO,
INC., ALLIED METRO EQUIPMENT COMPANY II, INC. and ALLIED METRO
EQUIPMENT COMPANY III, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02108
(E.D. N.Y., April 11, 2019) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime compensation; damages for failure to issue wage
statements, liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work above 40
hours per week but was not paid at the statutory rate of time and
one-half as required by state and federal law. The Defendants also
made improper and unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's pay.

Moreover, the Defendants did not comply with the NYLL's wage
statement and wage notice provision. The Defendants did not issue
wage notices to employees as required by law. The Defendants are
liable for damages for each employee pursuant to the NYLL, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a tailor from 2003
through present.

Allied has multiple locations where they provide dry cleaning and
tailoring services to the public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aneeba Rehman, Esq.
     Nadia M. Pervez, Esq.
     Pervez & Rehman, P.C.
     68 South Service Road, Suite 100
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 427-0700
     Email: arehman@pervezrehman.com



ALTA MESA: Camelot Event Fund Files Securities Class Action in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alta
Mesa Resources, Inc. fka Silver Run Acquisition Corporation II,
Harlan H. Chappelle, James T. Hackett, Thomas J. Walker, Michael A.
McCabe, William D. Gutermuth, Jeffrey H. Tepper, Diana J. Walters,
and Riverstone Investment Group LLC, Case No 4:19-cv-00957 (S.D.
Tex., March 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Silver Run II securities between
March 24, 2017 and February 25, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), against Silver Run II and the Officer Defendants.

The Plaintiff also brings claims on behalf of investors who held
Silver Run II Class A common stock as of the record date on January
22, 2018 (the "Record Date") and were entitled to vote with respect
to Silver Run II's acquisition of Alta Mesa Holdings, LP and
Kingfisher Midstream LLC, against Silver Run II, Riverstone
Investment Group LLC, and the Individual Defendants.

On January 19, 2018, in order to secure shareholder support for the
Acquisition, Silver Run II issued a materially false and misleading
Definitive Merger Proxy Statement, asserts the complaint. Among
other misrepresentations, the Proxy materially overstated the value
of the assets to be acquired via the Acquisition and claimed that
both Alta Mesa and Kingfisher were poised for substantial near-term
growth.  

The Plaintiff purchased Silver Run II stock between March 24, 2017
and February 25, 2019.

The Defendant Silver Run II is an oil and natural gas company
incorporated in Delaware focused on the acquisition, development,
exploration and exploitation of unconventional onshore oil and
natural gas reserves in the eastern portion of the Anadarko Basin
in Oklahoma. The Individual Defendants Harlan H. Chappelle, James
T. Hackett, et. al., are its Officers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
      AJAMIE LLP
      Pennzoil Place
      South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 860-1600
      Fax: (713) 860-1699
      E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com

          - and -

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
      David Schwartz, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
              ebelfi@labaton.com
              dschwartz@labaton.com
              fmcconville@labaton.com


AMERICAN INSURANCE: Lashbrook Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Lashbrook, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Insurance Agencies
Direct, LLC, Foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-60956-BB (S.D. Fla., April 12, 2019) is a class action
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against
Defendant for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").

AIA utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS marketing, to send
unsolicited text messages, marketing and advertising AIA's
insurance services, including at least 1 unsolicited text message
to Plaintiff. Plaintiff at no time was given an option to "opt-out"
of receiving future unsolicited text messages from AIA. At no time
did Plaintiff provide Plaintiff's cellular phone number to AIA
through any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to receive such
unsolicited text messages. Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and
has never used, AIA's services, and has never had any form of
business relationship with AIA.

Through the unsolicited SPAM text messages, AIA contacted Plaintiff
on Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service
via an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS"). AIA is and
was aware that it is placing unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff
and other consumers without their prior express consent. Plaintiff
was damaged by AIA's text message. In addition to using Plaintiff's
cellular data, her privacy was wrongfully invaded, and Plaintiff
has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the
frustration of repeated, unwanted robo-text messages forcing her to
divert attention away from her work and other activities, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida.

AIA employs insurance agents to promote and sell insurance
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
     EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
     425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-524-2820
     Facsimile: 954-524-2822
     Email: seth@epllc.com


AMERICO FINANCIAL: Amended Hancock Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM T. HANCOCK, SR., Individually and in a
representative capacity on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND ANNUITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, INVESTORS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA, and AMERICO LIFE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
7:16-CV-350-FL (E.D. N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern
Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

The case returns to the Court following dismissal of the
Plaintiff's original complaint, in order entered July 25, 2017, and
mandate of the Fourth Circuit, dismissing appeal and remanding to
the Court, with instructions to allow the Plaintiff to amend his
complaint.  In accordance with that mandate, the Plaintiff filed
amended complaint on July 11, 2018.  

The Plaintiff commenced the action on Oct. 14, 2016, asserting
claims against the Defendants arising from the sale by Defendant
Investors Life of a "Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance
Policy" to the Plaintiff in February 1985, policy number 303
1163280, and collection of premiums thereunder through October
2013.  The Plaintiff claims that Defendant Investors Life, in
conjunction with the other Defendants who are allegedly affiliated
entities, breached the terms of the policy.

In his original complaint, the Plaintiff asserted claims for breach
of contract; declaration and injunction; equitable rescission;
unjust enrichment and constructive trust; fraudulent suppression
and concealment; fraud; breach of duties of good faith and fair
dealing; as well as violations of North Carolina's Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA") and Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") act.

In his amended complaint, plaintiff again asserts claims for breach
of contract; declaration and injunction; equitable rescission;
unjust enrichment and constructive trust; as well as violation of
UDTPA. He has not reasserted the remaining tort claims from the
original complaint. Plaintiff continues to seek compensatory,
trebled, and punitive damages and certification of the case as a
class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, as well as attorney's fees. As before, plaintiff attaches
a copy of the policy to the amended complaint. He also relies in
this instance upon a declaration of Tim Cody Ryles, Ph.D., an
accredited advisor in insurance.

The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on Aug. 24,
2018, asserting that all claims fail as a matter of law and should
be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).  The Court stayed scheduling activities pending
decision on the motion.  The Plaintiff responded in opposition to
the instant motion on Oct. 5, 2018, and the Defendants replied on
Oct. 19, 2018.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants breached the terms of the
policy by: (1) assessing or requiring premium payments in amounts
higher than rightfully owed by the Plaintiff; (2) by wrongfully and
improperly drafting the policy to be ambiguous and indecipherable
with regard to key provisions; and (3) by assessing or requiring
cost of insurance charges in excess of those permitted by certain
mortality tables.  Judge Flanagan finds that none of these asserted
actions, however, constitutes a breach of the policy.  

She holds that the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim must be
dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  Where the Plaintiff has already been
given an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege facts
constituting a breach of contract, and the Plaintiff has failed to
do so, dismissal is with prejudice because any further amendment
would be futile.  In addition, the Plaintiff's claims for
declaration and injunction (count 2), equitable rescission (count
3), and unjust enrichment and constructive trust (count 4),
premised upon the same contractual arguments must be dismissed.

Next, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants breached duties of
good faith and fair dealing by drafting and marketing of universal
life insurance policies which were misleading, ambiguous and
essentially indecipherable to the Plaintiff.  He suggests that an
insurance company owes an exceptional duty of good faith under the
law towards its insured, which th Defendants breached in the case.
As a general rule, however, an insurance company is not a trustee
for its insured.

The Judge holds that the case cited by the Plaintiff for a contrary
rule, Richardson v. Bank of Am., N.A., is inapposite because it
involved the sale of insurance products that undisputedly were
illegal.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim for breach of implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing fails as a matter of law.
Where he has already been given an opportunity to amend his
complaint to allege facts constituting a claim of breach of good
faith and fair dealing, and the Plaintiff has failed to do so,
dismissal is with prejudice because any further amendment would be
futile.

The Plaintiff asserts the Dfendants engaged in unfair and deceptive
trade practices by failing to give him adequate warnings and notice
that his policy was an investment product highly sensitive to
interest rate markets and that as a result, his premiums were
substantially certain to increase even though Defendants knew or
should have known this was certain to happen.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a
violation of the UDTPA.  Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed
as a matter of law.  Where he has already been given an opportunity
to amend his complaint to allege facts constituting a UDTPA
violation, and the Plaintiff has failed to do so, dismissal is with
prejudice because any further amendment would be futile.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  She dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The dismissal is with
prejudice, where the Judge has determined that no further amendment
will cure the defects in the complaint, for the reasons set forth.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.

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

William T. Hancock, Sr., Individually and in a representative
capacity on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by H. Forest Horne, Jr., Martin & Jones,
PLLC, Karl Joseph Amelchenko -- email@m-j.com -- Martin & Jones,
PLLC & John Alan Jones, Martin & Jones, PLLC.

Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company & Americo
Life, Inc., Defendants, represented by Carl C. Scherz --
cscherz@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Debbie Weston Harden --
dharden@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Jackson
R. Price -- japrice@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
LLP, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Roger
B. Cowie -- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Taylor F.
Brinkman, Locke Lord LLP.

Investors Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendant,
represented by Debbie W. Harden -- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com --
Jackson R. Price -- jackson.price@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Roger B. Cowie
-- rcowie@lockelord.com -- Carl C. Scherz -- cscherz@lockelord.com
-- Taylor F. Brinkman -- tbrinkman@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD
LLP.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Sued by Dennis Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Dennis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amerigroup Corp., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-05165 (W.D. Wash., March 5, 2019), seeks statutory damages,
permanent injunction to enjoin Defendants' and their agents'
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of this action, plus statutory
prejudgment interest and such other relief.

Amerigroup is a health insurance and managed health care provider
operating in Washington, Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Louisiana,
Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey. Defendants
or its agents place telephone calls to consumers using autodialers
and/or leave prerecorded telephone messages to solicit customers.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
      Evan J. Ballan, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel. (415) 956-1000
      Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com
             eballan@lchb.com

             - and -

      Michael C. Subit, Esq.
      FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
      705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Phone: (206) 682-6711
      Email: msubit@frankfreed.com

            - and -

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Tel. (212) 355-9500
      Email: jselbin@lchb.com

             - and -

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


AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Midgarden Files Suit Over C3J Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Midgarden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES CORP., PAUL GRINT,
JEREMY C. COOK, LOUIS DRAPEAU, WENDY JOHNSON, MICHAEL PERRY, and
VIJAY SAMANT, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00684-WQH-BLM (S.D.
Cal., April 15, 2019) is a class action on behalf of the public
shareholders of AmpliPhi Biosciences against the Company's Board of
Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and SEC Rule in connection with the proposed merger of the
Company with C3J Therapeutics, Inc.

On January 4, 2019, AmpliPhi Biosciences entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with C3J, pursuant to
which a wholly owned subsidiary of AmpliPhi Biosciences, Ceres
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), will merge with C3J in an
all-stock transaction after which C3J stockholders will own 76% of
the combined company and AmpliPhi Biosciences stockholders will own
24% (the "Merger"). The transaction will account for a $10 million
investment by certain C3J investors. On April 04, 2019, in order to
convince the Company's stockholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement with the SEC
in violation of the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint.

For these reasons, Plaintiff asserts claims against AmpliPhi
Biosciences and the Board for violations of Sections the Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from
taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and
until the material information is disclosed to AmpliPhi Biosciences
stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the
event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act, adds
the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, the owner
of AmpliPhi Biosciences common stock.

Defendant AmpliPhi Biosciences is a California corporation. The
Company's common stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol
"APHB".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc G. Reich, Esq.
     Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
     REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
     4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 975-0512
     Fax: (949) 208-2839
     Email: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
            adhoover@reichradcliffe.com

          - and -

     Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
     LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
     821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 493-9780
     Fax: (516) 280-7376
     Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com


ANDREW J. DICK: Faces Suit over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
TASHIA KNICKERBOCKER; CRAIG AUSTIN SIKES; and BARBARA WINSTEAD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ANDREW J DICK, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-06231-CJS
(W.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Hon. Charles J. Siragusa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Alexander Jerome Douglas, Esq.
         DOUGLAS FIRM, P.C.
         36 West Main Street, Suite 500
         Rochester, NY 14614
         Telephone: (585) 703-9783
         E-mail: alex@lawroc.com


AON HEWITT: Failed to Provide Proper Wages, Calhoun Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda J. Calhoun, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aon Hewitt Health Market Insurance Solutions,
Inc. and Synectics, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01810 (N.D. Ill., March
14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt, telephone-dedicated employee approximately from August
20, 2018 to December 10, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants failed to provide the agreed-upon hourly rates, overtime
pays and failed to maintain true and accurate time records.

The Defendant Aon Hewitt Health Insurance Market Solutions, Inc. is
a Delaware corporation qualified to transact business in Illinois.
Aon Hewitt Health Insurance Market Solutions, Inc. is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Aon plc. Aon plc is a global professional
services firm providing a broad range of risk, retirement and
health solutions.

The Defendant Synectics provided the Defendant Aon with staffing
and in-house services related to the human resources processes,
from worker recruitment and selection to introduction, planning and
management of workers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Ste 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 726-3400


APPLE INC: Priano-Keyser Sues over Defective Smart Watches
----------------------------------------------------------
GINA PRIANO-KEYSER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-09162 (D.N.J., April 1, 2019), seeks to remedy violations
of the New Jersey consumer protection law in connection with
Apple's misconduct, including its conscious effort to conceal
material facts concerning defects during the distribution,
marketing, sale and advertisement of watches, as well the consumer
and warranty as a result of Apple's conduct performed with respect
to the Watches.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the
proposed class, for the benefit and protection of all current and
former owners of the Second Generation ("Series 1" and "Series 2"),
and Third Generation ("Series 3") models of the Apple Watch
purchased in New Jersey.

Apple started selling the Watches in April 2015, when it introduced
its "First Generation" Apple Watch. Since April 2015, Defendant has
released additional "generations" of the Apple Watch: the Series 1
and Series 2 Watches; and the Series 3 Watch; and the Series 4
Watch.

The Watches all contain the same defect and/or flaw, specifically,
swelling lithium-ion batteries, which in turn cause Apple Watch
screens to crack, shatter, or detach from the body of the Watch,
through no fault of the wearer, oftentimes only days or weeks after
purchase. The Defect is caused by aging or otherwise faulty li-on
batteries, or by defective internal components of the Watches that
regulate temperature, electrical currents, charging, and other
mechanisms that could affect the Watches' li-on batteries.

Apple knew that the Watches were defective at or before the time it
began selling them to the public. Furthermore, consumers complained
to Apple about the Defect almost immediately after Apple released
the Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3 Watches.

According to the complaint, Apple has persistently denied any
widespread issue with Series 1 or Series 2 Watches, but, in April
2017, Apple acknowledged a swelling battery defect in certain
first-generation Watches and extended its Limited Warranty for
qualifying first generation Watches from one year to three years.
Similarly, in April 2018, Apple acknowledged a swelling battery
defect in certain Series 2 Watches and extended its Limited
Warranty for qualifying Series 2 Watches from one year to three
years.

Apple knew that purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect
the screens to function in a predictable and expected manner during
normal use, and Plaintiff and other consumers have precisely that
expectation. Apple was also aware that purchasers of the Watches
would reasonably expect that they would not pose a safety risk, and
Plaintiff and other consumers have that expectation. Further, Apple
knew that purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect that
the Defect -- when it manifested itself -- would be covered under
its Limited Warranty, and again, Plaintiff and other consumers did
have that expectation, the lawsuit says.

Had Plaintiff and other Class members known about the Defect at the
time of purchase, they would not have bought the Watches, or would
have paid less for them. As a result of the Defect in the Watches
and monetary costs associated with repair, replacement, or lost use
of the Watches, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in
fact, incurred ascertainable loss and damages, and have otherwise
been harmed by Apple's conduct.[BN]

Attorneys for Gina Priano-Keyser, On Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Telephone: 856/858-1770
          Facsimile: 866/300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Brendan M. McNeal, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-531-0033
          E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                  bmm@edgarlawfirm.com

ARROW CONSULTATION: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Gallant Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gallant, Tina Hasenour and Susan Blankenberger, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Arrow Consultation Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00925,
(S.D. Ind., March 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Arrow Consultation provides supported living services in clients'
own homes, structured family caregiving homes, or other similar
environments. Plaintiff are "home managers" who assist clients in
personal hygiene, housekeeping, cooking, purchasing groceries,
unskilled nursing care, and transportation. They claim to have
worked 80 consecutive hours and workweeks of up to 120 hours
without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
     Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD, LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Telephone: (317) 636-6481
     Fax: (317) 636-2593
     Email: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
            sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com

            - and -

     Molly Brooks, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2060
     Email: mb@outtengolden.com


ASPEN NATIONAL: Paul Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Carrell Paul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Aspen National Financial, Inc. d/b/a
Aspen National Collections, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01871
(E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is regularly engaged, for
profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The
Defendant alleges the Plaintiff owes a debt ("the Debt"). The Debt
was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is
therefore a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5) and
Fla. Stat. Section 559.55(6).

Sometime after the incurrence of the Debt, the Plaintiff fell
behind on payments. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to
Defendant, the Debt was assigned or owed, otherwise transferred to
Defendant for collection.

In its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant contacted the
Plaintiff by letter dated July 23, 2018. The Letter is a
"communication" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(2). The
Letter provides for "Fees" of $310.80. Because the Letter can
reasonably be read by the least sophisticated consumer to have two
or more meanings, one of which is inaccurate, as described, it is
deceptive within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e. Because
the Letter is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by
the least sophisticated consumer, as described, it is deceptive
within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e.

The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by the
Letter. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived
in a material way by the Letter. The Defendant violated section
1692e by using a false, deceptive and misleading representation in
its attempt to collect a debt, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com

ATLANTIC DIAGNOSTIC: Does not Properly Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Olumide Ogunlana, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Diagnostic Laboratories LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01545-MSG (E.D. Pa., April 11, 2019) is
a lawsuit against Defendant, seeking all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA").

The FLSA and PMWA both require that employees receive overtime
premium pay for hours worked over 40 per week. In determining
couriers' eligibility for overtime premium pay, the Defendant did
not credit the time couriers spent performing job-rate activities,
asserts the complaint. Instead, Defendant paid couriers overtime
premium pay only if they spent over 40 hours on activities
associated with their hourly pay, the complaint relates.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a courier from March 2016
until early-2019.

The Defendant, according to its website, "is a full-service
laboratory providing microbiology, chemistry, toxicology,
immunology, and virology testing in the Northeast Region" of the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     Winebrake & Santillo, LLC
     715 Twinning Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491


AVALON HOLDINGS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Matusky Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA MATUSKY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVALON
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV1535 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Defendants Avalon
Holdings, The Avalon Resort and Spa, LLC, Avalon Golf and Country
Club, Inc., Avalon Country Club at Sharon, Inc., and Ronald
Klingle's Motion for Summary Judgment.

In the three-year period preceding the filing of the Class and
Collective Action Complaint, the Defendants employed approximately
242 people as banquet servers, banquet bartenders, and banquet
bussers.  Plaintiff Matusky worked for them as a banquet server, a
banquet bartender, and as a set-up person from October 2014 to
April 2017.

While working as a banquet server, Matusky was paid at a rate of
$6.50 per hour and Defendants used a tip credit to make up the
difference between that rate and the minimum wage.  While working
as a banquet bartender, Matusky was paid at a rate of $4.05 or
$4.08 per hour, depending upon the Ohio minimum wage then in
effect, during the time she worked for the Defendants and the
Defendants used a tip credit to make up the difference between this
rate and the minimum wage.

Plaintiff John Stahl worked for Defendants as a banquet server or
busser and a set-up person from May, 2015 to May, 2017.  While
working as a banquet server, Stahl was paid at a rate of $6.50 per
hour and Defendants used a tip credit to make up the difference
between that rate and the minimum wage.

Plaintiff Zackary Kerr worked for the Defendants in various
positions, including banquet server and banquet bartender from
November 2014 to present.

The Plaintiffs base their Amended Collective Action Complaint on
the fact that, as banquet employees, they were required to perform
final preparatory work prior to and clean up after events held at
the Defendants' resorts and the Defendants took a tip credit on
their wages for this time.  As admitted by the Plaintiffs,
restaurants are very different from banquet halls.

There are fundamental differences between the banquet setting and
the restaurant setting.  In a restaurant, the tables and chairs are
in place before the customer arrives for the first time and are
usually set with napkins, glasses, and silverware.  The set-up of
the restaurant is the same day to day.  The customer pays the bill
and adds a tip on top of the total amount.  The tip is based on a
percentage of the total bill, which is usually between 10% to 20%.
The amount of tips a restaurant server receives can increase based
on the number of customers they serve and the amount of food and
drink each customer orders.

In the banquet setting, the party host chooses a banquet facility
months in advance of the event when the room where the event is to
take place is generally empty of any chairs, tables, or
decorations.  The customer determines the amount of food and drinks
based on the total number of guests, so the menu for the event is
set early.  Because every event has a different number of guests
and different needs to cater to, the set-up for each event is
significantly different.  As a result, the rooms do not remain set
between events but are torn down and then re-set for the next
event.

The bill for the customer includes a total charge and a line to
include an optional tip.  When a customer leaves a tip, it is based
on a percentage of the total charge, which is usually 10% to 20% of
the total.  This tip is then divided among the tipped banquet
employees, i.e., the banquet servers and bartenders.  On occasion,
the party host does not provide a tip or the tip that is provided
is insufficient to cover Defendants' tip credit.  In those
instances, the Defendants pay the employee an additional amount to
ensure that each banquet employee is paid at least the minimum wage
for all hours worked in a workweek.  Thus, no banquet employee
makes less than minimum wage for all hours worked.

Unlike restaurant employees, a banquet employee's tip does not come
from the individual guests attending the event, but from the party
host.  The amount of the food is preselected, so the guests cannot
increase the bill by ordering more food.  As a result, a banquet
server's tips do not increase based on the amount of food or guests
she serves.

One exception to this is banquet bartenders, who may be able to
increase tips based on the amount of drinks and guests served, if a
tip jar is allowed.  If there is a tip jar, individual guests can
tip the bartenders based on the number of drinks they order. At the
end of the event, bartenders are given the option of adding the tip
jar amount to the total tip and receiving a portion of the total
tip or dividing the tip jar amount amongst themselves.  In most
cases, banquet bartenders decide to split the tip jar amongst
themselves and do not participate in the overall tip because it
results in more money for each of them.  If a tip jar is not
allowed, the customer includes a tip of $75 per bartender in the
total, which is provided to the bartender as a tip.

During the period covered by this litigation, all three Plaintiffs
made at or above the minimum wage in every workweek they worked for
the Defendants.  In the case of Matusky, her average hourly rate
was $11.44 and that rate increased to $12.94 per hour when
factoring in only her tipped work.  Similarly, Stahl's average
hourly rate was $11.06 and that rate increased to $12.28 per hour
when factoring in only work for which Defendants took a tip credit.
And, in the case of Kerr, his average hourly rate was $12.80 and
that rate increased to $15.87 when factoring in only his tipped
work.

As banquet servers and bartenders, the Plaintiffs would work at
catered events at the Defendants' different locations.  Such events
included corporate parties, weddings, baby/bridal showers, and
anniversary parties.  While the events would generally last from
four to six hours, the Plaintiffs would typically be scheduled to
work two hours prior to the actual start of the event.  For work
performed on the same day both before and after the event, the
Defendants took a tip credit on the Plaintiffs' wages.  All banquet
employees are paid minimum wage for set-up work performed the day
before and the day after an event.  The Defendants have a category
in their timekeeping system for set-up and pay employees minimum
wage for time spent clocked-in under this category.

In July 2017, Plaintiff Matusky brought the (1) collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for minimum wage pay
and (2) the class action under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act for minimum wage pay.  An
Amended Collective Action Complaint, which added Opt-in Plaintiffs
John Stahl and Zackary Kerr, was deemed served and filed as of Feb.
22, 2018.

The Amended Collective Action Complaint alleges additional facts
obtained through discovery.  The amended pleading also reduced the
number of allegations and claims at issue by removing the Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 class action allegations entirely.  It narrows the focus
of the case at bar to tip credit violations, already alleged in the
Class and Collective Action Complaint, for both regular and
overtime hours.  It further restricts the class definition to the
tipped banquet servers at the Defendants' four banquet facilities
in Ohio and Pennsylvania based on the testimony of Avalon Holding's
designated Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) representative that there are
other tipped employees employed elsewhere in the Defendants'
organization.  The Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are based on their
allegations that the Defendants improperly take a tip credit the
day of an event for work they perform before and after the banquet
or party.  The Plaintiffs assert that, during those times, the
duties they perform are non-tipped duties and that work takes up
more than 20% of their workweek.

The Defendants move for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' FLSA
claims based on their allegations that the Defendants improperly
take a tip credit the day of an event for work the Plaintiffs
perform before and after the banquet or party.  The FLSA tip-credit
exemption applies to tipped employees.

Judge Pearson recognizes that the Sixth Circuit has not afforded
the Field Operations Handbook ("FOH"), created by the Department of
Labor ("DOL") in 1988, any type of deference or binding effect in
relation to its interpretation of the FLSA.  There is no reason for
the Court to deviate from the holdings of the Sixth Circuit based
on non-binding decisions by other courts outside the Circuit.
Indeed, this is consistent with the Wage and Hour Division of the
DOL itself, which states that the FOH is not used as a device for
establishing interpretative policy.  Finally, the FOH
interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the FLSA
and related DOL regulations in that it focuses on an employee's
individual duties instead of her overall occupation.  Both the FLSA
and the DOL regulations are written in terms of "occupation" as
opposed to "duty."

Viewing the Plaintiffs' probative evidence and all reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, Judge Judge Pearson granted the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum of
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/IeQ2wa from
Leagle.com.

Jessica Matusky, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, John R. Stahl & Zackary Kerr, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph F. Scott -- jscott@ohiowagewlawyers.com -- Scott & Winters,
Ryan A. Winters -- rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Scott & Winters
& Kevin M. McDermott, II, Scott & Winters.

Avalon Holdings Corporation, Avalon Resort and Spa LLC, Avalon Golf
and Country Club, Inc., Avalon Country Club at Sharon, Inc. &
Ronald Klingle, Defendants, represented by Anastasia J. Wade --
awade@brouse.com -- Brouse McDowell, Peter B. Grinstein, Nadler,
Nadler & Burdman & Christopher John Carney -- ccarney@brouse.com --
Brouse McDowell.


B.C. LIBERALS: Faces Class Action Over Partisan Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Boynton, writing for Global News, reports that a radio ad
created by the BC NDP Caucus is being called out as partisan by the
BC Liberals -- who also faced criticism for partisan ads when they
were in power. Paul Johnson has more.

Nearly two years after vowing to eliminate partisan advertising
funded by taxpayers, the B.C. NDP is under fire for running a
campaign-style ad of its own.

A radio ad from the B.C. NDP Caucus has been playing on Global News
Radio CKNW and other B.C. radio stations promoting the government's
accomplishments while disparaging the Opposition B.C. Liberals --
something the NDP spent years criticizing the Liberals for doing
when the parties' roles were reversed.

"B.C. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson wants to give a tax cut to
the richest two per cent. John Horgan is working for everyone," the
ad says before running through a list of the premier's
accomplishments: reducing health-care wait times, new schools,
eliminating MSP premiums and more, all with a balanced budget.

"Instead of just working for the very rich, John Horgan is working
for all of us," the ad concludes.

B.C. Liberal MLA Jas Johal was quick to pounce on the ad.

"These are partisan ads basically attacking the B.C. Liberals and
basically talking about how great a job the NDP are doing," he
said.

In a phone conversation, NDP Caucus chair Jagrup Brar said the ad,
like others produced by the caucus, was paid for out of the
predetermined caucus budget, which means it's technically free from
taxpayer scrutiny.

READ MORE: Proportional representation backers outspent opponents
by nearly $500K in failed B.C. referendum

He also pushed back against the idea that the ad violates the NDP's
promises during the 2017 election to set new, stricter standards
for spending on partisan advertising.

"The language we used is very consistent with the material we
produce every day," the Surrey-Fleetwood MLA said. "We're doing
nothing wrong here."

Brar said he was aware of the ad before it was delivered to radio
stations. He said the purpose is simply to let people know what the
government is doing for British Columbians.

"It's also important to note that the B.C. Liberals create ads
every day putting forth their perspective, and they probably spend
the same amount of money as we do," he said. He added that he
didn't find it inappropriate to mention Wilkinson's position in the
ad.

Brar said he wasn't aware of any upcoming legislation aimed at
tackling government advertising.

UBC political scientist Stewart Prest said that by claiming the ads
aren't partisan in nature, the NDP is "risking losing the moral
high ground."

"They're opening themselves up to charges of hypocrisy," Price
said.

The debate over partisan ads has been ongoing for years between the
two major parties, and the criticism hasn't just come from
lawmakers.

In March 2017, auditor general Carol Bellringer held a meeting with
Wilkinson, then the education minister, over his approval of
advertising that crossed the line into partisanship.

The ad in question touted the Liberal government's budget surplus
and plans to make cuts to MSP premiums, which Bellringer said
exceeded guidelines for what should be included in government
messages.

The NDP didn't waste any time commenting on the meeting, demanding
the Liberals pay back the $15 million in taxpayer money budgeted
for the ads.

"It's not appropriate use of tax dollars, and the way I read that,
the way the NDP reads that … the way British Columbians read that
is that money belongs to the people of B.C.," future housing
minister Selina Robinson said then.

The meeting with the auditor general also came a week after lawyers
in Vancouver launched a proposed class-action lawsuit against the
Liberals and Christy Clark's government alleging misuse of taxpayer
dollars for partisan advertising.

The suit, which alleged the government used the ads to enhance the
party's image while promoting the province right before the 2017
campaign, was tossed out the following year.

At the time, Horgan said the lawsuit wasn't a surprise.

"I know I can't watch hockey games anymore because I just can't
stomach watching every time the puck is not being dropped, having
to hear about how great the Liberals are," he told reporters.

The NDP later came under fire for a series of Facebook ads it
launched in September 2017, just months after the party came into
power, that repeated its campaign slogans.

With files from Paul Johnson and the Canadian Press [GN]


BEMIS COMPANY: Dixon Files Securities Suit Over Amcor Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dixon, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BEMIS COMPANY, INC., WILLIAM F. AUSTEN,
KATHERINE C. DOYLE, ADELE M. GULFO, DAVID S. HAFFNER, TIMOTHY M.
MANGANELLO, ARUN NAYAR, GUILLERMO NOVO, MARRAN H. OGILVIE, DAVID T.
SZCZUPAK, HOLLY A. VAN DEURSEN, PHILIP G. WEAVER, GEORGE W. WURTZ
III, and ROBERT H. YANKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03356 (S.D.
N.Y., April 15, 2019) is a stockholder class action brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of
Bemis Company, Inc. against Bemis and the members of its Board of
Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC").

On August 6, 2018, Bemis and Amcor Limited issued a joint press
release announcing they had entered into a Transaction Agreement
dated August 6, 2018 (the "Transaction Agreement"). Pursuant to the
terms of the Transaction Agreement, each share of Bemis common
stock will be converted into the right to receive 5.1 New Amcor
shares (the "Merger Consideration"). Based on the closing price of
Amcor common stock of A$15.28 per share on August 3, 2018, the
implied value of the Merger Consideration is $57.75 per share. As a
result of the transaction, each of Amcor and Bemis will become a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of New Amcor. Former Amcor
stockholders are expected to hold approximately 71% of New Amcor
and former Bemis stockholders are expected to hold approximately
29% of New Amcor.

On March 27, 2019, Bemis filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Form
DEFM 14A ("Proxy Statement") with the SEC in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Bemis stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the financial analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; (ii) the background of
the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) Bemis insiders' and Goldman's
potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose
such material information constitutes a violation the Exchange Act
as Bemis stockholders need such information in order to make a
fully-informed voting or appraisal decision in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, a continuous stockholder of Bemis.

Bemis, a Missouri corporation, is a supplier of flexible and rigid
plastic packaging used by leading food, consumer products,
healthcare, and other companies worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010
     Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

          - and -

     Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
     BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
     885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 308-5858
     Fax: (212) 486-0462
     Email: fortunato@bespc.com


BERGEN SHIPPERS: Escamilla Sues Over Discriminatory Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
GINA ESCAMILLA, an individual, and as Class Representative; JOSETTE
GOGUE, an individual, and as Class Representative; Plaintiffs, v.
BERGEN SHIPPERS CORP., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through
50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12976 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., April 15, 2019) is a class action, under California Code of
Civil Procedure seeking economic and non-economic damages, unpaid
wages, and interest thereon, waiting time penalties, liquidated
damages and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, under the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Defendant has had a consistent policy of, terminating and
constructively terminating, discriminating, harassing, and
retaliatory conduct towards Female employees over the age of 45
including the denial of promotions and transfer opportunities
within the company, discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory
comments, and a failure to respond or reprimand to their younger
counterparts who engaged in said conduct, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that officers and directors of BERGEN knew of
these facts and legal mandates yet, repeatedly authorized and/or
ratified the violation of the laws cited herein. Despite
DEFENDANTS' knowledge of the Class' entitlement to damages for all,
DEFENDANTS failed and continues to fail to provide the same
benefits, rights, and protections to all classes of workers during
all applicable work periods in willful violation of California
state statutes, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 9 and Title
8 of the California Code of Regulations, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are females over the age of 45 who were employed by
Defendants as a senior account manager and a facility manager since
2017.

BERGEN is a New Jersey Corporation doing in business in the State
of California in the County of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan F. Rayas, Esq.
     Rayas Law
     One World Trade Center
     8th Floor
     Long Beach, CA 90831
     Phone: (562) 269-4607
     Fax: (562) 2694620
     Email: Jonathan@RavasLaw.com


BLACK CAT: Hilmer Claims Overtime for Hrs Worked Over 40 per Week
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hilmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Black Cat Security, Johnathan Elliott and
Stephen Martin, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00545 (N.D. Tex., March
5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Black Cat Security is a security company owned by Elliott and
Martin. Hilmer worked as a security guard for Black Cat for 3
years. He claims to have worked hours longer than forty hours in a
single workweek but was not paid one-and-one-half his regular rate
of pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
      Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
      HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
      801 Cherry Street, Suite 2365
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 479-9229
      Fax: (817) 887-1878
      Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
             pamela@herrmannlaw.com


BOFA SECURITIES: PR GERS Sues Over GSE Bond Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico Government Employees and Judiciary Retirement Systems
Administration, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BOFA SECURITIES, INC., MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP
PARIBASSECURITIES CORP., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., FTN
FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, AND UBS SECURITIES LLC
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03261 (S.D. N.Y., April 11, 2019) is a
class action seeking to hold Defendants accountable for the
injuries they have caused.

Over the past ten years the Defendants have been accused of
manipulating or conspiring to manipulate a vast array of financial
rates, benchmarks, and instruments. This case arises out of a
conspiracy to fix the prices and restrain competition in the market
for unsecured bonds issued by Government Sponsored Entities
("GSEs"). A GSE is a quasi-governmental entity established to
enhance the flow of credit to specific sectors of the American
economy. GSEs, like the FHLB, FFCB, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac
were all created by acts of Congress.

The Federal Home Loan Banks ("FHLB") were chartered by Congress in
1932 to provide member financial institutions with products and
services that facilitate the financing of housing and community
lending. The Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation
("FFCB"), is the leading provider of loans, leases, and services to
rural communities. The Federal National Mortgage Association
("Fannie Mae") was created by Congress in 1938 to provide local
banks with federal money to finance home loans to raise the rate of
home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. In 1968,
President Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae. Two years later
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was
started, in part to prevent monopolization of the market. The FHLB,
FFCB, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are all GSEs.

Rather than compete for customers' business by tightening spreads,
which benefits customers but reduces the dealers' profits,
Defendants conspired to manipulate the prices and spreads of GSE
bonds, asserts the complaint. The traders involved in this
conspiracy operated out of standing electronic chat rooms on
Bloomberg, which facilitated their conspiracy. In these chat rooms
the traders shared highly sensitive trading information about their
client orders and about the trading strategies of their customers.
Defendants also conspired through other means, such as emails, text
messages, and telephone calls. The Defendants' clients, of course,
had no idea that Defendants had secretly agreed not to compete.
Investors often engaged in extensive efforts to drive competition
among Defendants to secure better price terms for their GSE bonds.

As a result of Defendants' abandonment of competition, and their
extensive efforts to harm their customers, every GSE bond
transaction in which Class members engaged with Defendants was
impacted by the conspiracy, asserts the complaint. It is well known
in the academic literature, that a reduction in competition among
dealers harms investors who purchase the financial product for
which competition was reduced. Defendants' conspiracy offends the
very core of the antitrust laws. Defendants were supposed to be
aggressively competing for the business of their customers, not
secretly conspiring to achieve profits they could not have achieved
on their own, says the complaint.

Plaintiff PR GERS is a pension fund with its headquarters in Hato
Rey, Puerto Rico, who transacted in approximately $14.9 million of
GSE bonds with one or more Defendants.

BofA Securities, Inc., which was formerly known as BofAML
Securities, Inc. before being rebranded in February 2019, is a
corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal
place of business in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
     Atara Hirsch, Esq.
     Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
     ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
     One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 279-5050
     Fax: (212) 279-3655
     Email: MTwersky@aftlaw.com
            AHirsch@aftlaw.com
            Mguarnero@aftlaw.com


BUDO MAINTENANCE: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Martinez, on of behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BUDO MAINTENANCE CORP., NEW HOPE FUND,
LLC, and SHERMAN MANAGEMENT A/K/A SHERMAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03302 (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019) is
action on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly situated,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and specifically
the collective action provision of the FLSA, to remedy violations
of the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA by Defendants that have
deprived the Plaintiff and others similarly situated of their
lawful wages.

Throughout the course of his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours each week without regularly receiving
accurate pay for the actual hours he worked. Defendants, during the
course of his employment, did not pay Plaintiff the required
minimum wage, under federal and state law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was a residential building Superintendent who worked for
the Defendants from July 2016 until December 16, 2018.

Defendants operate as an enterprise, owning and managing multiple
residential buildings in the Bronx.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
     JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
     225 Broadway, Suite 2700
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 227-5700
     Fax: (212) 406-6890


BULLDOG AMUSEMENTS: Munteanu Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Ligia Munteanu, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly
Situated Individuals, PLAINTIFF, v. Bulldog Amusements IV, Inc.
d/b/a Club Venus, DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:19-cv-11085-MAG-MKM (E.D.
Mich., April 15, 2019) is a class and collective action against
Defendant seeking damages, back-pay, restitution, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, and all other relief that the Court deems just, reasonable
and equitable in the circumstances.

Specifically, Plaintiff complains that Defendant and predecessor
entities doing business as Club Venus (or under similar names) at
the location 9506 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48210
misclassified Plaintiff and all other members of the class and
collective as "independent contractors" at all times in which they
worked as dancers at Defendant's, Detroit, Michigan-based
gentlemen's club.

As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all other
members of the class and collective minimum wage compensation they
were entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Michigan Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"), asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer by Club Venus and prior
entities doing business under the Club Venus trade name at the Club
Venus gentlemen's club in Detroit, Michigan, for the period of
about August 2012 through about July 2017.

Club Venus is a corporation formed in the State of Michigan that
operates as a gentlemen's club featuring female exotic
dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clifford Neubauer, Jr., Esq.
     Erskine Law
     342 S. Main Street
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Phone: (248) 601-4499 (ph)
     Email: cneubauer@erskinelaw.com

          - and -

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Phone: (301) 587-9373 (ph)
     Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


CANADA: Inmates Win Solitary Confinement Class Action v. CSC
------------------------------------------------------------
The Globe and Mail reports that finally, a Canadian court has
reached a conclusion that long seemed inevitable: putting a prison
inmate in solitary confinement for more than 15 days constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of Section 12 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Not only did the Ontario Court of Appeal make this landmark ruling,
it also gave Correctional Service Canada an April 13 deadline to
bring the new limit into effect. Barring a stay of the ruling based
on a request by Ottawa to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court,
it has barely two weeks to implement a major policy change.

Given that an appeal is expected, the CSC may have more time than
that. But also given the evolution of this issue, it is now fairly
certain that the days of isolating federal inmates for weeks,
months or even years are officially over.

The ruling joins two other recent ones that put the federal
solitary regime into doubt. Last year, a B.C. court said parts of
the law governing solitary violated the Charter; federal inmates
won a class-action lawsuit against the CSC, when a judge found that
the practice of isolating seriously mentally ill inmates was cruel
and unusual.

Those rulings are an extension of a decades-old international
movement to end the use of solitary confinement around the world.

In 2012, the United Nations Committee Against Torture called on
Canada to abolish solitary for youths and prisoners with
mental-health issues. The UN considers solitary a form of torture
that should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and never as
a routine aspect of prison life.

As well, federal and provincial human-rights and prison watchdogs
have repeatedly called out the CSC, as well as provincial prison
systems, for the dangerous overuse of solitary confinement as a
convenient means of segregating unruly or dangerous inmates.

And then, of course, there were those two shocking deaths in
federal prisons: Ashley Smith, a teenager who displayed obvious
signs of mental illness but still spent more than 1,000 days in
solitary before taking her own life in 2007, at the age of 19; and
Edward Snowshoe, an Indigenous man who took his own life in 2010
after 162 consecutive days in solitary.

At the provincial level, no story better illustrates the
psychological harm of long stays in solitary than that of Adam
Capay. He spent 1,647 days in isolation in an Ontario prison, most
of them in a cell that was perpetually lit. This inhumane treatment
exacerbated his mental illness to the point that he began
mutilating his face, torso and genitals with a pencil.

And so now the CSC has a short window to figure out how to manage
its inmate populations without reflexively resorting to lengthy
stays in solitary confinement.

It's hard not to sympathize with the CSC. Like all prison systems,
it is handed convicted criminals and told to rehabilitate them
while overseeing their sentences. It has no control over how many
people it must manage, and little control of its budgets. Some of
the inmates have mental illnesses that may have been behind the
reason for their incarceration. Prison officials have to keep all
inmates safe, and so must find a way to segregate the most
dangerous ones from the general population.

It's not easy, and it wasn't helped by the tough-on-crime years of
the last Conservative government, with its emphasis on mandatory
minimum sentences that put more pressure on the federal prison
system.

And yet, the CSC has responded to calls to reduce the number of
inmates in solitary, cutting the total from 800 in 2014 to 322. As
well, the Trudeau government is closing in on the adoption of Bill
C-83, a proposed law that would create separate units for inmates
who can't be housed with the general population, whether for their
safety or that of others, while offering them more health and
rehabilitation services than are currently available.

If that came with enough money, it could be a workable solution. If
it simply amounts to the cosmetic renaming of one part of every
prison, it will be yet another failed attempt to address a pressing
issue.

And C-83 does not respond to what now appears to be inevitable, and
which could come into effect in a matter of weeks: a constitutional
ban on stays in federal solitary that exceed 15 days. The court
ruling is welcome, because it will finally force Ottawa and the CSC
to do something they could, and should, have done long ago. [GN]


CANTON PEDIATRIC: Hopper Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
HEATHER HOPPER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CANTON PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY P.C., PEDIATRIC
DENTISTRY AND ORTHODONTICS P.C., and VISHANT NATH, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01071-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., April 12, 2019) is an action
brought individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
Dental Insurance Verification Specialists to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and declaratory relief, all pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants violated the FLSA overtime requirements by
misclassifying Plaintiff and other Dental Insurance Verification
Specialists as independent contractors and failing to pay them
wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, even though Plaintiff
and other Dental Insurance Verification Specialists regularly
worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

As a result, there were many weeks in which Defendants owed but did
not pay Plaintiff and the other Dental Insurance Verification
Specialists overtime compensation at 1.5 times their regular rate
of pay, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately January 27,
2019 through March 6, 2019 as a Dental Insurance Verification
Specialist and was misclassified as an Independent contractor.

Defendants are providers of primary and specialty oral care for
infants and children through adolescence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     Justin G. Day, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865)-247-0080
     Fax: (865)-522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
            justin@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
     Lotus Cannon, Esq.
     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     BROWN, LLC
     111 Town Square Pl Suite 400
     Jersey City, NJ 07310
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
            lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com
            jtb@jtblawgroup.com


CARNIVAL PLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Moskalenko Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TETYANA MOSKALENKO, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all other Seafarers similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL PLC
and FLEET MARITIME SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendants, Case
No. 17-CV-6947 (NGG) (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Nicholas H. Garaufis
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to
the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards, and its implementing legislation, Chapter
Two of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).

Moskalenko brings the putative class action under the Seaman's Wage
Act, New York Labor Law, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Moskalenko is a citizen of Ukraine.  Defendant Carnival is a
corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales, with its
principal place of business in Southampton, England.  Defendant
Fleet Maritime Services, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Defendant
Carnival.

Between 2007 and 2018, Defendant Fleet Maritime Services employed
the Plaintiff to serve as a Bedroom Stewardess on the ocean liner,
Queen Mary 2.  Queen Mary 2 operates a route between New York and
Southampton, England, and calls on ports in New York,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine.  Red Hook, Brooklyn is
considered one of the ship's home ports.

The Plaintiff asserts claims based on the Defendants' alleged
failures to: (1) properly compute her share of the
gratuities/service charges collected from passengers; (2)
appropriately staff the ship such that the Plaintiff was forced to
hire and personally pay for helpers to complete her assigned tasks;
and (3) timely pay the Plaintiff's wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that over the course of her employment, she
entered into nine "similarly-worded Seafarer's Employment
Agreements with Defendant Fleet Maritime Services," each of which
covered a period of eight-to-ten months.  The Plaintiff and another
seafarer, who wishes to join the action, signed nearly identical
boilerplate declarations stating that these contracts were never
explained to them, that they were not permitted to negotiate the
terms, and that their principal reason for signing the contracts
was to ensure that they could provide for their families.  The
Defendants aver that crewmembers signed Part A of the agreements
and that Part B, which contained the standard terms and conditions
of their employment, was retained by crewmembers.  

The Plaintiff commenced the action on Nov. 29, 2017.  She asserts
five causes of action.  First, she alleges that the Defendants
failed to fully or properly pay her wages in violation of the
Seaman's Wage Act.  She also asserts three claims under New York
Labor Law Article 6 based on the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
her agreed-upon wages, unauthorized deductions from the Plaintiff's
wages, and unlawful retention of gratuities or service charges
meant to be paid to the Plaintiff.  Finally, the Plaintiff seeks a
declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 that the arbitration
clause and choice of law provisions in Part B of the Seafarer
Agreements are unenforceable because they operate as a prospective
waiver of the Plaintiff's rights and are therefore against public
policy.

The Defendants now move to compel arbitration and dismiss pursuant
to the Convention, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3),3 and
the terms of the Seafarer Agreements on the grounds that the
agreements require that any disputes with the Defendants be
arbitrated in Bermuda under Bermuda law.  The Plaintiff opposes the
motion on several grounds, including that the agreement to
arbitrate, which is contained in a standard terms and provisions
document, was not properly incorporated by reference into the
portion of her contracts that she executed.

Judge Garaufis agrees with the Defendants and finds that there was
a written agreement to arbitrate between the parties during all
relevant periods.  The Defendants do not contest that Part A lacked
an arbitration provision, but they insist that each Part A signed
by the Plaintiff expressly incorporated the Standard Terms and
Conditions in Part B, which did include an arbitration provision.

The Judge finds that the executed portion of the Plaintiff's
contracts -- the "Part A's" -- clearly and unambiguously reference
and describe Part B, which contained an arbitration provision.
Part A informs employees that Part B of the Employment Agreement is
attached setting out all the standard terms and conditions of
employment relating to one's rank and position, referenced as B3.
Part A also states that by signing all of the terms and conditions
set out and referred to in Parts A, B, and, where applicable, Part
C of the Agreement, the employee freely accepts them.  These
clauses, the Judge finds, each incorporate Part B into Part A.
Part B includes a clear arbitration clause.  He thus concludes that
Part B's arbitration clause is incorporated by reference into Part
A.

The Judge disagrees with the Plaintiff's contention that she cannot
be bound by the provisions of Part B because she did not sign it.
The Plaintiff argues that the following language, located above the
signature line in Part A, signifies that she needed to sign Part B
to be bound by it.  The Judge is not convinced by the Plaintiff's
interpretation; on the contrary, he finds that this language
actually further serves to incorporate the provisions of Part B
into Part A. As Defendants note, Part B does not even contain a
signature line.

Because he finds that Part B's arbitration agreement was
incorporated by reference into the portion of the employment
agreements that Plaintiff signed, the Judge finds that a written
agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties.  The
jurisdictional requirements of the Convention are thus satisfied.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's asserted affirmative
defenses fail.  He finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that
the choice-of-law and choice-of-forum provisions operate in tandem
as a prospective waiver of a party's right to pursue statutory
damages.  Indeed, the Defendants provide an affidavit from an
Acting Judge of the Supreme Court of Bermuda, explaining that
Bermuda law provides for a choice-of-law analysis, that Bermuda
judges and arbitrators have extensive experience applying
international law, and that parties appearing in a Bermuda court or
arbitration proceeding may argue that there are grounds to apply
other laws.  This declarant also states that Bermuda law provides
remedies for seafaring employees claiming breaches of the duty to
fully and timely pay salary and gratuities. The Plaintiff has
failed to establish either that a Bermuda arbitrator would
categorically refuse to apply New York law, or that application of
Bermuda law would be "fundamentally unfair."

For the reasons he stated, Judge Garaufis granted the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration.  The Court retains limited
jurisdiction to enforce any award resulting from the arbitration.
The parties are directed to file a letter notifying the Court of
the results of the arbitration and their intent to enforce any
arbitral award before the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/57UMr6 from Leagle.com.

Tetyana Moskalenko, Plaintiff, represented by Felix Q. Vinluan --
fqvinluan@yahoo.com -- Lw Office of Felix Q. Vinkuan.

Carnival PLC & Fleet Maritime Services International, Ltd.,
Defendants, represented by Edgar R. Nield, Maltzman & Partners, pro
hac vice & Jeffrey B. Maltzman, Maltzman & Partners, pro hac vice.


CENTURION SECURITY: Sutherland Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Sutherland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Centurion Security, L.L.C., and Professional
Security, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-05071-PKH (W.D. Ark.,
April 11, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. ("AMWA"), for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly paid employees proper overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other hourly employees a
lawful overtime premium of 1.5 times their regular rate for all
hours in excess of 40 in one or more weeks during the period of
time relevant to this lawsuit, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants during a portion of 2017 and again
in 2018 until August. Plaintiff was rehired by Defendants in
December 2018 after returning from military duty, and continues to
work for Defendants.

Centurion Security, L.L.C. is a domestic limited liability company
that provides security services in Northwest Arkansas and PSI being
listed as providing security services in Western Arkansas and
Eastern Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh West, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: west@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marcelino Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARCELINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00016478-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 28, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and
provide itemize wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee.

Charter Communications LLC provides broadband communications
services. The Company offers traditional cable video programming,
high-speed Internet access, telephone services, advanced broadband
services including high definition television service, and digital
video recorder service to residential and commercial customers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com



CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Mislabeling Suit Over Multivitamin Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy DeVane, Plaintiff, v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-09899 (D. N.J., April 15, 2019) is a class action
on behalf of Plaintiff and a nationwide class of purchasers of
Defendant's Vitafusion and L'il Critters multivitamin products
asserting: (a) breach of express warranty, (b) breach of implied
warranty, (c) violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and (d)
violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Church & Dwight is a large Delaware corporation who manufactures a
wide variety of household products, including a line of
multivitamin products under the Vitafusion and L'il Critters brand
names. As part of the labeling for these products, Church & Dwight
identifies its multivitamin products as being "complete" and
containing the "essential" nutrients expressly on the products'
packaging and labels.

Despite the representations and warranties contained on its
products packaging and labels, Church & Dwight's products are not,
in fact, "complete" by any definition of the word as they are
lacking several of the essential vitamins identified by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) as being necessary for human health.
Specifically, these products all lack vitamin K, thiamin (vitamin
B-1), and riboflavin (vitamin B-2), while many of the products
additionally lack niacin (vitamin B-3), says the complaint.

Plaintiff Tammy DeVane has been purchasing Defendant's L'il
Critters Gummy Vites Complete Multivitamin products for at least
six months, with refills approximately every three months.

Church & Dwight is a major American manufacturer of household
products that is best known for its Arm & Hammer line of
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
     Mark R. Ekonen, Esq.
     Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
     220 Saint Paul Street
     Westfield, NJ 07090
     Phone: 205-326-3336
     Email: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
            mark@hgdlawfirm.com


CLARUS GROUP: Chavez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Chavez III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Clarus Group, LLC, and Cerner Corporation,
Case No. 3:02-at-06000 (M.D. Pa., March 14, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.

The Plaintiff brings this action to redress common policies and
practices by which the Defendants, jointly and severally, suffered
and permitted Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly compensating
them at an overtime premium rate for all of their overtime hours.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Placentia, California who worked for
Defendants as an At-The-Elbow Clinical Support Specialist at the
Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the relevant period.

The Defendant Clarus is a Kansas limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.  Clarus
provides information technology support services to the healthcare
industry in this District and nationwide.

The Defendant Cerner is a Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business in North Kansas City, Missouri.  Cerner also
provides information technology support services in the healthcare
industry in this District and nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      604 Spruce Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 873-4836
      Fax: (312) 233-1560

          - and -

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      100 North Riverside Plaza, Ste 2150
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 233-1550
      Fax: (312) 233-1560


CLUB EXPLORIA: Moore Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Moore on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CLUB EXPLORIA, LLC and YODEL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC D/B/A
HELPING HANDS ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02504 (N.D.
Ill., April 12, 2019) seeks to enforce the consumer privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a
federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public
outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

Yodel Technologies, LLC D/B/A Helping Hands Association ("Yodel")
themselves, or through a vendor of theirs, made pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to the cellular telephone number of Plaintiff
to promote Club Exploria, LLC ("Club Exploria") in violation of the
TCPA. Club Exploria hired Yodel to originate new customers and is
vicariously liable for their illegal telemarketing conduct, asserts
the complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that he never consented to receive the calls.
Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds
of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiff bring this action against Club Exploria on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants.

Plaintiff George Moore is a resident of Illinois.

Club Exploria themselves, and through third parties, place
telemarketing calls into this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
     KEOGH LAW, LTD.
     55 W. Monroe St. Suite 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com



CNX GAS: Summary Judgment Bid in Westmoreland Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CNX GAS
COMPANY, L.L.C. and NOBLE ENERGY, INC., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 2:16-CV-422 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (i) denied
MAWC's motion for partial summary judgment; and (ii) granted in
part and denied in part Lessees CNX's and Noble's motions for
summary judgment on all claims against them.

Plaintiff MAWC owns approximately 2,255 acres of land in Western
Pennsylvania that it has leased for oil and gas production.  The
current lessees are the Defendants.  MAWC contends that the Lessees
have breached the terms of their contract with MAWC and tortiously
converted portions of MAWC's royalty payments.  MAWC filed the
instant putative class action on behalf of itself and other
similarly situated leaseholders.

MAWC commenced the action in state court in February 2016.  CNX,
with Noble's consent, removed the case to the Court.  In its
amended complaint, MAWC asserts claims for breach of contract and
conversion on its own behalf against CNX and Noble.  MAWC also
seeks class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
for similarly situated oil and gas leaseholders.  Discovery has
been bifurcated at the parties' agreement: the parties have
completed discovery on the merits of MAWC's claims; class
certification discovery is deferred until after resolution of
dispositive motions on those claims.

CNX and Noble move for summary judgment on all claims against them.
MAWC moves for summary judgment on its breach of contract claims
(Counts I, II, IV, and V of the amended complaint), and as to
damages against Noble on Counts IV and V.  

The facts in the case are largely undisputed.  Three predominantly
legal questions remain: first, whether CNX and Noble breached the
Lease when they assessed post-production costs on MAWC in general
(Counts I and IV); second, assuming assessment of post-production
costs was permissible, whether the actual costs the Lessees charged
MAWC were appropriate and reasonable (Counts II and V); and third,
whether the Lessees' reduction of royalty payments for
post-production costs constituted conversion (Counts III and VI).

Judge Conner granted the summary judgment motions filed by CNX and
Noble as to Counts I, III, IV, and VI of the amended complaint and
denied the motions as to Counts II and V.  The Judge also denied
MAWC's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety.

He finds that neither CNX nor Noble has identified any authority,
binding or persuasive, that would permit them to average wet and
dry gas gathering costs and proportionately distribute them to
every lessor regardless of whether the lessors' wells produced wet
or dry gas.  He concludes that MAWC has proffered sufficient
evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on its breach
of contract claim regarding the $0.46 gathering fee.  A reasonable
jury could find that lessees—through their blended fee
assessment—improperly charged MAWC for wet gas processing,
thereby assessing a post-production cost that was not "actually
incurred" under the Lease.

Assuming arguendo that (1) CONE Gathering and CONE Midstream
charged Noble for electricity only for compression purposes, (2)
this was the lone electricity charge Noble passed on to MAWC, and
(3) none of MAWC's gas was produced using electrical compression,
it is likely that Noble wrongfully assessed electricity charges on
MAWC because that category of cost was not actually incurred under
the Lease.  Nonetheless, because the record is unclear as to the
composition and proportions of the electricity charges at issue,
summary judgment on this claim is inappropriate for either Noble or
MAWC.  He therefore denied the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment on Counts II and V.

He also finds that receiving significantly more gas royalty revenue
than forecast despite the assessment of post-production costs does
not implicate detrimental reliance.  In other words, MAWC has not
explained how it materially changed its position in reliance on gas
royalty projections that excluded post-production costs and then
suffered detriment based on that position.  Without being able to
prove such reliance, MAWC cannot show that lessees' prospective
assessment of post-production costs beginning in November 2011
(i.e., retraction of their implied waiver) is unjust.

MAWC has failed to carry its burden at summary judgment -- as
movant or nonmovant -- on its claims of breach of contract
concerning the general deduction of post-production costs from
royalties.  The Lease explicitly permits assessment of such costs,
and MAWC has not adduced adequate evidence to sustain a judgment in
its favor on its claims of modification, waiver, or equitable
estoppel.

An appropriate order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/ssyay7 from Leagle.com.

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David A.
McGowan -- dmcgowan@cbmclaw.com -- Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan &
Coleman, Robert C. Sanders -- rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com -- Law
Office of Robert C. Sanders & Susan A. Meredith --
smeredith@cbmclaw.com -- Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy.

CNX GAS COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Lucas Liben --
lliben@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell
-- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith & Thomas J. Galligan --
tgalligan@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

NOBLE ENERGY, INC., Defendant, represented by John K. Gisleson --
john.gisleson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Matthew H. Sepp -- matthew.sepp@morganlewis.com -- One Oxford
Centre.

CONE MIDSTREAM PARTNER LP, CONE GATHERING LLC & JOSEPH FINK,
Movants, represented by Rodger L. Puz -- rpuz@dmclaw.com -- Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcote.


COLDWELL BANKER: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE, LLC, a
California limited liability company, and NRT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02822 (C.D.
Cal., April 11, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against
Defendants to stop both Defendants from directing realtors to
violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by making
unsolicited autodialed calls to consumers without their consent,
including calls to consumers registered on the national Do Not Call
registry ("DNC"), and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary
relief for all persons injured by the conduct of Defendants.

Coldwell Banker and NRT jointly train NRT's realtors. Through this
training, Coldwell Banker and NRT direct realtors to cold call
consumers to sell them Coldwell Banker's realty services. This
includes specific instructions to call consumers who have
previously listed their properties for sale with other realtors,
but whose listings with those other realtors expired without a sale
of the property. This is troubling since cold calling consumers
without consent violates the TCPA.

In Plaintiff Valdes' case, Coldwell Banker's marketing plan
resulted in him receiving unsolicited, autodialed calls from 3
different Coldwell Banker and NRT realtors to his cellular phone
number registered on the DNC. This all occurred after the multiple
listing service listing for Plaintiff's property, which was
maintained by Plaintiff's former realtor and which did not include
any of Plaintiff's telephone numbers, was removed from the multiple
listing service without Plaintiff having sold his home, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Jorge Valdes is a resident of Tustin, California.

Coldwell Banker provides training and direction to all of Coldwell
Banker branded brokerages, including NRT, which operates Coldwell
Banker brokerages throughout the US and does business as "Coldwell
Banker Residential Brokerage".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     AFSHIN SIMAN, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICE OF AFSHIN SIMAN
     11040 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 212
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (424) 229-7339
     Email: siman@simnalwfirm.com

          - and -

     RACHEL KAUFMAN, ESQ.
     KAUFMAN, P.A.
     400 NW 26th Street
     Miami, FL 33127
     Phone: (305) 469-5881
     Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


COMCAST CABLE: Azeveda Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mario Azeveda, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications
Management, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19CV341868 (Cal. Super., March 19, 2018), was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 6, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-01225.

Azeveda seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress
for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law, the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and
the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Azeveda worked for Comcast as a non-exempt, hourly employee from
1999 through May 19, 2016. Aside from being denied overtime pay,
when Azeveda applied for employment, Comcast performed a background
investigation on Azeveda despite not providing legally compliant
disclosure and authorization forms to Aceveda.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
      William M. Pao, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             scott@setarehlaw.com
             william@setarehlaw.com

Comcast is represented by:

      Daryl S. Landy, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
      Tel: (714) 830-0600
      Fax: (714) 830-0700
      Email: daryl.landy@morganlewis.com

             - and -

      Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
      Aleksandr Markelov, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      1400 Page Mill Road
      Palo Alto, CA 94304
      Tel: (650) 843-4000
      Fax: (650) 843-4001
      Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
             aleksandr.markelov@morganlewis.com


COMMONWEALTH SERVICING: Hobbs Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth Servicing Group, LLC and DMB
Financial, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10408, (D. Mass., March
5, 2019), seeks statutory damages, together with costs and
reasonable attorney's fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act including attorneys' fees and costs.

Commonwealth is a debt settlement business while DMB is a financial
services company that also claims it assists consumers in
restructuring and reducing their existing debts. In an attempt to
promote their businesses and to generate leads for their debt
management services, they conduct unsolicited calls to consumers'
telephones, including cellular, while utilizing an artificial or
prerecorded voice without consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Woodrow, Esq.
      Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
      3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Phone: (720) 213-0675
      Email: swoodrow@ppeluso.com

             - and -

      J. Steven Foley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF J. STEVEN FOLEY
      11 Pleasant St. #100
      Worcester, MA 01609
      Phone: (508) 754-1041
      Fax: (508) 739-4051
      Email: jsteven@attorneyfoley.com


CONAGRA BRANDS: Houston Municipal Employees Sue Over Share Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA
BRANDS, INC., SEAN M. CONNOLLY, and DAVID S. MARBERGER, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02550 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2019) is a federal
securities class action against Conagra and certain of its officers
for violations of the federal securities laws.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Conagra common stock from June
27, 2018 through December 19, 2018, inclusive, including legacy
Pinnacle Foods, Inc. ("Pinnacle") common stock holders who received
Conagra common stock in exchange for their Pinnacle shares on
October 26, 2018 upon completion of Conagra's acquisition of
Pinnacle, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Exchange Act claims allege
that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the Company's stock price.

In January 2013, Conagra acquired Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., a
manufacturer of private branded food, for $6.8 billion including
debt. After trying and failing to address executional shortfalls
and customer service issues, Conagra divested its Private Brands
business in February 2016 to TreeHouse Foods for $2.7 billion,
recognizing a substantial loss. Less than two years later, Conagra
was again acquiring another large publicly traded food service
company. On June 27, 2018, Conagra announced the acquisition of
Pinnacle, in a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately
$10.9 billion (the "Transaction").

Pursuant to the terms of the Transaction, Conagra was to pay
approximately $5.1 billion in cash and issue approximately 77.45
million Company shares out of the Company's treasury to former
holders of Pinnacle common stock. The issuance of Conagra common
stock in connection with the Transaction was registered under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") pursuant to the
Company's registration statement on Form S-4, which included a
prospectus and proxy statement declared effective by the SEC on
September 17, 2018. In accompanying proxy statement, Pinnacle urged
investors who held Pinnacle common stock as of September 4, 2018 to
vote "FOR" the Transaction at the special meeting of Pinnacle
shareholders to be held on October 23, 2018. Unbeknownst to
shareholders, however, Conagra and its management were aware or
recklessly disregarded that the Transaction would not result in
anywhere near the sort of benefits that defendants had publicly
represented.

As a result of corrective disclosure, on December 20, 2018,
Conagra's stock price fell $4.81 per share to $24.28, or nearly
17%, wiping out over $2.3 billion in Conagra's market
capitalization. On the next trading day, Conagra's stock declined
an additional $2.13 per share or 8.8%. In fact, in three trading
sessions, Conagra stock declined $8.13 or 30%, to close at $20.96
on December 24, 2018. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock, Plaintiff and the other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees Pension System purchased
Conagra common stock during the Class Period.

Conagra manufactures and markets packaged foods for retail
consumers, restaurants and institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 629-3737
     Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
     Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
     Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
     Francis P. McConville, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
     Email: ckeller@labaton.com
            ebelfi@labaton.com
            fmcconville@labaton.com


COTTER CORP: Banks Remanded to Circuit Court of St. Louis County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded the case, TAMIA
BANKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. COTTER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:18-CV-00624 JAR (E.D. Mo.), to the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

From 1942 to 1957, uranium ore was processed in association with
the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear weapons in a facility in
downtown St. Louis City known as the St. Louis Downtown Site
("SLDS").  In the late 1940's, the Manhattan Project acquired a
tract of land near Lambert Airport known as the St. Louis Airport
Site ("SLAPS") to store radioactive waste from the uranium
processing operations at SLDS.  

In 1957, approximately 60 truckloads of contaminated scrap metal,
several contaminated vehicles, in addition to miscellaneous
radioactive wastes were buried on the western portion of SLAPS
adjacent to Coldwater Creek, a tributary of the Missouri River
which runs throughout North St. Louis County.  In the 1960's, some
of the radioactive waste that had been stored at SLAPS was moved to
a storage site on Latty Avenue in Hazelwood, Missouri, a part of
which later became the Hazelwood Interim Storage Site ("HISS").  In
the late 1960's, Cotter purchased the radioactive waste stored at
both SLAPS and the Latty Avenue Site.  Between 1969 and 1973,
Cotter stored, processed and transported radioactive waste at the
SLAPS and Latty Avenue sites.  In 1973, SLAPS was sold to the
Airport Authority.  The Latty Avenue Site was sold to Futura
Coatings, now known as DJR.

Plaintiff Banks owns property located within the 100-year flood
plain of Coldwater Creek.  On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed
her amended class action petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri.  She alleges that, as a result of the Defendants'
collective conduct over several decades, radioactive wastes were
released into the environment in and around Coldwater Creek,
resulting in the contamination of her home and property, as well as
the property of the other class members, and leading to various
forms of property damage.

The Plaintiff asserts state-law claims against Cotter, ComEd,
Exelon, DJR, and the Airport Authority for: (1) trespass; (2)
permanent nuisance; (3) temporary nuisance; (4) negligence; (5)
negligence per se; (6) strict liability/absolute liability; (7)
injunctive relief seeking medical monitoring; (8) punitive damages;
and (9) civil conspiracy; and (10) against the Airport Authority
only for inverse condemnation; (11) violation of the Missouri State
Constitution's due process guarantee; and (12) violation of the
Missouri State Constitution's takings and just compensation clause.


The Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from the loss of use and
enjoyment of her property; annoyance and discomfort; damage to her
personal property; diminution in the market value of her property;
costs and expenses incurred as a result of her exposure to
radioactive emissions, including the cost of remediation and
relocation; statutory damages under Missouri state law; punitive
and exemplary damages; costs and attorneys' fees; and interest on
the above amounts.  She also seeks injunctive relief in the form of
medical and scientific monitoring of her home and property, as well
as environmental testing, clean-up, and continued medical testing.

On April 18, 2018, the Defendants removed the action to the Court
on the grounds that the Plaintiff's action arises out of the
Price-Anderson Act ("PAA"), and that, therefore, the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction.  On May 25, 2018, the Defendants moved
to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff filed her motion to remand on May 29, 2018, asserting
that she has pled only state law causes of action and that her
original and amended petitions raise no claims under federal law.
She specifically alleges that her claims do not fall within the
scope of the PAA because (i) Coldwater Creek is not and never has
been a licensed nuclear facility; (ii) the Defendants have never
received a license to possess, transport, or dispose of any
radioactive waste on or in Coldwater Creek; (iii) the Defendants
did not have a license to dispose of radioactive wastes in
Coldwater Creek; (iv) the Defendants did not have a license to
handle the particular materials they handled as alleged herein,
including enriched thorium; and (v) the Defendants have never
entered into an indemnification agreement with the United States
government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2210 with respect to the
complained activities.

On June 14, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
the Defendants' motions to dismiss pending resolution of her motion
to remand and stayed proceedings for 60 days.  Following a hearing
on the Plaintiff's motion to remand on Aug. 8, 2018, the Court
extended the stay until further order of the Court.

Judge Ross finds that the Defendants have failed to meet their
burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction for
purposes of the PAA and that the matter should be remanded to state
court.  Given this finding, he need not address the merits of the
Plaintiff's due process argument.  Finally, because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the action, the Defendants'
pending motions to dismiss will be denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand,
and the matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).  He denied the Defendants' motions
to dismiss without prejudice to refiling in state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/6BGgji from Leagle.com.

Tamia Banks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg --
alex@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC, Celeste Brustowicz, THE
COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC, pro hac vice, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC, &
Victor T. Cobb, COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC, pro hac vice.

Cotter Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale A. Guariglia --
daguariglia@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin Lynn Brooks --
erin.brooks@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren --
john.mcgahren@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac
vice, Stephanie Feingold -- stephanie.feingold@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim --
su.kim@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Defendant, represented by Alexander L.
Braitberg, KEANE LAW LLC, Dale A. Guariglia, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin
Lynn Brooks, BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP,
pro hac vice, Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC, Stephanie Feingold,
MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim, MORGAN AND LEWIS
LLP, pro hac vice.

Exelon Corporation & Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Dale A. Guariglia, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Erin Lynn Brooks,
BRYAN CAVE LLP, John McGahren, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac vice,
Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC, Stephanie Feingold, MORGAN AND LEWIS
LLP, pro hac vice & Su Jin Kim, MORGAN AND LEWIS LLP, pro hac
vice.

DJR Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Futura Coatings, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Ryan A. Keane, KEANE LAW LLC & Saturnin
Martin Jansky, MARTIN JANSKY LAW FIRM, PC.

St. Louis Airport Authority, A Department of the City of St. Louis,
Defendant, represented by John F. Cowling, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.


DAIMLER AG: Faces Callen Suit in Northern District of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daimler AG. The case
is captioned as TERI CALLEN, formerly known as: Teri Kimball-Callen
Stomski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAIMLER AG; and MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01411-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 28, 2019).
The case is assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Daimler AG develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells a wide
range of automotive products such as passenger cars, trucks, vans,
and buses. The Company also provides financial and other services
relating to its automotive businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC –ATL
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0869
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8076
          E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slop,e Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0863
          E-mail: jmiller@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC – AL
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Travis Edward Lynch, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC –ATL
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0867
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8076
          E-mail: tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, L.L.C.
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35202-1310
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com


DANNY'S INC: Waitresses Hit Illegal Tip Pool, Late Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Vickie Himes, Marsha Stamm and Falon Clark, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
Danny's Inc., The Tackle Box, Danny Stephens and Sereta Stephens,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00494 (N.D. Ohio, March 5, 2019), seeks
money damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other
relief for failure to pay wages and overtime compensation due in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio labor laws.

Defendants operate a bar/restaurant located in Sandusky Avenue in
Fremont where Plaintiffs worked as waitresses/bartenders. They
claim their wages were subjected to an illegal tip pool policy,
that they were denied overtime premiums, and that they were paid
late, in violation of the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kera L. Paoff, Esq.
      Marilyn L. Widman, Esq.
      Widman & Franklin, LLC
      405 Madison Ave., Suite 1550
      Toledo, OH 43604
      Tel: (419) 243-9005
      Fax: (419) 243-9404
      Email: kera@wflawfirm.com
             marilyn@wflawfirm.com


DETROIT RENEWABLE: Opts to Close Incinerator Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOX 2 reports that Detroit will no longer burn its trash.

In a press release, Detroit Renewable Energy announced its
intention to close its "waste-to-energy facility" at 2 p.m.

"Now that the company has decided to close the incinerator, the
city will soon have the ability to influence the future use of this
property," said Mayor Mike Duggan in a statement.

The facility, located near Interstates 94 and 75 and long known for
emitting odors that have upset residents in the surrounding area,
will be switching to natural gas for its energy production, using
steam to heat buildings downtown.

CEO Todd Grzech described the move as underscoring the company's
commitment to the city's economy and environment.

"Serving our community and being a good neighbor for years to come
is our number one priority," he said. "The decision ends the odor,
noise and other community nuisances, and allows Detroit Thermal to
focus on investing where it matters."

Detroit Thermal, which is owned by Detroit Renewable Energy,
supplies steam heat from the incinerator through underground pipes
to more than 100 buildings in the city, including the Renaissance
Center and the Detroit Medical Center. The switch to natural gas
will not interrupt power flow to those buildings.

About 150 employees received their layoff notices on March 27 as
well.

The site has struggled to keep up with environmental regulations
after foul odors and noises for years, including a class-action
lawsuite against the facility. Following more than $23 million in
improvements, the CEO decided that enough was enough.

"You look at it from an engineering perspective, we have to fix the
noise, we have to fix the odor and you add it all in and it doesn't
make sense any more," said Grzech.

For these reasons, Duggan mentioned the city has little intention
for the site to feature a waste-incinerator in the future.

"We will be pursuing our legal options to make sure this remains
the case," said Duggan.

The incinerator took on more than 3,000 pounds of garbage a day.
That trash will now be sent to a landfill. For anyone concerned
about a change in rates, the city's contract with Detroit Renewable
Energy is locked in which means that rates won't change. [GN]


DOW JONES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order/Judgment in Horton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., filed an appeal from the
District Court's opinion and order dated February 27, 2019, and
judgment dated February 28, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Horton v.
Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-4027, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as Horton v. Dow Jones & Company,
Inc., Case No. 19-832, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 29, 2019,
Plaintiff Robert Jeremy Horton filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion and order dated February 27, 2019, and judgment
dated February 28, 2019.  That appellate case is styled Horton v.
Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Case No. 19-527.

The nature of suit is stated as torts property-fraud.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Robert Jeremy Horton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          E-mail: fhedin@careyrodriguez.com

Defendant-Appellant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., DBA The Wall Street
Journal, is represented by:

          Sandra Hauser, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 768-6700
          E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com


DP HOSPITALITY: Shushi Chef Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chunhong Mei, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. DP HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC., d/b/a "Brooklyn Chop
House", ROBERT CUMMINS a/k/a Robert "Don Pooh" Cummins, STRATIS
MORFOGEN, and "John Doe" No. 1-2, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03309 (S.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself as well as other employees
similarly situated, against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment
policies, patterns and practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, legally required wages and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a Sushi Chef from
October 1, 2018 to March 8, 2019.

DP HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC d/b/a Brooklyn Chop House operated and
continues to operate a restaurant located at 150 Nassau Street, New
York, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ricardo R. Morel, Esq.
     39-15 Main Street, Suite 318
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (454) 362-8960
     Email: Esquire1998@gmail.com


DUTCH EXPRESS: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY FRANKLIN and KENDY CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. DUTCH EXPRESS
LLC d/b/a as Dutch Express, MARCUS HOED, ARIELLA AZOGUI, and AVIV
SISO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03329 (S.D. N.Y., April 15,
2019) alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that they and others similarly
situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime,
unpaid wages due to time shaving, statutory penalties, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have been
subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs,
practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all
culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them (i)
overtime premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular
rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and (ii)
compensation for all regular and overtime hours worked due to a
policy of time shaving, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as delivery persons.

DUTCH EXPRESS LLC d/b/a as Dutch Express is a foreign limited
liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDS SERVICE: Martinez Hits Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDS SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12 958 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019) is a class action against Defendant
to challenge its policies and practices of (1) failing to
compensate Plaintiff and putative Class members for all hours
worked; (2) failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class members
minimum wage as required by California law; (3) failing to pay
Plaintiff and putative Class members overtime wages; (4) failing to
authorize and permit Plaintiff and putative Class members to take
meal and rest breaks to which they are entitled by law and pay
premium compensation for missed breaks; (5) failing to reimburse
Plaintiff and putative Class members for necessary business
expenditures; (6) failing to provide Plaintiff and putative Class
members accurate, itemized wage statements; and (7) failing to
timely pay Plaintiff and putative Class members wages owed upon the
termination of employment.

The Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff and putative Class members for
all hours worked. In particular, Defendant instructs these workers
to remain at their assigned rental car company facility after the
scheduled shift ends and to clock out and continue working. This
gives rise to off-the-clock work, for which the aggrieved employees
are uncompensated, asserts the complaint.

The Defendant also fails to properly pay minimum and overtime wages
according to California law, the complaint relates. When
uncompensated time is factored in, Plaintiff and putative Class
members regularly work over eight hours per day, necessitating the
payment of overtime compensation for some of the time that they
work. Moreover, Plaintiff and putative Class members are paid
nominal rates at or just above the California minimum wage. When
the daily pay for these workers is divided by the actual hours that
they worked, and off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime, and required
missed break premiums are factored in, the effective hourly rate of
pay often falls below the California minimum, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately 2015 until
April 2018.

Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with its
Principal Executive Office in Atlanta, Georgia and is a service
provider to the rental car industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415)421-7100
     Facsimile: (415)421-7105

          - and -

     Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
     Haik Hacopian, Esq.
     MOORADIAN LAW, APC
     5023 North Parkway Calabasas
     Calabasas, CA 91302
     Telephone: (818) 876-9627
     Facsimile: (888) 783-1030


ESTEBAN ESTEPA: Garcia Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Jason Garcia, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Esteban Estepa,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01565, (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages for all time worked in excess of
forty hours in individual work weeks, liquidated damages, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois Employee
Classification Act.

Esteban Estepa operates as "Stevens Painting" who employed Garcia
as a painter. Plaintiff claims overtime pay for all time worked in
excess of forty hours.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Esq.
      Javier Castro, Esq.
      RAISE THE FLOOR ALLIANCE - LEGAL DEPT.
      1 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1275
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 795-9115
      Email: lcmerchant@raisetheflooralliance.org


EVENTBRITE INC: Gomes Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GOMES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. EVENTBRITE, INC., JULIA HARTZ, RANDY
BEFUMO, KATHERINE AUGUST-DEWILDE, ROELOF BOTHA, ANDREW DRESKIN,
KEVIN HARTZ, SEAN P. MORIARTY, LORRIE M. NORRINGTON, HELEN RILEY,
STEFFAN C. TOMLINSON, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., and STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02019-EJD (N.D. Cal.,
April 15, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that: a) purchased or otherwise acquired Eventbrite securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's September 2018 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering"); and/or b) purchased or otherwise acquired Eventbrite
securities between September 20, 2018 and March 7, 2019, inclusive.

Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants, under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

In September 2017, Eventbrite acquired Ticketfly, LLC from Pandora
Media, Inc. for $201.1 million purportedly to expand the Company's
solutions for music-related events. On September 20, 2018, the
Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which
forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company
sold 11.5 million shares of Class A common stock at a price of
$23.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately
$246.0 million from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts and
commissions. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used
to repay certain debts, including $30 million of indebtedness
incurred to finance the Company's acquisition of Ticketfly, and for
working capital and other general corporate purposes. On March 7,
2019, in connection with its full year 2018 results, the Company
stated that integrating Ticketfly would be a headwind impacting the
Company's future growth and revenue. On this news, the Company's
share price fell $7.96 per share, or over 24%, to close at $24.46
per share on March 8, 2019, on unusually high trading volume.

The complaint asserts that the Registration Statements filed in
connection with the IPO were false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's
migration of customers from Ticketfly to Eventbrite was progressing
slower than expected; (2) that, as a result, the Ticketfly
integration would take longer than expected; (3) that, as a result,
the Company's revenue and growth would be negatively impacted; and
(4) 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, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Michael Gomes purchased Eventbrite securities during the
Class Period and/or pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO.

Eventbrite purportedly provides a platform to enable creators to
plan, promote, and produce live events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     Email: info@glancylaw.com


FELDMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Pastor Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL-JOHN PASTOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. FELDMAN
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Michigan for-profit company, MARTY FELDMAN
CHEVROLET, INC., a Michigan for-profit company, and JAY FELDMAN, a
corporate officer, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10957-NGE-MKM
(E.D. Mich., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover benefits due to
Plainitff from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act as a result of Defendants'
failure to pay at least one and one-half his regular rate of pay
for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

Pastor worked as a Quick Service Manager. Despite the title of
"manager," the Plaintiff did not have perform management tasks as
his primary duty. Rather, Mr. Pastor spent significantly more than
half of his shifts performing routine, manual labor tasks,
including oil changes, for Defendants' customers.

As seen on his paystubs, the Plaintiff was paid through a
combination of salary, flat rate, and bonus pay. In no week did any
bonus consist of 50% or more of his weekly pay. The Pastor was paid
on a biweekly basis. The Plaintiff Pastor worked between 42 hours
and 53 hours of overtime hours per pay period. Although the
Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week, he was never
paid one and one-half his regular rate of pay for hours worked over
40 hours in a workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Elaina Bailey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692-9201
          E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Walter Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANA WALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01798-PKC-LB (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery
solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card
issuers, retail banking and mortgage. Firstsource Advantage, LLC
was formerly known as Firstsource LLC and changed its name in
February, 2007. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in
Amherst, New York. As of October 8, 2004, Firstsource Advantage,
LLC operates as a subsidiary of Firstsource Solutions Limited.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: dan@cml.legal


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Gress Sues Over Unreasonable Default Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Gress and Brandy L. Gress and on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freedom Mortgage
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00375 (M.D. Pa., March 5,
2019), seeks injunctive relief and damages for unreasonable and
inappropriate property inspection fees in breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and for violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law and various state consumer
protection statutes and Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act.

Freedom Mortgage is a mortgage lender in the United States. It
services Plaintiffs' home in Mercersburg PA. Gress claims that the
mortgage agreements preclude the assessment of fees for
post-default services that are not "reasonable or appropriate"
after defaulting on their payment on several occasions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
             glynch@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      Bradley F. Silverman, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
             tgarber@fbfglaw.com
             bsilverman@fbfglaw.com

             - and -

      Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
      Bill Cash, Esq.
      LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR
      316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 435-7140
      Facsimile: (850) 436-7141
      Email: mschultz@levinlaw.com
             bcash@levinlaw.com


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Summary Judgment Bid in Cunningham Wage Suit OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tracey Cunningham, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Fulton
County, Georgia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00533 (N.D.
Ga.), Judge Michael L. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (i) granted the
County's motion for summary judgment; (ii) granted the County's
motion for sanctions; (iii) denied the Plaintiffs' cross-motion and
partial cross-motion for summary judgment; (iv) denied the
Plaintiffs' cross motion for sanctions; and (v) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class as moot.

The Plaintiffs are over 500 current and former Fulton County
Sheriff's Office employees, including deputy sheriffs, custodial
officers, clerks, and other non-emergency administrative employees.
They sued Fulton County claiming the county violated the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and breached contracts in the
manner it applied credits for overtime, vacation time, holiday pay,
and sick leave.  The Plaintiffs seek $6 million in damages,
attorneys' fees, and revisions to the County's personnel policies
about the accrual of these benefits.

Fulton County has policies about holiday pay, vacation leave, sick
leave, and compensatory time for employees of the Sheriff's Office.
Its policies trump any conflicting Standing Operation Procedures
("SOPs"), directives, memorandums, or orders from the Sheriff's
Office.  The Plaintiffs work or worked for the Fulton County
Sheriff's Office and earned holiday pay, vacation leave, sick
leave, and compensatory time under these policies.  Some of them
received copies of the County's policies and procedures and the
Sheriff's Office's SOPs when hired.  The County updated its
policies and procedures in November 2013, December 2015, and March
2017.  The Plaintiffs routinely received emails about updates to
the County policies and procedures and the Sheriff's Office SOPs.

In February 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the action alleging that the
Defendants use a "rollover" provision to deprive them of pay for
accumulated overtime, vacation, holiday, and sick time.
Specifically, they allege the County unjustly enriches itself by
rolling over the employee's compensatory time, overtime, and
vacation time into a category labeled sick time and then requiring
the employee to forfeit all, or part of, the sick time upon
leaving.  The Plaintiffs claim this practice violates the FLSA and
breaches contracts.

The Plaintiffs first sued the Fulton County Sheriff, seven Fulton
County Commissioners, and the County.  They filed an amended
complaint and then a second amended complaint.  The Court dismissed
all claims against the individual Defendants and the FLSA claims
against the County, leaving only breach of contract claims against
the County.

Both the County and the Plaintiffs have filed motions for summary
judgment on the remaining claims.  The Plaintiffs have also filed a
partial cross-motion for summary judgment and a third motion to
certify class.  The parties have filed cross-motions for sanctions
for discovery violations.

In response to the County's motion for summary judgment, Judge
Brown finds that the Plaintiffs cited no evidence to support their
claim that the County applied its policy in this way.  First, the
policy shows otherwise.  A non-exempt employee earns 1.5
compensatory hours for each overtime hour worked under the policy.
An employee thus would only need to work 26 2/3 hours of overtime
to acquire 40 hours of compensatory time for a week-long vacation.


Second, Kenneth Hermon, the County's Chief Human Resources Officer,
explained this concept during his deposition.  In response to the
County's motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs failed to
present any evidence contradicting this testimony.  They presented
no payroll records to challenge this assertion about how the
County's policy works or to suggest that their hypothetical
happened to anyone.  At most, they show that they are dissatisfied
with the County's policies about over-time and compensatory pay,
but dissatisfaction alone cannot support their breach of contract
claim.

The Plaintiffs also contend that they receive holiday pay under
this policy but are charged against their compensatory time for the
hours.  The County counters that any employee requests for leave on
a holiday outside the context of this policy are charged to the
employee's compensatory time balance.  The Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that this application
violates the County's policy on holiday pay or that the County
violated this policy for any Plaintiff in any other way.

As to sick leave, he finds the County has not violated its policy
on sick leave, PR-1200-3.  While the policy requires the County to
pay employees for all accrued vacation, compensatory, and holiday
leave they have accrued, it does not obligate the County to
compensate employees for accrued sick leave.  The Plaintiffs have
not shown that the County violates this policy.

The Plaintiffs have also failed to carry their burden of showing
that there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether the
County has breached the terms of its policies on holiday pay, sick
leave, vacation leave, or compensatory time.  And because the
Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the County breached any of the
terms of its policies, or any other contract, the Judge does not
reach the damages issue.

Because the Judge grants Fulton County's motion for summary
judgment, he denies the Plaintiffs' certification motion as moot.

The County moved for sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their
counsel under Rules 30 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because two Plaintiffs failed to appear for their
depositions.  The Plaintiffs say the Court should sanction the
individuals but not counsel.  They also moved for sanctions against
the County for a "pattern of bad faith during discovery."

The Judge finds that the County expressly provided Mr. Hermon to
testify about the County's policies (including those affecting
Sheriff's Office employees) and a second witness to testify about
exclusively Sheriff's Office policies.  It properly objected to the
Plaintiffs' question to Mr. Hermon about Sheriff's Office policies
-- that should have been directed to the other 30(b)(6) designee.
The Plaintiffs have not shown that the County or its witnesses
defied any court order or prevented them from obtaining discovery.
The Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Brown granted Defendant Fulton
County's Motion for Sanctions, and Motion for Summary Judgment.  He
denied the Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Sanctions, Cross Motion for
Summary Judgment, and Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
He also denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

The Judge ordered Plaintiff Lundie, Plaintiff Clark, Clifford
Harold Hardwick, and the County to meet and confer within 30 days
of the Order to agree on the appropriate costs.  If the parties
cannot, the County may move for specific costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/vXK0AJ from Leagle.com.

Tracey Cunningham, Adriana Christopher, Cassandra Crawford, Dwayne
Bowie, Shirley Hall, Avis Ryan, Dante Pounds, Tawona Lowery, Scott
Reese, Terri Harris, Faith Hampton, Wardell Jennings, Karland
Stokes, Lura Baxter, Christopher Ryles, Sandra Baylock, Zelena
Brown, Sasha Harris, Calvin Scofield, Eric McKinnon, Clarence
Underwood, Brandon Robertson, Alden Waters, Montrice Johnson, Amy
Morgan, Daniel Bell, Tinakorn Nalampoon, Gwendale Strozier, Tammy
Payton, Gail Goggins-Holder, Troy Wilson, Areial Simmons, Marc E.
Scotton, Sr., Maurice Love, Emmit C. Stringer, Darcy Patterson,
Rosa Truitt, Annette Gilbert, Savoya B. Lemon, Jimmy Parr, Frank
Stradford, Dominic Anah, Michael Mitchell, Veronica Kelley-Austin,
Carter Berysce, Wanaada Murray, Maurice Arnold, Avis Lofton, Billy
Lowry, Kenneth Oliver, Barron Ross, Michael Pritchett, Dexter
Mabry, Shicana Brown, Shecobia McCoy, Ector Walker, Troy Coston,
Temika Tillman, Hector Caballero, Chelanda Harper, Frank Jones,
III, Raymond Baulding, Evelyn Davis, Steve Betts, Johanne Francois,
Tiece West, Yowanda Culler, Taylor Nayman, Twantta Clerk-Jennings,
Kenneth Shropshire, Norman Gipson, Jacqueline Underwood, Pearlie
Young, Leatra Dennard, Lashondra Childs, Angela McCoy, Sonji
Blount, Ruby Smith, Tricia Foster, Michelle Livingston, Mary
Jordan, Anthony Burgess, Richard Turnbull, Tequicha Thompson,
Ann'na Henry, Cory Miller, Betty Manney, Tameka Davis, Steven
Daley, William Sanders, William Carter, Byron McMullen, Fatou
Mballow, Kevin Morton, Stephanie Morton, Aronne Carey, Philip Dunn,
Marion Griffin, III, Felisha Higdon, Shannon Roberson, Brandy
Colton, Damien Bulter, Chante Harris, Carey Steele, Antron
Shumpert, Gwendolyn Devereaux, David Wells, Frederick Banks, Jerel
Climpson, Lorna Heath, Monsuru Kotun, Beverly Taylor, Necola
Elvine, Michael Potrubacz, Ozz Durrah, Felix Mordi, Shelby Reid,
Leroy Pena, Bayunka Culberson, Lue King, Makisha Adams, Pamela
Sheffield, Pamela Murry, Russell Stokes, Derric Chamblee, Rodney
Harp, Beatrice Mans, Tameka Cherry, Thomas Addy, Lashonta McEldery,
Aaron Wofford, Cheryl Limehouse, Yolanda Johnson, Evan Shaw,
Donnell Cockhren, Denise Bennett, T.J. Cowins, Judson Byrant,
Sherry Hines, Carol Tuitt, Johnnie Moore, Taibatu Oloutu, Felicia
Hidgon, Jessica Finch, Ashley Thornton, Corey Robbins, Serber
Clark-Kendle, Erica Coston, James Conklin, Sarah Jones-Vie, Byran
Turner, Janet Jones, Jeffery Moffett, Anthony Williams, Wanda
Barnard, Hilda Wiggins, Dwayne Harris, Nina Mayo, Larhonda Holiday,
Francisca Florent, Marquitas Liverman, William Carmichae, Carmen
Ruff, Teresa Daniels, Arquette Oliver, Clifton Morris, Hester Lee,
Dominique Couch, Tamenika Delgado, Alvin Slocum, Marquez Bogle,
Shawanda Thomas, Jennifer Marlow, Richard Jackson, Marcus
Presbury-Lomax, Kenya Brooks, Shameka Escoffery, Charlotte
Callaway, Melinda Alexander, Jacquelyn Brooks, Linda Holmes, Zania
Benjamin, Irvelt Barolette, Kaashif Estrada, Joseph Lovejoy, Jr.,
Donald Bramblett, Ashley Hightower, Cherryl Milton, Margaret Woods,
Tarshia Lee, Keisha Hebert, Anthony Matthews, Daniel Medrano, Sean
Wade, Crystal Daugherty, Latisha Gerald, Debra Green, Markennis
Jackson, Kenya Edwards, Luaquarius Doyle, Latashia Adams, Lucy
Johnson, Brain Martin, Coretta Hart, Levar Hamm, Jimmy Kennedy,
George Tharpe, Raquel Howell, Margaret Ware, George Allen, Earl
Smith, Jr., Angela Daniel, John Starks, Vincent Cosby, Marcus
Woods, Cheryl Page, Mario Simmons, Marilyn Levo, Keteria Wynn,
Xavier Cherry, Kelly Reeves, Priscilla Orr, Tyrone Ingram,
Christopher Baker, William Angry, Stanley P.J. Mays, Rosalyn
Goolsby, Nattaly Lundie, Keith Battle, Reginald Turner, Eugene
Hamm, Vincent Willis, Kenneth Feagins, Dorthy Abner, Dorothy
Williams, Tracy Harper, Vince Williams, Melvin Smith, Donna
Williams, Bridgette Dzah-Franks, Jolene Poon, Alshaday Abate,
Pamela Austin, Cedric Walters, Khalid Wise, Jacqueline Thompson,
Jennifer Brown, Maxine Blount, Marcia Baugh, Brenda Burroughs, Lula
Williams, Monica Woodward, Santrice Hunt, Linda Plummer, Jahid
Abdulshalid, Nitosha Riley, Brenda Johnson, Bruce Alford, Kimberly
Arnold, Geneva Gooden, Wanda Smith-Ceesay, Monica Woodard, Kyna
Wynn, Denita Watkins, Paulette Wildy, Teresa Knox, Belinda Zackary,
Lachonda Johnson, Tina Ponder-Long, Marissa Nelson, Aloysious Nash,
Sharon Winston, Felicia Ivey, Stephanie Barnes, Rochelle
Washington, Linda Henderson, Philomena Ottoo, Edwena Roach, Danyell
Boyd, Dana Singleton, Shurmetria Freeman & Cynthia Blutt,
Plaintiffs, represented by Clifford Harold Hardwick --
chh@bellsouth.net -- Office of Clifford H. Hardwick.

Fulton County, Georgia, Defendant, represented by Carmen L.
Alexander, The Employment Law Solution: McFadden Davis, LLC, Ernest
L. Greer -- greere@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jamala S.
McFadden, The Employment Law Solution: McFadden Davis, LLC, Janna
Satz Nugent -- nugentj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Mellori
Evonn Lumpkin-Dawson, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Natasha Wilson --
wilsonn@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Raquel Hoover Crump --
rcrump@theemploymentlawsolution.com -- McFadden Davis, LLC & Sumaya
Shawqi Ellard, Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


GEO GROUP: Indiana Court Narrows Claims in Figgs Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAMARCUS FIGGS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and DAVID CORBIN individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEO GROUP,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00089-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge
Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted in part and
denied in part GEO's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

On Dec. 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs and the proposed class
representatives, Figgs and David Corbin, filed a class action
complaint in the Henry County Circuit Court asserting claims
against GEO for labor trafficking, discrimination, cruel and
unusual punishment, false imprisonment, confinement, unjust
enrichment, and negligence.  On Jan. 11, 2018, GEO removed the
action to the Court.

GEO is a Florida-based international conglomerate and publicly
traded for-profit corporation founded in 2003.  It knowingly and
exclusively for financial benefit and profit, operates the largest
and only privately-owned state prison in Indiana.  GEO has
collected more than $100 million in benefit and value in its
operations concerning the proposed class members (mentally disabled
prisoners).

The Plaintiffs are, or were, inmates in the "Mental Health Unit" at
New Castle Correctional Facility, a prison GEO privately owns and
operates in Henry County Indiana.  The Mental Health Unit is a
maximum-security facility that holds up to 128 mentally disabled
and mentally ill prisoners.  The inmates in the Mental Health Unit
engage in daily labor, performing tasks such as cleaning,
completing reports, and assisting nondisabled employees in their
work maintaining the Mental Health Unit.  GEO pays inmates in the
Mental Health Unit approximately $10 per month for their services.


GEO typically takes possession of any given class members after
they have suffered a serious injury or trauma while held at a
prison facility that is publicly owned and operated.  It then
recruits and arranges for proposed class members to be held at its
privately held facility, ostensibly to "stabilize" the prisoner in
a three-month program not to exceed six months.  The Plaintiffs
have been restrained in the Mental Health Unit usually longer than
six months and at times for years, and repeatedly prevented from
transferring from the unit and ceasing labor for GEO.

The conditions in the Mental Health Unit are poor.  GEO isolates
inmates in small rooms for approximately 20 hours per day.  It
retaliates against inmates who suffer injury or object to the
conditions of the Mental Health Unit by extending their time in
isolation.  It promises inmates breaks from their small rooms, but
regularly cancels those breaks.  And it routinely chains and
shackles inmates when they are working outside of their rooms.

The Plaintiffs make five separate claims in their Complaint: (1)
GEO violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") by
subjecting the proposed class to peonage, involuntary servitude,
and forced labor; (2) GEO violated the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection of the laws by discriminating
against them without a reason rationally related to a legitimate
government interest; (3) GEO violated the Plaintiffs' Eighth
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by
subjecting them to cruel and uncivilized conditions of confinement;
(4) GEO discriminated against the proposed class members due to
their mental disabilities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (5) GEO committed
false imprisonment, confinement, unjust enrichment, and negligence
against the proposed class—torts under Indiana law.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court for preliminary and permanent
injunctions transferring the proposed class out of the Mental
Health Unit, compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages, and
legal costs, attorney fees, and expert witness costs and fees.  GEO
moves to dismiss, arguing the proposed class' claims are both
legally deficient and unsupported by sufficient factual
allegations.

Judge Pratt concludes that a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) does not test whether the Plaintiff will prevail on the
merits but instead whether the claimant has properly stated a
claim.  She granted in part and denied in part GEO's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.  In addition, she granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Cite Supplemental Authority in
Support of Their Response in Opposition to Defendant the GEO Group,
Inc.'s 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss.

She granted the Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' claims for
peonage under the TVPA, equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment,
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act, false imprisonment, confinement, and
negligence.  Those claims are dismissed.

GEO's Motion to Dismiss is denied as to the Plaintiffs' claims for
forced labor and trafficking under the TVPA, and state law claim of
unjust enrichment.  These claims have survived the initial hurdle
of a motion to dismiss.  Whether or not these claims will survive
summary judgment is a matter for another day.

Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) although the Court can
determine as a matter of law whether the Plaintiffs have alleged
sufficient facts that would give rise to a statutory duty on the
part of the Defendants, whether that statute has been violated is a
question for the trier of fact; (ii) the Complaint sufficiently
states a claim under Section 1590; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim is adequately pled and does not fail as a matter
of law.

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

DAMARCUS FIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & DAVID CORBIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher Carson
Myers -- cmyers@myers-law.com -- CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
& David W. Frank, CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES.

GEO GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by Adam Garth Forrest --
aforrest@bbkcc.com -- BOSTON BEVER KLINGE CROSS & CHIDESTER,
Charles Deacon -- charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON
ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Thomas Emery --
mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP,
pro hac vice.


GLOBAL COURIER: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Nogales Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ANTONIO PAVON NOGALES and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. GLOBAL COURIER SERVICES,
INC. and HERIBERTO CAZANAS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-21222-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime and/or minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a courier driver from March
5, 2012 through January 31, 2019.  As a courier driver, the
Plaintiff's job duties required of him by Defendants, along with
other courier drivers, included but were not limited to, picking up
medical supplies such as vials for specimens such as blood
specimens, and medicines from pharmacies; packages from attorneys
offices, banks, Rooms to Go and pick up cash from doctor offices to
take to banks; driving to specific locations to deliver medical
supplies and packages; and delivering gifts toys wine toys and
flowers.

The Defendants have employed several other similarly situated
employees like the Plaintiff (i.e. excavator operators, excavation
crew members, etc.) who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly ,the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorney For the Plaintiff:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167

GONGOS INC: Court Denies Kraft's Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Victoria A. Roberts issued an order and opinion in the
lawsuit entitled HEATHER KRAFT v. GONGOS, INC., GONGOS RESEARCH,
INC., and DEBRA POMORSKI, Case No. 2:18-cv-10745-VAR-SDD (E.D.
Mich.), denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and for an
order for notice to the class.

The Plaintiff asked the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

     All current and former employees of Defendants Gongos, Inc.,
     Gongos Research Inc., and Debra Pomorski, who worked as
     Research Coordinators and who worked hours in excess of
     forty per week but were not paid 1 1/2 times their regular
     rate for overtime hours.

Heather Kraft is a former employee of the Defendants.  She says she
and others who were employed as Research Coordinators for
Defendants were not properly compensated for overtime work as
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Judge Roberts opines that Ms. Kraft has not met her burden for
conditional certification.  Despite minimal requirements, Ms. Kraft
fails to meet her burden to show she is similarly situated to other
potential plaintiffs, Judge Roberts states.[CC]



GREEN PATIO: O'Malley Hits Unpaid Wages, Tip Credits
----------------------------------------------------
MEGAN O'MALLEY, on behalf of Herself and those similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. GREEN PATIO, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability
Company, and RAWNAG SHABA, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-11070-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich., April 12, 2019) is a Collective
Action Complaint against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in various weeks throughout
the duration of her employment with Defendant but was not properly
compensated for all her overtime hours worked during the relevant
time period, asserts the complaint.

The Defendants compensated Plaintiff a base pay based upon the
tipped minimum wage, rather than the Michigan Minimum wage, and
therefore, took a tip credit toward its minimum wage obligation to
Plaintiff. Despite the fact that Defendants purport to take the tip
credit with respect to Plaintiff and its other server employees, it
fails to adequately put them on notice of its intent to take the
tip credit throughout times within the relevant time period, the
complaint relates.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants' restaurant as a nonexempt server
from approximately November 2016 to July 2018.

Green Patio, LLC, is a Michigan limited liability Company and owns
Bombshells Bar & Eats, a restaurant located in Warren,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
     Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
     2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
     Southfield, MI 48075
     Phone: (313) 739-1950
     Email: MHanna@forthepeople.com


GTX INC: Miller Seeks More Info on Oncternal Merger
----------------------------------------------------
LEE MILLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GTX, INC., ROBERT J. WILLS, MARC S.
HANOVER, J.R. HYDE, III, MICHAEL G. CARTER, J. KENNETH GLASS, GARRY
A. NEIL, KENNETH S. ROBINSON, ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS, INC., and
GRIZZLY MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00676-UNA
(D. Del., April 11, 2019) is an action that stems from a proposed
transaction announced on March 7, 2019, pursuant to which GTx, Inc.
will merge with Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.

On March 6, 2019, GTx's Board of Directors (the "Board" or
"Individual Defendants") caused GTx to enter into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Oncternal and Grizzly
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). Under the exchange ratio formula
in the Merger Agreement, as of immediately after the merger, the
former Oncternal stockholders are expected to own approximately 75%
of the aggregate number of shares of GTx's common stock issued and
outstanding following the consummation of the merger, and the
stockholders of GTx as of immediately prior to the merger are
expected to own only approximately 25% of the outstanding shares of
common stock of the combined company (the "Proposed Transaction").
On April 8, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission the "SEC") in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant, an owner of GTx common stock.

Defendant GTx is a Delaware corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAIN CELESTIAL: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re The Hain Celestial Group Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-04581 (ADS) (SIL) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York granted the Defendants to dismiss the amended
consolidated class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure.

The case involves allegations that the Hain and certain of its
current and former officers and directors made materially false and
misleading statements concerning Hain's inventory and revenues by
allegedly engaged in the practice of "channel stuffing" in
violation of sections 10(b), Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder,
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Hain manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and
natural products in the United States and several other countries.
During the Class Period, 55-60% of Hain's net sales were generated
within the United States.  Hain's products are marketed as "better
for you" foods, and its product line includes brands such as Almond
Dream, Arrowhead Mills, BluePrint, Celestial Seasonings, Coconut
Dream, Earth's Best, Garden of Eatin', Hain Pure Foods, Joya,
MaraNatha, Rice Dream, Soy Dream, Terra Chips, The Greek Gods, and
WestSoy.  Hain's largest customer during the Class Period was
United Natural Foods, Inc. ("UNFI"), a distributor that accounted
for 12% of Hain's net sales during the Class Period.

Lead Plaintiffs Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel, along
with the members of the proposed class, purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of Hain, and call and put
options on the publicly traded common stock, during the period from
Nov. 5, 2013 through Feb. 10, 2017.

By the early 2010s, Hain allegedly began suffering from stiff
competition as generic brands and chain stores began to offer
natural and organic foods.  As a result, Hain could no longer meet
its revenue targets or Wall Street's projections.  In order to meet
those targets and projections, the Defendants allegedly engaged in
a "channel stuffing" scheme.  Channel stuffing is the practice of
intentionally oversupplying distributors with products in order to
artificially inflate sales and revenue.  In so doing, a company
that stuffs its distribution channels essentially "robs Peter to
pay Paul" -- that is, the company inflates revenue for one
financial quarter by stealing revenue from a future financial
quarter or quarters; and it misrepresents the company's financial
status.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged in channel
stuffing by shipping extra inventory to its distributors with
financial incentives; offering discounts to distributors for
accepting extra product beyond the distributors' needs; and
offering distributors an absolute right to return the products.

The Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding their sales in SEC
filings between November 2013 and May 2016, including the
representation of Hain's sales numbers in the 8-K and 10-K forms.
The individual Defendants purportedly made misrepresentations
during conference calls with investors between Jan. 14, 2014 and
May 4, 2016 wherein the individual Defendants misconstrued the
nature of their increased sales.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements in various filings with the SEC as to
Hain's accounting practices.  Namely, that the Defendants failed to
disclose that they were classifying inventory forced onto
distributors as revenue even though the distributors were not
obligated to pay for the shipments, and had an absolute right to
return the products the next quarter.  In support of its
allegations, the complaint relies upon six confidential witnesses
("CWs").

Presently before the Court is a motion by the Defendants to dismiss
the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

Judge Spatt granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and dismissed without prejudice the
complaint.  Among other thigns, he finds that (i) the Lead
Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that the Defendants engaged in
a fraudulent channel stuffing scheme; (ii) the Lead Plaintiffs have
failed to plead a strong inference of scienter; and (iii) the
complaint has not stated a primary violation under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5.

The Lead Plaintiffs represent that they have acquired information
from additional former employees that were uncovered during the
Lead Plaintiffs' investigation, and requested leave to amend in the
event that the Court found that they did not adequately plead any
of their claims.  The Judge finds that this is sufficient reason to
grant leave to amend the complaint.  The Lead Plaintiffs are
directed to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of entry
of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum and
Decision Order is available at https://is.gd/iCmLq9 from
Leagle.com.

Grace Omura, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C.

Salamon Gimpel, Movant, represented by Gregory B. Linkh --
GLINKH@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Prongay
-- RPRONGAY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray, pro hac vice,
Howard G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, pro hac vice,
Joshua Lon Crowell -- JCROWELL@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP & Leanne H. Solish -- LSOLISH@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice.

Thomas Dorsey, Movant, represented by Gerald Harlan Silk, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Rosewood Funeral Home, Movant, represented by Christopher Joseph
Keller, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Eric J. Belfi, Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Francis P. McConville, Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Jonathan Gardner , Labaton Sucharow, Seth Morgan Jessee, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Christopher Lawrence Mooney , Labaton Sucharow,
Howard G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, pro hac vice,
Joshua Lon Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Leanne H. Solish,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice & Michael P. Canty,
Labaton Sucharow.

Xiaolin Wang, Movant, represented by J. Alexander Hood --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Bradley D. Flora, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood,
Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, Peretz Bronstein --
peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC & Jeremy
Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Rodney Lynn, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew
Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. &
Phillip Kim, Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Irwin D. Simon, Pasquale Conte,
John Carroll & Stephen J. Smith, Defendants, represented by John M.
Hillebrecht -- john.hillebrecht@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP US.


HARBOR LEGAL: Faces Inoue Suit in District of Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbor Legal Group.
The case is captioned as NORMAN INOUE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR LEGAL GROUP;
and LAW OFFICES OF G ANTHONY YUTHAS, Defendants, Case No.
1CC191000495 (D. Haw., Island, March 27, 2019).

Harbor Legal Group provides legal services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Justin Adam Brackett, Esq.


HARCOURTS INT'L: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Harcourts International USA, Inc., a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00701-AG-DFM
(C.D. Cal., April 12, 2019) seeks to stop Harcourts from directing
realtors to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
unsolicited autodialed calls to cellular telephone numbers and/or
unsolicited calls to consumers who have registered their telephone
numbers on the national Do Not Call (DNC) registry, and to
otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons
injured by Harcourts's conduct.

Although Harcourts is composed of various franchises, Harcourt
provides training directly to all Harcourts realtors. Through this
training, Harcourt directs realtors to cold call consumers to sell
them Harcourt's realty services. This includes specific
instructions to call consumers who have previously listed their
properties for sale with other realtors, but whose listings with
those other realtors expired without a sale of the property and
never included their personal phone numbers.

In Plaintiff Valdes's case, Harcourts's marketing plan for realtors
resulted in him receiving unsolicited, autodialed calls from 6
different Harcourts realtors to his cellular phone number
registered on the DNC. This all occurred after the multiple listing
service listing for Plaintiff's property, which was maintained by
Plaintiff's former realtor and which did not include any of
Plaintiff's telephone numbers, was removed from the multiple
listing service without Plaintiff having sold his home.

In response to these calls, Plaintiff Valdes files this lawsuit
seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease from
directing realtors to violate, and otherwise ratifying realtors'
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing
unsolicited autodialed calls to consumers, including consumers that
have registered their telephone numbers on the DNC, as well as an
award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes and costs,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jorge Valdes is a resident of Tustin, California.

Harcourts is the United States affiliate of an international real
estate franchise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Afshin Siman, Esq.
     Law Office of Afshin Siman
     11040 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 212
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (424) 229-9778
     Email: siman@simanlawfirm.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


HARDEE'S: Settles Class Action Over Hepatitis A Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------
FOX 46 CHARLOTTE reports that Hardee's has reached a settlement in
the class action lawsuit filed against them over a Hepatitis A
outbreak that occurred last summer.

Qualified members in the settlement would recieve a share of
$246,000 from a 'general damages fund' if they submitted a claim.
Right now, the number of accepted claims is at 909. If that number
stays the same, each person would receive about $270.

In addition to their share of the nearly $250,000, the named
plaintiffs will each receive $1,000 in compensation.

This lawsuit claims breach of warranties and negligence on Hardee's
part, and aims to compensate customers for physical injury and loss
of money.

Eligible claimants are those who ate at the restaurant between June
13 and June 23, 2018, and had blood tests done or were vaccinated
before July 7.

The deadline was Feb. 28 and the final approval hearing in the
settlement was scheduled to be held on April 1. [GN]


HASS INTERESTS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Polk Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
AUBREY POLK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HASS INTERESTS, LLC d/b/a TEXAS EXECUTIVE
COURIERS; and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-01149 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Polk was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The
Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances,
apparels, and accessories. Amazon Fulfillment Services distributes
its products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTHALL CONSULTING: Dyse Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Dyse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HealthAll Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10704 (D. Mass., April 12, 2019) is an action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), seeking
payment of unpaid overtime wages.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, also
seeks liquidated damages for the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a consultant providing support
and training to Defendant's clients in using a new recordkeeping
system in Huntsville, Alabama between July 2018 and March 2019.
Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated consultants
were knowingly and improperly classified as independent
contractors, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

HealthAll Consulting, LLC is a Massachusetts corporation which
provides information technology educational services for the
healthcare industry across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Olena Savytska, Esq.
     Harold Lichten, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800
     Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
     Email: osavytska@llrlaw.com
            hlichten@llrlaw.com


HILL'S PET: Faces Conley Suit in E.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill's Pet Nutrition,
Inc. The case is captioned as STANLEY CONLEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04363-LMA-MBN (E.D.
La., March 28, 2019). the case is assigned to Judge Lance M Africk
and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael North. The Conley suit is
a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No.
2887.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. produces and markets pet food. The
company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Topeka, Kansas.
Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Colgate-Palmolive Co. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM (HAHNVILLE)
          15058 River Road
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783-6789
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: dperry@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          John Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP (RALEIGH)
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27605
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: hunter@wbmllp.com


HIRERIGHT: Stanley Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HIRERIGHT, LLC. The
case is styled as WILLIE STANLEY, JR. on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIRERIGHT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00297-HEH (E.D. Va., April 18, 2019).

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

HireRight, LLC develops and provides on-demand employment
background checks, and drug and health screening solutions that
help employers to automate, manage, and control background
screening and related programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUNTLEIGH USA: Cole Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Domonique Cole, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Huntleigh USA Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00816, (S.D. Tex., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, meal and rest period, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Huntleigh is in the business of providing aviation security
solutions and other services to commercial and private airline
companies where Cole currently works as an aircraft technician for
Huntleigh at William P. Hobby Airport in Houston. She claims to
have regularly worked more than 8 hours per day and 40 hours per
week but not paid any additional wages for overtime due to being
misclassified as independent contractors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Abe Sues Over Illegal, Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
June Abe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00699 (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2019) seeks legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text
messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular
devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Shortly after visiting the Garden Grove Dealership, Defendant
transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through an
intermediary or intermediaries, including without limitation one or
more of its agent(s) at the Garden Grove Dealership, one or more
SMS or MMS text messages to the 3021 Number without Plaintiff's
prior express written consent. Neither Plaintiff nor any members of
the proposed Class provided their "prior express written consent"
to Defendant or any of Defendant's agent(s) or affiliate(s),
including without limitation the Garden Grove Dealership, to permit
Defendant or any such agent(s) or affiliate(s) to transmit text
messages to the 3021 Number or to any of the Class's telephone
numbers using an "automatic telephone dialing system", says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Irvine, California.

Defendant maintains its corporate headquarters in Fountain Valley,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     David W. Hall, Esq.
     Hedin Hall llp
     Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 766-3534
     Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
     Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
            dhall@hedinhall.com


IMEX GLOBAL: Lyles Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Lyles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IMEX Global Solutions, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2019CH02967 (Ill. Cir., March 6, 2019), seeks an
injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity
related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics;
as well as  statutory damages together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

IMEX provides enhanced business mail, parcels and publications
consolidation and distribution. Lyles was required to "clock-in"
and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He
alleges that IMEX improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data
to a third-party company without informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INDECOMM HOLDINGS: Underpays Mortgage Underwriters, Engle Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA ENGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INDECOMM HOLDINGS, INC.; FLAGSTAR BANK;
FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV10621 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 27, 2019) is
an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Engle was employed by the Defendants as mortgage
underwriter.

Indecomm Holdings, Inc., doing business as Indecomm Global
Services, Inc., provides consulting, outsourcing, learning, and
technology solutions in the United States and internationally.
Indecomm Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is based in Edison,
New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


INTEL CORP: N.D. Cal. Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE INTEL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 18-cv-00507-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint,
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and
12(b)(6), and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
with laeve to amend.

Lead plaintiff Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund brings the
securities class action litigation alleging false and misleading
statements and omissions between Oct. 27, 2018 and Jan. 9, 2018,
against Defendants Intel, and three individual Defendants, namely
Brian M. Krzanich (former CEO), Robert H. Swan ("CFO"), and Navin
Shenoy (Executive VP).

Specifically, the Plaintiff raises the following causes of action:
(i) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
("Exchange Act") against all Defendants and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and (ii) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Intel continued to promote the security
and performance of its processors to investors in various contexts
throughout the Class Period without disclosing Spectre and
Meltdown.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges myriad false and
misleading statements in relation to the security and performance
of Intel's processors.  As pled in the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("CCAC"), the Plaintiff's securities fraud claim centers
on seven categories of statementso.  Each category addresses a
specific context in which statements were made.

The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.  Therein, they
challenge the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claim on two grounds.
First, the Plaintiff fails to identify any statements which were
false or misleading when made.  Second, the Plaintiff has not
established a strong inference of scienter.  With regard to the
Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim against the individual Defendants,
the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not shown an underlying
predicate violation under Section 10(b) or facts establishing the
element of control as to Shenoy.

Judge Rogers concludes that having failed to allege a materially
false or misleading statement, the Plaintiff's claim under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
must be dismissed.  Moreover, the Plaintiff's failure to plead a
primary violation of Section 10(b) requires the dismissal of the
Section 20(a) claim against the individual Defendants.

Based upon the foregoing, she granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the CCAC.  Although the Judge harbors doubts that the
Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies, in an abundance of caution,
and because the Judge has not provided the Plaintiff with a prior
opportunity to amend, the Plaintiff is given leave to amend.  The
Plaintiff will file an amended complaint within 28 days from the
date of the Order.  The Defendants will file responsive pleadings
within 28 days after service.  The Order terminates Docket Number
67.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tezu3R from Leagle.com.

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

Intel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Margaret Ann Keeley --
mkeeley@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly, John Michael Gildersleeve
-- John.Gildersleeve@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles, Olson LLP & Xiao
Wang -- xwang@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP.

Brian M. Krzanich & Robert H. Swan, Defendants, represented by
Margaret Ann Keeley, Williams and Connolly & Xiao Wang, Williams
and Connolly LLP.

Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, Movant, represented by
David Ronald Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossmann & David Reuven Lev Kaplan -- davidk@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP.

Daniel E. Tavares & Meerain Ali, Movants, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.


J & J & J PIZZA: Orth Seeks Proper Expense Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Orth, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. J & J & J Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Domino's Pizza
and Carlos Ferreira, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10709 (D. Mass.,
April 12, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and as a class action under Massachusetts
Minimum Wage Law, ("Massachusetts Wage Law") and common law to
recover unpaid minimum wages owed to plaintiff and similarly
situated persons employed by Defendants at their Domino's Pizza
stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate--beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses that drivers incur--that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Michael Orth was employed by Defendants from
approximately June 2017 to March 2018 as a delivery driver at
Defendants' Domino's Pizza store.

Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
     Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
     J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: 615/254-8801
     Facsimile: 615/255-5419
     Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
            joeyl@bsjfirm.com
            aorlandi@bsjfirm.com

          - and -

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


JACKSON HEWITT: Newbauer Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CARSON NEWBAUER, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSON
HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC.; JACKSON HEWITT INC.; TAX SERVICES OF
AMERICA, INC.; BAYSIDE CAPITAL, INC.; and CORSAIR CAPITAL, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09069, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 28, 2019.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09069 to the
proceeding.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. provides legal services. The
Company offers tax return preparation, computerized preparation of
income tax returns, and electronic filing services. Jackson Hewitt
Tax Service serves federal, state, and local individual throughout
the United States and Puerto Rico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and –

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steve N. Williams, Esq.
          Jiamin Chen. Esq.
          V Prentice, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  jchen@saverilawfirm.com
                  vprentice@saverilawfirm.com


JBS USA FOOD: Duron Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned EDDIE DURON, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JBS USA FOOD
COMPANY HOLDINGS, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RIC1901863 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 17, 2019, and assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-00702.

Plaintiff asserts these causes of action on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated against Defendant: Violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act; Violation of California Civil Code
(Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act); Violation of the
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act; Failure to Provide Meal
Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly
Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure
to Timely Pay All Final Wages; and Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     TRITIA M. MURATA, ESQ.
     NEIL SCOTT TYLER, ESQ.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     707 Wilshire Boulevard
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
     Phone: 213.892.5200
     Facsimile: 213.892.5454
     Email: TMurata@mofo.com
            NTyler@mofo.com


JOHN JACOBS: Schuller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Victoria Schuller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Jacobs Golf Schools, Inc.,
an Arizona Corporation, Shelby Futch and Jane Doe Futch, a married
couple, and Gordon Petrie and Jane Doe Petrie, a married couple,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02368-DLR (D. Ariz., April 11, 2019)
is an action against Defendants for their unlawful failure to pay
minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the
"FLSA"), and wages due and owing Plaintiffs and others
similarly-situated in violation of Arizona Wage Act ("AWA"), and
Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.").

Rather than pay their employees the full minimum wage, Defendants
imposed a tip credit upon all of their tipped employees, including
Plaintiff, the Collective Members, and the Class Members.
Defendants violated the FLSA by paying their tipped employees,
including Plaintiff and the Collective Members, sub-minimum,
tip-credit wages without informing them of the tip-credit
provisions of the FLSA, notes the complaint.

The Defendants also refused and/or failed to properly disclose to
or apprise Plaintiff and the Collective Members of their rights
under the FLSA. The Defendants wrongfully withheld wages from
Plaintiff and the Collective Members by failing to pay all wages
due for hours worked by Plaintiff, the Collective Members, and the
Class Members, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants and worked for Defendants between
approximately December 1, 2015 through approximately September 1,
2018.

Defendants own and/or operate as John Jacobs Golf School Inc., an
enterprise located in Maricopa County, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
     Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
     BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
     P.O. Box 97066
     Phoenix, AZ 85060
     Phone: (480) 382-5176
     Fax: (480) 304-3805
     Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
            chris@bendaulaw.com


JOHNSTON NURSERIES: Faces Torres Suit in Kern County
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Johnston Nurseries, FLP. The case is captioned as FERNANDO TORRES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JOHNSTON NURSERIES, FLP; DENNIS JOHNSTON; and STACEY
JOHNSTON, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-100830 (Cal. Super., Kern
Cty., March 26, 2019). The case is assigned to Thomas S. Clark.

Johnston Nurseries, FLP is a limited partnership organized under
the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasmin K. Gill, Esq.
          J. GILL LAW GROUP, PC
          515 S Flower St., 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (909) 631-6581


JOUDEH GHAWALI: Onyeneho Seeks Overtime Wages for Exotic Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNDA ONYENEHO, the Plaintiff, v. TRIPLE D PRODUCTIONS, LLC., a
Florida limited liability company, and JOUDEH GHAWALI,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80454-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fee
and costs from Defendants for violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified Exotic
Dancers as Independent Contractors and/or Licensees and set the
policy of not directly compensating Plaintiff and other like
workers. The Defendant is ultimately responsibility, on behalf of
Defendant TRIPLE D PRODUCTIONS LLC., to compensate Plaintiff and
other like workers pursuant to the FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
          Wells Fargo Building
          4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 780-8228
          Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
          E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Nessmith Suit over Deceptive Marketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against JUUL Labs, Inc.,
Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, Inc. for violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The case is
captioned ERIN NESSMITH and JARED NESSMITH, individually, and as
guardians of their minor child, A. N., on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, JUUL LABS INC.,
ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00884 (M.D. Fla., April 15, 2019). Plaintiffs Erin and
Jared Nessmith accuse Defendants of using fraudulent and deceptive
youth marketing business practices adjudged to violate federal
racketeering laws.  Juul Labs, they claim, misrepresented the
amount of nicotine contained in its products.  Accordingly, they
bring this lawsuit to redress the harm already sustained and
prevent future harm to others. Such harm includes exposure to
significant toxic substances, which may cause or contribute to
causing disease and nicotine addiction.

JUUL Labs, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in San Francisco, California. JUUL originally operated
under the name PAX Labs, Inc. In 2017, it was renamed JUUL Labs,
Inc. JUUL manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes. Tobacco giant Altria recently
acquired a 35% stake in JUUL, the country's lead e-cigarette
seller.

Altria Group, Inc, is a Virginia corporation with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria. Philip Morris is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States. It is
considered as the largest cigarette company in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
     Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
     SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
     1212 SE Third Avenue
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3316
     Telephone: 954-467-8800
     E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
             jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com
             jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


KINJO INC: Delivery Staff Sacked for Claiming Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Cruz and Fernando Perez, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Kinjo, Inc.,
Andy Lau and Raymond Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02085, (S.D.
N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
compensation for retaliation, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kinjo operates as "Gunbae," a restaurant located at 67 Murray
Street, New York. Cruz and Perez worked as delivery personnel and
claim to be compensated only for their scheduled shift and never
received overtime compensation for pre-shift and post-shift work.
They were eventually terminated for complaining about this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KROGER CO: Cocomilk Product Hazardous to Health, Grausz Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Grausz, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and
the general public, Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., Defendant, Case
19-cv-00449 (S.D. Cal., March 6, 2019) seeks disgorgement of all
monies, revenues and profits obtained illegally, restitution to
restore all funds acquired by means of unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business acts or practices, actual and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and any other and further relief for
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition
Law and False Advertising Law of the California Business and
Professions Code and for breach of express and implied warranties.

Kroger markets, distributes, and sells the "Simple Truth"
Coconutmilk Product, a drink that is primarily coconut oil
suspended in water. Grausz claims that that the oil or fat from
coconuts increases risk of heart disease. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
      4125 W. Point Loma Blvd., No. 206
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Phone: (619) 767-0356
      Fax: (619) 331-2943
      Email: paul@pauljosephlaw.com



KURTZMAN CARSON: Aetna Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------
Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania transferred the case, AETNA INC., v.
KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-470 (E.D.
Pa.), to the Central District of California.

Plaintiff Aetna brings the action against Kurtzman seeking
indemnity, contribution, reimbursement, and damages for liability
Aetna has incurred and continues to incur as a result of Kurtzman's
acts, errors, omissions, and gross negligence in handling Aetna
insureds' protected health information while serving as settlement
administrator for two lawsuits filed against Aetna in California
and Florida ("Doe lawsuits").  

The action arises from Kurtzman's service as settlement
administrator for the Doe lawsuits, two putative class actions
filed against Aetna and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates
in federal district court in California and Florida, in which the
plaintiffs challenged Aetna's alleged requirement that members of
its health plans obtain HIV medications through the mail instead of
a retail pharmacy.  Although the Doe lawsuits were filed as
putative class actions, the cases did not settle on a class-wide
basis.  Rather, the settlement was among the four individuals named
as plaintiffs in the Doe lawsuits and Aetna and its affiliates.

Nevertheless, as part of the settlement, Aetna agreed to provide
written notice to certain putative class members advising them of
their options when filling prescriptions for HIV medications.  
Aetna also agreed to provide a separate written notice to certain
putative class members regarding their right to file a claim for
refunds of certain out-of-pocket costs under the settlement
agreement.

In early August 2017, Aetna began receiving calls and emails from
putative class members who had received the Member Notice,
reporting that the words "HIV Medications" could be seen through
the window in the envelope, below the recipient's name and address.
On Aug. 28, 2017, Andrew Beckett, a recipient of a Member Notice
with the words "HIV Medications" visible, filed a putative
nationwide class action lawsuit against Aetna in the Court,
alleging, inter alia, that the positioning of the Member Notice in
window envelopes allowed unauthorized persons to view the
recipients' confidential HIV-related information, causing the
recipients substantial damage and harm.  Six additional class
action lawsuits were filed against Aetna in the Court, in federal
courts in California, Connecticut, and Missouri, and in California
state court.  All of those cases were ultimately joined and/or
consolidated with the Beckett action in the district.

In addition to the class actions, three individual actions
concerning the Member Notice have been filed against Aetna in state
and federal court in California and federal court in New Jersey.
Aetna is also the subject of investigations by several state
attorneys general and the United States Department of Health and
Human Services, which could potentially lead to civil penalties
against Aetna.

In October 2017 and January 2018, Aetna sent letters to Kurtzman,
demanding that Kurtzman defend, indemnify, and/or hold Aetna
harmless from and against any liability, damages, payments,
penalties, claims, losses, and costs and expenses relating to the
privacy incident involving the Member Notice and the lawsuits and
investigations to which Aetna has been subject as a result of the
privacy incident.  It has also made numerous requests since August
2017 for Kurtzman to return, delete, and destroy certain
confidential data and information about putative class members in
the Doe lawsuits.

Kurtzman, however, refused these demands and requests, prompting
Aetna to file the instant lawsuit in February 2018.  The
liabilities for which Aetna seeks indemnification include, but are
not limited to, the $17,162,000 settlement in Beckett v. Aetna
Inc., a nationwide class action filed against Aetna in the Court on
behalf of Aetna insureds who received a notice regarding the
settlement of the Doe lawsuits on which their confidential
HIV-related information was visible to third parties.  Aetna also
seeks injunctive relief and/or replevin requiring Kurtzman to
return its insureds' protected health information to Aetna and to
delete and destroy any copies of such information.

Kurtzman moves to dismiss the case for lack of personal
jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2) and (b)(3), to transfer the case to the Central
District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), or,
alternatively, to dismiss or transfer the case in deference to a
similar action that a related entity -- KCC Class Action Services,
LLC -- filed against Aetna in the Central District of California.

Judge Sanchez concludes that Kurtzman is subject to general
jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by consent.  Kurtzman's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction will be denied.

Because Kurtzman is subject to personal jurisdiction in the
district with respect to the action, it is deemed to reside under
Section 1391(c)(2).  Hence, venue is proper in the district under
Section 1391(b)(1), and its motion to dismiss for improper venue
will also be denied.

Finally, although Aetna's choice to file suit in the district
carries significant weight in the transfer analysis, several other
private and public interests -- including where the claim arose,
the convenience of witnesses, judicial economy, and, to a lesser
extent, Kurtzman's forum preference -- weigh in favor of transfer.
After considering all of the relevant private and public interests,
the Judge is persuaded that, on balance, the action would more
conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served
by transfer to the Central District of California.  Accordingly,
Kurtzman's motion to transfer will be granted.

Judge Sanchez concludes that Kurtzman is subject to personal
jurisdiction in Pennsylvania and that venue is proper in the
district, but that transfer to the Central District of California
is warranted upon consideration of the relevant private and public
interests.  He granted Kurtzman's motion insofar as the case will
be transferred to the Central District of California.  An
appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/RIT8y7 from Leagle.com.

AETNA INC., Plaintiff, represented by BRANDON P. REILLY --
breilly@manatt.com -- MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP, DONNA L. WILSON
-- dlwilson@manatt.com -- MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, FREDERICK P.
SANTARELLI, ELLIOTT GREENLEAF, P.C., MATTHEW P. KANNY, MANATT
PHELPS & PHILLIPS, CRAIG RUTENBERG, MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP,
DIANA LAUREN EISNER, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP & THOMAS J.
ELLIOTT -- tje@elliottgreenleaf.com -- ELLIOTT GREENLEAF, P.C.

KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS, LLC, Defendant, represented by BLAINE
C. KIMREY -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE PC, BRYAN
CLARK -- bclark@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE PC, JEANAH PARK --
jpark@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE PC & ROBERT M. CAVALIER --
rcavalier@lucascavalier.com -- LUCAS & CAVALIER LLC.


LAMBERT CONSTRUCTION: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Nelson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Lambert Construction Company, Inc., and Gary
Lambert, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00260-SWW (E.D. Ark., April
15, 2019) is a collective action brought by Eddie Nelson,
individually and on behalf of the collective members against
Defendants for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the overtime provisions of the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA").

In several workweeks, Plaintiff performed his delivery duties for
more than 40 hours per week. Nelson worked more than forty hours
per week from time to time, or even regularly but Defendant did not
pay Plaintiff an overtime premium for the commissions Plaintiff
earned, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Eddie Nelson entered into an employer-employee
relationship with Lambert Construction and Lambert in approximately
2012.

Lambert Construction operates a construction company based in
Little Rock.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sean Short, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


LAWRENCE SCOTT: Class Certification Bid Granted in Settecasi Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as VINCENT SETTECASI, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAWRENCE SCOTT
EVENTS, LTD.; L S EVENTS INC.; and LAWRENCE GOTTESMAN, Defendants,
Case No. 601674/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 27, 2019), the
New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, has granted a motion to
certify the case as a class action.  The case is assigned to Judge
Jeffrey S. Brown.

Lawrence Scott Events, Ltd. is engaged in the restaurant and
catering business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

The Defendants are represented by:

          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone No: (212) 878-7900


LEGENDARY FIELD: Muirbrook Sues Over WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Muirbrook, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Legendary Field Exhibitions, LLC
d/b/a Alliance of American Football, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00242-PMW (D. Utah, April 11, 2019) is an action on behalf
of plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees who
worked for the Company for at least six of the last 12 months and
who were terminated as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs
or plant closings ordered by the Company without 60 days advance
written notice of their terminations as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act").

On April 2, 2019, the Company notified Plaintiff and the Claimants
that they would be terminated as of April 3, 2019. Accordingly,
Plaintiff and Claimants were not provided the 60 days notice
mandated under the WARN Act. The lack of notice of termination
caused significant harm to Plaintiff and Claimants who were unable
to properly plan for a job transition or make plans for the
unexpected and immediate lack of income caused by the reckless
actions of the  Company, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover 60
days wages, benefits, attorneys' fees and other damages for the
Company's reckless conduct.

Plaintiff Richard Muirbrook worked as a full-time salaried employee
with the Company from September 10, 2018, until he was terminated
on April 3, 2019.

The Company operated football teams in various cities throughout
the United States, including in Salt Lake City, under the name
"Alliance of American Football".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher B. Snow, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Bletzacker, Esq.
     Katherine E. Pepin, Esq.
     CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
     One Utah Center, Ste. 1300
     201 South Main Street
     Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2216
     Phone 801.322.2516
     Facsimile 801.521.6280
     Email: cbs@clydesnow.com
            jdb@clydesnow.com
            kep@clydesnow.com


LIFE CARE: Samuel Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LIFE CARE SERVICES,
INC. The case is styled as SAMUEL, AGATHA JEAN, MARIA MENA, AND
MICHELINE CANTAVE, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIFE CARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21318/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., April
18, 2019).

Life Care Services LLC owns and manages retirement and senior
living communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM C. RAND
     501 FIFTH AVE, 15TH FL
     NEW YORK, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 286-1425

The Defendant is represented by:

     PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.
     1325 AVE. OF AMERICAS, 10TH FL
     NEW YORK, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 382-0909


LYNEER STAFFING: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Vasquez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
REINA PALACIOS VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC;
and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10628 (Cal.
Super, Los Angeles Cty., March 28, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Vasquez was employed by the Defendants as warehouse
worker.

Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC provides temporary, temp-to-perm,
and permanent staffing solutions to accounting and finance,
administrative and clerical, hospitality, information technology,
legal, light industrial, and medical sectors. The company is based
in Ewing Township, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
         Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
         Alexander Perez, Esq.
         MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
         249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 590-5550
         Facsimile: (562) 590-8400


M & G PIZZA: Does not Properly Pay Deliver Drivers, Ownbey Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Ownbey, Christopher Smith, and Lee Seaton, Each Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. M & G
Pizza Enterprises, LLC, and Brent Medders, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-05074-TLB (W.D. Ark., April 11, 2019) is an action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act, Ark. ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated as
delivery drivers the legal minimum hourly wage and overtime
compensation for all hours that Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated worked.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' stores do not track
their delivery drivers' actual expenses, nor do they keep records
of all of those expenses. Defendants did not reimburse delivery
drivers for their actual expenses or a reasonable approximation of
the drivers' expenses. Neither did Defendants reimburse delivery
drivers at the IRS standard business mileage rate, asserts the
complaint.

As a result of the automobile and other job-related expenses
incurred by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated delivery
drivers, they were deprived of minimum wages guaranteed to them by
the FLSA and AMWA, the Plaintiff contends. At all relevant times,
Defendants have applied the same pay policies, practices, and
procedures to all delivery drivers at their stores.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as hourly-paid delivery driver
employees at Defendants' pizza store located in Fayetteville from
approximately May of 2014 until present.

Defendants own and operate multiple Domino's pizza franchises
throughout Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steve Rauls, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


MANHATTAN LUXURY: Rosado Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as, NICOLAS LOPEZ ROSADO, on behalf of himself,
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MANHATTAN LUXURY
AUTOMOBILES, INC., dba LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, or any other business
entity doing business as "LEXUS OF MANHATTAN", located at 627
Eleventh Avenue, New York, NY 10036; ERNIE'S AUTO DETAILING, INC.,
ERNESTO DECENA and CARMINE PENELLA, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02899 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019), seeks recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

During the last five years of Plaintiff's employment, he was paid
an hourly wage of $8.50 per hour; prior to that, the Plaintiff was
paid an hourly wage of $8.25 per hour. He was paid weekly, by
check. The Plaintiff worked nine days, for which he was not paid
any wages. The Plaintiff was paid the same regular rate for all
hours worked, without an overtime premium for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiff did not receive tips in connection with his
employment. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their
businesses with a policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage
or the New York State minimum wage to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees.

Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their businesses with a
policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or
the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in
violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting
federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations.

Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. was founded in 1994. The
Company's line of business includes the retail sale of new and used
automobiles.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

MARATHON FINANCIAL: Galloway Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Galloway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marathon Financial Insurance Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill., March 5, 2019), seeks
statutory and treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation and
attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.

Marathon is a financial services company offering insurance
products to consumers. In an effort to effectuate their business,
they utilize telemarketing to reach consumers, often without the
recipients' consent. Galloway is on the National Do Not Call
Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq.
      HALVORSEN KLOTE
      680 Craig Road, Suite 104
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Tel: (314) 451-1314
      Fax: (314) 787-4323
      Email: joel@hklawstl.com

             - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
             ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


MARCOS: OSG Blocks Martial Law Victims Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janvic Mateo, writing for The Philippine Star, reports that the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has not authorized the
settlement agreement that will allow the distribution of funds to
martial law victims using ill-gotten assets recovered in the United
States.

Reynold Munsayac, acting chairman of the Presidential Commission on
Good Government (PCGG), on March 31 said the Philippine government
will instead pursue its claim to all of the recovered properties of
the Marcoses in the cases pending before the Sandiganbayan.

He said they informed New York district court Judge Katherine Polk
Failla that the court failed to secure the authority of the OSG
that would allow implementation of the settlement agreement, which
would divide the proceeds from the sale of paintings recovered from
an aide of former first lady and Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Marcos.

Munsayac disputed the claim of American human rights lawyer Robert
Swift that the agreement has been finalized and that the New York
judge already approved the release of the funds.

"Not true. The proposed settlement agreement was approved by Judge
Failla subject to certain conditions like the presentation of the
Republic of the Philippines of authority to enter into the same,"
he told The STAR.

"We just submitted a letter to Judge Failla manifesting that the
required authority from the Office of the Solicitor General was not
secured, thus, the implementation of the settlement agreement
cannot proceed. In fact, (PCGG) commissioner Rey Bulay is in New
York right now to inform the court of this development," he added.

The PCGG earlier entered into negotiations with the camp of the
martial law victims, represented by Swift, that won the $2-billion
class action suit filed in Hawaii in 1995.

The negotiations involved some $20 million worth of assets seized
from former Marcos' aide Vilma Bautista in New York, including high
value paintings.

In the draft agreement, the government was set to receive $4
million while the victims in the class action would get $13.75
million.

A third party, the Golden Buddha Corp. and the estate of Roger
Roxas that allegedly discovered the Yamashita treasure, would also
get a portion of the proceeds from the sale of some of the
paintings.

In a statement on March 29, Swift said California district court
judge Manuel Real, who handled the Hawaii case, has already
approved the distribution of $1,500 each to some 6,600 members of
the class action.

Swift told The STAR in an e-mail exchange that the settlement has
been finalized and that the New York court issued a ruling
providing for the release of the funds in January.

But that ruling may not be implemented, Munsayac said, as one of
its conditions is securing the approval of the OSG.

Swift has yet to comment on this new development.

Earlier this year, the PCGG chief said they have received
authorization from Malacañang to negotiate for a compromise
agreement on how to divide ill-gotten assets of the Marcoses that
were recovered in the US.

It was a deviation from the previous position of the government,
which refused to implement the $2-billion class action award and
insisted on recovering all of the assets in favor of the Philippine
government.

Munsayac at the time said Malacañang approved the negotiations as
the compromise agreement would still benefit martial law victims.

With the OSG decision to disapprove the terms of the settlement, it
appears that the government has reverted to its previous position
of claiming the ill-gotten assets in its favor.

The PCGG was created in 1986 to run after the ill-gotten wealth of
the Marcoses and their cronies, which is estimated to reach as much
as $10 billion.

Some P170 billion (around $3.4 billion) have already been
recovered. [GN]


MARQUIS METAL: Foglesong Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Foglesong, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Marquis Metal Works, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00048 (D. N.D., March 6, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation
costs, costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, North
Dakota Century Code and the North Dakota Minimum Wage and Work
Conditions Order.

Marquis is a welding and fabrication company based in Williston,
North Dakota that specializes in manufacturing skid facilities for
the oilfield industry. Foglesong worked for Marquis as a welder,
welder's helper, fabricator and heavy equipment operator in which
he claims that he was misclassified as an independent contractor.
He regularly worked in excess of 50 hours per week during his
employment with Marquis but was never compensated for his overtime
hours, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
      Email: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


MDL 2492: Akinbiyi Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KEVIN AKINBIYI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and SAINT PETER'S UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02064 (Filed March 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02104 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Aldrich Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHARLES ALDRICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-777 (Filed March 1,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02080 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Council Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MATTHEW COUNCIL, and ALESIA WALLER, as attorney-in-fact
of DeSwann Waller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-817 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02097 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Divalentino Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT DIVALENTINO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-818 (Filed
Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02098 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Flasher Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TIMOTHY FLASHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-896 (Filed March 1,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02103 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Gray Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, SCOTT GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and BUTLER UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-812 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02094 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Leammon Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WILFRIED LEAMMON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-786 (Filed
Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02088 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Lett Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ELAINE LETT, as attorney-in-fact of Earl Lett,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-815 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of
Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02096 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2492: Pacchioni Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, VICTOR PACCHIONI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and WILKES UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-814 (Filed Feb. 25, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
on April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02095 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2573: Nicholson Appeals Decision in Silver Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Norman Bailey, Robert Ceru, Christopher Depaoli, John
Hayes, Laurence Hughes, KPFF Investment, Inc., Kevin Maher, Eric
Nalven, J. Scott Nicholson and Don Tran filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: London
Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 14-md-2573, U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuits
in the litigation arise from largely similar allegations that the
Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the prices of silver and
silver derivatives through their membership on The London Silver
Fixing, Ltd., a panel that meets privately on a daily basis to
determine the market price of silver.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: London Silver Fixing,
Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 19-815, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners J. Scott Nicholson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com

Defendants-Respondents HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC
Holdings PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc. and HSBC USA Inc.
are represented by:

          Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com

Defendant-Respondent The Bank of Nova Scotia, AKA Scotiabank, AKA
Scotiamocatta, is represented by:

          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-3269
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com


MDL 2885: 8 Suits vs. 3M Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2885, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
eight actions to the Northern District of Florida, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The eight actions are:

Central District of California
   * KENNEDY v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-00128

District of Minnesota
   * CIACCIO v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-00179
   * PEEK v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-00192
   * LARKIN v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-00194
   * PULLIUM v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-00603

Western District of Oklahoma
   * STINE v. 3M COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:19-00058
   * WERNER v. 3M COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:19-00059

Western District of Texas
   * ROWE v. 3M COMPANY, C.A. No. 6:19-00019

Plaintiff in one District of Minnesota action moves under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of
Minnesota.  In movant's reply brief, he supports centralization in
the Western District of Missouri, in the alternative.  Common
defendant 3M Company and plaintiffs in more than 45 actions and
potential tag-along actions support centralization in the District
of Minnesota.

This litigation currently consists of eight actions pending in four
districts.  The Panel also has been notified of 635 related federal
actions filed in 33 districts.

All responding parties support centralization, but they do not all
agree on the appropriate transferee district.  In addition to the
District of Minnesota and the Western District of Missouri,
suggested districts are the Central District of California, the
Southern District of California, the District of District of
Columbia, the Northern District of Florida, the Southern District
of Florida, the Middle District of Georgia, the Southern District
of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern
District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the
District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of South Carolina,
the Middle District of Tennessee, and the Western District of
Texas.

Judge Vance finds find that these actions involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  All actions involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that defendants' Combat Arms earplugs
were defective, causing plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or
tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other pretrial
matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary.

After weighing the relevant factors, Judge Vance selects the
Northern District of Florida as the transferee district for this
litigation.  Centralization in this district, Judge Vance explains,
allows the Panel to assign this nationwide litigation to a forum
with the necessary judicial resources and expertise to manage this
litigation efficiently and in a manner convenient for the parties
and witnesses.  Judge M. Casey Rodgers, to whom the Panel assigns
these proceedings, is an able jurist with experience in presiding
over a large products liability MDL.  Judge Vance is confident that
Judge Rodgers will steer these proceedings on a prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/1scbWS


MDL 2886: 7 Suits v. Allura, et al. Moved to South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDINGPRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2886, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
seven actions to the District of South Carolina and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable David C.
Norton for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

These seven actions are:

   * Southern District of Iowa - DEVRIES, ET AL. v. ALLURA USA LLC,
ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-00014
   * District of Kansas - FRIDAY v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL., C.A.
No. 2:18-02701
   * District of Massachusetts - LUONGO v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:19-10143
   * District of Minnesota - JUVLAND v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 0:18-03492
   * Western District of North Carolina - JOHNS, ET AL. v. ALLURA
USA LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00669
   * Southern District of Ohio - GUINN v. ALLURA USA LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:18-00858
   * District of South Carolina - LOWE, ET AL. v. ALLURA USA LLC,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-03160

Plaintiff in one action in the Southern District of Ohio moved
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the
Southern District of Ohio.  This litigation currently consists of
seven actions pending in seven districts.  Since the filing of the
motion, the Panel has been notified of two additional related
federal actions.

All responding plaintiffs support centralization in the Southern
District of Ohio.  Defendants Plycem USA LLC, Elementia USA, Inc.,
and Elementia S.A.B. de C.V. oppose centralization and,
alternatively, propose the District of South Carolina as the
transferee district.

Judge Vance says the actions involve common questions of fact, and
that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.  All actions share factual questions concerning alleged
defects in exterior fiber cement siding products manufactured and
sold by common defendants Plycem USA, LLC, Elementia USA, LLC, and
Elementia S.A.B. de C.V., which allegedly are close corporate
affiliates and act as alter egos of one another.  More specifically
the actions commonly allege that (1) defendants' fiber cement
siding products sold under the names Allura and Maxitile are
defective because they have a propensity to crack, peel, warp, and
break off soon after installation; (2) defendants misrepresent that
the products have a service life of fifty years, but fail in less
than five years; and (3) defendants uniformly misrepresent to
customers that the problems are caused by improper installation,
rather than a known product defect.  Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
especially with respect to class certification and Daubert motions;
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary.

In opposing centralization, defendants principally argue that the
actions lack common factual issues based on the assertion that they
involve two materially different brands of fiber cement siding --
the Allura product line in three actions, and the Maxitile product
line in four actions -- and they intend to assert case-specific
defenses that focus on alleged improper installation of their
products in plaintiffs' homes.  Defendants further contend that
informal coordination of common discovery is preferable to
centralization.

Judge Vance holds that the involvement of two product lines in this
litigation and case-specific installation issues do not preclude
centralization, considering that the products and alleged failures
are substantially similar in all actions -- all involve fiber
cement siding products allegedly made by the same group of
affiliated defendants, and the products allegedly fail in the same
manner.  Additionally, the defendants allegedly followed a common
course of conduct in their marketing of the durability and expected
life of the products and in handling claims submitted under their
warranty program.  Informal coordination of the common issues does
not appear practicable given the number of involved districts and
counsel.  The actions (including potential tag-along actions) are
pending in eight dispersed districts, and plaintiffs are
represented by eight distinct counsel.

Defendants also object to centralization based on the asserted
likelihood their pending and anticipated motions to compel
individual arbitration will be granted, obviating the need for
further pretrial proceedings in any of these actions.  But such an
assessment of the merits of the actions is beyond the Panel's
authority.  Thus, where the litigation involves common factual
questions, centralization may be appropriate even though defendants
predict that they will prevail on dispositive motions prior to
commencement of discovery.

Judge Vance concludes that the District of South Carolina is an
appropriate transferee forum.  One action on the motion is pending
there, and the district is conveniently located for a number of
parties and potential witnesses in the southeastern region of the
country.  Defendants support this district if centralization is
granted over their objection.  Further, centralization in the
District of South Carolina enables the Panel to assign the
litigation to Judge David C. Norton, an experienced transferee
judge with the willingness and ability to manage this litigation.
Judge Vance is confident Judge Norton will steer this matter on a
prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/EAPTWZ


MERLOANDCO LLC: Mauriello Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rocco Mauriello, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MERLOANDCO LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and TULLIA
GASPAROTTO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21375-RNS
(S.D. Fla., April 11, 2019) is a complaint against the Defendants
under the the Fair Labor Standard Act.

During his employment with Defendants, Mauriello regularly worked
an average of 70 hours per week, 40 regular hours and 30 overtime
hours. Notwithstanding, Defendants willfully and intentionally
failed/refused to pay to Mauriello the federally required overtime
rate for the overtime hours he worked, the complaint alleges.

Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act yet they willfully, intentionally, and recklessly
failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.  As a result,
Mauriello suffered damages and is entitled to receive overtime
compensation, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt laborer from
approximately January 2017 through approximately November 2018.

MerloandCo is a Florida limited liability company, authorized to
conduct and conducting business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Monica Espino, Esq.
     Espino Law
     2655 Lejeune Road. Suite 802
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: 305.704.3172
     Fax: 305.722.7378
     Email: me@espino-law.com


MORGREEN SOLAR: Court Grants Default Judgment Bids in Prescott Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES PRESCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MORGREEN SOLAR SOLUTIONS, LLC;
DARRIN GREEN; VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Defendants. VAUGHN
INDUSTRIES, LLC, Counter Claimant, v. CHARLES PRESCOTT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Counter Defendant.
VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Cross-Claimant, v. MORGREEN SOLAR
SOLUTIONS, LLC; DARRIN GREEN, Cross-Defendants. MORGREEN SOLAR
SOLUTIONS, LLC; DARRIN GREEN, Counter Claimants, v. CHARLES
PRESCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Counter Defendant, Case No. 5:17-CV-365-FL (E.D. N.C.), Judge
Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted both (i) the
Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment; and (ii)
cross-claimant Vaughn's motion for entry of default judgment.

The Plaintiffs filed complaint July 21, 2017, claiming the
Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors, willfully
failed to remit compensation for all hours worked, willfully failed
to remit required overtime pay, and violated statutory
record-keeping requirements. S Count one alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Plaintiffs proceeded on
that claim in the posture of a proposed FLSA collective action.
Count two alleges violations of the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act, and the Plaintiffs proceeded on that claim in the posture of a
putative class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Cross-claimant Vaughn answered the Plaintiffs' complaint Sept. 28,
2017, and initiated cross-claims against MorGreen Defendants.  No
answer having been filed by Defendant Green or Defendant MorGreen,
on Jan. 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for entry of default against
the MorGreen Defendants, which was granted on March 16, 2018, by
the clerk of the Court.  On March 15, 2018, cross-claimant Vaughn
also filed motion for entry of default on its cross-claims against
MorGreen Defendants.

On March 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed instant motion for entry of
default judgment.  In support, the Plaintiffs have submitted their
pro-rated damages and declaration of attorney Gilda A. Hernandez.

During this time period, on March 14, 2018, the MorGreen
Defendants' attorney filed notice of appearance, and, without
seeking leave of the court, on April 12, 2018, the MorGreen
Defendants filed answer to complaint.  Also during this period, on
April 17, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs and cross-claimant
Vaughn's joint motion for settlement approval, resolving all claims
as to those parties.  It dismissed all claims of the Plaintiffs who
submitted individually executed settlement agreements in the
matter, as they relate to Defendant Vaughn only, based on or
arising out of any acts, facts, transactions, occurrences,
representations or omissions alleged in the Complaint in the matter
on the merits and with prejudice and without costs to any of the
parties as against any other settling party, except as provided in
the parties' mediation agreement and individually-executed
settlement agreements.

Both the Plaintiffs and cross-claimant Vaughn filed motions to
strike the MorGreen Defendants' answer on April 16, 2018 and April
20, 2018, respectively.  The MorGreen Defendants did not file
response to the motions to strike, but on April 17, 2018, filed
motion to set aside order on motion for entry of default, alleging
the Defendants had consulted with several law firms, none of which
were willing and/or able to take them on as clients, and that the
Defendants filed an Answer with the Court on April 12, 2018, which
was as early as they could possibly find counsel.

On Aug. 27, 2018, the Court issued order, holding resolution of
ripe motions in abeyance pending further briefing, directing the
MorGreen Defendants to submit additional information to the Court
regarding when they contacted law firms, what was the response of
the law firms including terms and deadlines, and any communication
between the parties.  In response, they filed timely affidavit and
memorandum, in which Defendant Green provided some, but not all, of
the information requested by the Court, stating in part that two of
the law firms contacted informed the MorGreen Defendants to do
nothing in response to the lawsuit since they were a startup
company with no assets and were protected because of being a LLC.

On Nov. 29, 2018, the Court granted cross-claimant Vaughn's motion
for entry of default, granted the Plaintiffs' and cross-claimant
Vaughn's motions to strike, and denied the MorGreen Defendants'
motion to set aside order on motion for entry of default.  It also
noted that the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment was
ripe and pending, but where it appeared that cross-claimant Vaughn
would also file motion for entry of default judgment, the court
would take up and address both of these motions together under
separate order.

Time elapsed with no motion for entry of default judgment filed by
cross-claimant Vaughn.  On Jan. 14, 2019, the Court entered order
directing cross-claimant Vaughn to proceed to reduce the matter to
judgment.  On Feb. 4, 2019, cross-claimant Vaughn filed the instant
motion for entry of default judgment.  In support, cross-claimant
Vaughn filed 1) declarations of attorneys David Andrews and Patrick
Lawler 2) copies of checks mailed to the settlement agreement
administrator in the amount of $149,501.50, which is the sum of the
settlement agreement payment and the employers matching taxes, and
3) subcontract agreement between cross-claimant Vaughn and the
MorGreen Defendants.

On March 27, 2019, the Court held hearing regarding the instant
motions for entry of default judgment in which all parties provided
the Court with argument.  At the hearing, the MorGreen Defendants
argued that pursuant to Frow v. De La Vega, they cannot be held
liable to the Plaintiffs, only cross-claimant Vaughn.  

Judge Flanagan rejects the MorGreen Defendants' argument that Frow
limits the ability of the Court to enter default judgment against
them.  She holds that the MorGreen Defendants have not cited cases,
nor is the Court aware of any, applying Frow to a situation the
same or even similar to the current situation before the Court.
Instead, the only case the Court could find analogous to the
present situation held, Frow not applicable.  Indeed, application
of Frow in such a situation would discourage settlement between
parties and encourage tardiness in litigation, where the MorGreen
Defendants would receive a windfall of an adjudication of no
liability simply because the Plaintiffs and cross-claimant Vaughn
engaged in fruitful settlement negotiations while the MorGreen
Defendants failed to plead or otherwise defend the lawsuit and
failed to show good cause for so doing.

Having accepted the well-pleaded allegations of fact in the
Plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claimant Vaughn's answer and
cross-claims as true, the Judge must still determine whether those
allegations support the relief sought.  She finds that the
allegations support the relief sought and notes that the MorGreen
Defendants have not argued otherwise.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan granted (i) the Plaintiff's
motion for entry of default judgment, and (ii) cross-claimant
Vaughn's motion for entry of default judgment.  She awarded the
Plaintiffs $257,613.60 in damages and attorneys' fees from the
MorGreen Defendants, and aawarded cross-claimant Vaughn $191,363.50
in damages and attorneys' fees from the MorGreen Defendants.  The
clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and
cross-claimant Vaughn in these amounts.  The clerk is directed to
close the case.

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

Charles Prescott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez --
ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- The Law Offices of Gilda A.
Hernandez, PLLC.

MorGreen Solar Solutions, LLC & Darrin Green, Defendants,
represented by David Eugene Dean, Heritage Law Firm.

Vaughn Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kerry A. Shad --
kshad@smithlaw.com -- Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP & Patrick D. Lawler -- plawler@smithlaw.com -- Smith,
Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP.

Vaughn Industries, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Kerry A.
Shad, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP &
Patrick D. Lawler, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP.

Vaughn Industries, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Kerry A.
Shad, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP &
Patrick D. Lawler, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP.

Charles Prescott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez, The
Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC.

Darrin Green & MorGreen Solar Solutions, LLC, Counter Claimants,
represented by David Eugene Dean, Heritage Law Firm.


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS: Faces Antitrust Case in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the National
Association of Realtors (NAR), as well as four national real estate
broker franchisors: HomeServices of America, Inc., Keller Williams
Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., and RE/MAX Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff Sawbill Strategic, Inc. brings this action on behalf of
itself individually and on behalf of a Plaintiff class consisting
of all persons and entities who listed properties on one of 20
Multiple Listing Services and paid a broker commission from at
least April 15, 2015 until the present. Plaintiff brings this
action for injunctive relief under Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, and
for treble damages under the federal antitrust laws against the
Defendants. The case is captioned SAWBILL STRATEGIC, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, HOMESERVICES OF
AMERICA, INC., KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., REALOGY HOLDINGS
CORP., and RE/MAX HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02544(N.D. Ill., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants have violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to
require property sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer
of their properties, and to pay an inflated amount.

The National Association of Realtors is America's largest trade
association, representing 1.3 million members, including NAR's
institutes, societies, and councils, involved in all aspects of the
residential and commercial real estate industries. Headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois, NAR oversees fifty-four state and territorial
realtor associations and over 1,200 local realtor associations.

HomeServices of America is one of the nation's largest real estate
brokerages and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
HomeServices owns, operates, and franchises many real estate
brokerage firms, including HomeServices, Prudential Real Estate,
Long & Foster, Real Living, and Edina Realty. HomeServices is an
affiliate of Berkshire Hathaway. Keller Williams Reality, Inc. is a
privately-held company headquartered in Austin, Texas that is one
of the nation's largest real estate brokerages.

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a publicly traded company headquartered
in Madison, New Jersey that owns, operates, and franchises many
real estate brokerage firms, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker,
Sotheby's International Realty, The Corcoran Group, Better Homes
and Garden Real Estate, ZipRealty, ERA Real Estate, Citi Habitats,
and Climb Real Estate. Realogy is the nation’s largest real
estate brokerage company.

RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded company headquartered in
Denver, Colorado that is one of the nation's largest real estate
brokerages. There are approximately 6,800 offices and more than
100,000 sales associates at franchised RE/MAX locations around the
country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Mark R. Miller, Esq.
     Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 346-222
     Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
     Email: kaw@wexlerallace.com
            mrm@wexlerwallace.com
            tad@wexlerwallace.com

            - and -

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
     Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 333-8844
     Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
            dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
            dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
            kdennis@gustafsongluek.com


NESTLE WATERS: Faces Poland Spring False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Francis, writing for Inquisitr, reports that a group of
bottled water drinkers are taking Poland Spring to court, claiming
that the company is using deceptive advertising to make consumers
think that the water is coming from a spring when it's really not.

As the New York Times reported, the company is facing a class
action lawsuit claiming that Nestle Waters is advertising the
product as "100% Natural Spring Water," but it's actually a
"colossal fraud" perpetrated on consumers. The bottled water brand
says in advertising that its water comes from a natural spring in
the state of Maine, but the lawsuit contends that the spring
actually ran dry nearly 50 years ago.

The lawsuit claims that "not one drop" of Poland Spring water
actually qualifies as spring water, as it is actually common
groundwater. As a result, Poland Spring has been able to dominate
the market for spring water, even though it does not actually
belong among competitors selling water that actually comes from
natural springs.

As NBC News noted, Poland Spring has between $400 million and $800
million in sales each year.

Poland Springs maintains that its water is 100 percent natural
spring water, saying that its water met all FDA relations defining
spring water.

"Nothing in the Court's recent decision undermines our confidence
in our overall legal position," a Nestlé Waters spokesperson said
in a statement. "We will continue to defend our Poland Spring Brand
vigorously against this meritless lawsuit."

This is the second food-related lawsuit to gain some viral
attention in the past few days. Another customer is suing the
restaurant chain TGI Fridays claiming that the product marketed as
potato skins are actually "potato flakes" or "potato starch." As
Fox News noted, a New York woman took the chain to court claiming
she was deceived into buying the $1.99 bag of snacks, which are
sold in the restaurant locations and vending machines.

As the report noted, Solange Troncoso, from the Bronx, filed a
claim that TGI Fridays is bound by federal law to let consumers
know that the potato skins are actually an imitation of another
product. She claimed that the company is trying to trick snackers
into thinking that the product is made of real potato skins, which
are seen as a bit healthier than potato chips.

"The Idaho Potato Commission and others inside and outside the
industry have associated potato skins with healthy eating since
they started appearing on restaurant menus a half-century ago," the
lawsuit claimed.

The lawsuit against TGI Fridays is seeking $5 million in damages.
[GN]


NEW PRIME: Lewis Brisbois Discusses Arbitration Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Jessica Giannetti, Esq. --
Ashley.Giannetti@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in an 8-0
opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that New Prime, a Springfield,
Missouri-based interstate trucking company cannot force its drivers
to settle disputes through arbitration. See New Prime, Inc. v.
Oliveira, No. 17-340, 2019 WL 189342 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019). Dominic
Oliveira works as a driver for New Prime. At least on paper, Mr.
Oliveira is not an employee. The contracts between him and New
Prime designate Mr. Oliveira as an independent contractor. The
agreements also contained a delegation clause, stating that any
disputes arising out of the parties' relationship should be
resolved by an arbitrator, including disputes over the scope of the
arbitrator's authority. [GN]


NEW PRIME: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Arbitration Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyle Petersen, Esq., and Cheryl A. Luce, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in January, the Supreme
Court unanimously ruled in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira that the
Federal Arbitration Act's ("FAA" or the "Act") exclusion for
transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce applied not
just to employees, but also to independent contractors. This ruling
got the attention of those within the transportation and logistics
industry, many of whom have longstanding mandatory arbitration
programs with their independent contractors. While the FAA no
longer provides a mechanism for enforcing mandatory arbitration
agreements with transportation contractors, there are a number of
strategies that can be implemented to ensure the enforceability of
arbitration programs and minimize the risk of nationwide class or
collective actions.

The New Prime Decision

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the FAA reflects a
liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements. Section 1
of the FAA, however, provides a narrow exception for "contracts of
employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." In recent
years, much debate has turned on whether the phrase "contracts of
employment" extends to independent contractor agreements or if the
Section 1 exclusion only applies to transportation employees
engaged in interstate commerce. In January 2019, the Supreme Court
decisively resolved the debate with an 8-0 decision (Justice
Kavanaugh recused) in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira.

Before examining the meaning of the word "employment," the Supreme
Court first considered whether the applicability of the Section 1
exclusion was a question for the court or arbitrator. The Supreme
Court concluded that the question of whether the contract triggers
FAA's coverage was an "antecedent determination" for the Court to
make and was not delegable to an arbitrator.

The Court then turned to whether "contracts of employment" applies
to independent contractors as well as traditional employees. After
much discussion about the meaning and usage of the term
"employment" in 1925 when the FAA was enacted, the Supreme Court
concluded that employment was essentially a synonym for work at
that time. Although the Court acknowledged the evolution of the
terminology over time, it ultimately concluded that Congress's use
of the term "workers" as opposed to "employees" or "servants" meant
a broader interpretation was intended and Section 1 extended to
independent contractors.

What Should Transportation and Logistics Companies Do Now

The New Prime decision presents a bump in the road for
transportation and logistics companies who want to include
arbitration and class action waivers in their services contracts.
But with proper navigation, New Prime should not serve as an
absolute bar to enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements with
transportation workers. Below we offer strategies for logistics and
transportation industry companies to preserve their arbitration
agreements and otherwise protect against crippling nationwide class
and collective actions.

Rely on State Arbitration Laws—But Choose the Right Ones

To be sure, New Prime prevents a court from relying on the FAA as a
mechanism for enforcing an arbitration agreement involving
transportation workers. Critically, however, neither New Prime nor
the FAA actually prohibits private arbitration of disputes
involving transportation workers. Courts should still enforce
agreements to arbitrate under state arbitration laws. It is good
news then that all 50 states have arbitration laws empowering
courts to stay a judicial proceeding and enforce an agreement to
arbitrate. The majority of states have adopted some version of the
Uniform Arbitration Act or the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act,
neither of which includes an exemption for transportation workers.
These state arbitration laws therefore provide a basis for
enforcing arbitration agreements that is independent of the FAA.

The plaintiffs' bar may try to thwart reliance on state arbitration
laws by arguing they are preempted by the FAA. The FAA, however,
only preempts state arbitration laws that put arbitration
agreements on unequal footing with other contracts and impose
special restrictions on them or that apply a general doctrine (such
as duress and unconscionability) in a way that disfavors
arbitration. State arbitration laws that are broader than the FAA
are permissible in the same way that state overtime laws that are
more protective are not preempted by the FLSA.

When selecting the applicable state arbitration law for an
arbitration agreement involving transportation workers, beware of
potential choice-of-law principles that could impact a court's
decision. Moreover, as we have seen in the wake of Epic Systems v.
Lewis, expect challenges to enforcement on public policy and
unconscionability grounds. It is also worth noting that many state
laws (for example, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Hampshire)
explicitly exempt contracts between employers and employees. While
such exclusions would normally be preempted by the FAA, the FAA's
exclusion of transportation workers will limit the FAA's preemptive
effect, at least as to employees. However, because these state
arbitration laws do not have similar exclusions for independent
contractors, the New Prime decision should not prevent companies
from entering into arbitration agreements with contractors for
transportation services pursuant to state law in those
jurisdictions.

Rethink The Forum Selection Clause

Most dispute resolution agreements contain a forum selection
provision establishing the locale in which the parties agree to
adjudicate their disputes. Traditionally, companies select a forum
that is tied to their corporate headquarters or state of
incorporation. This means that no matter where the workers are
located across the country, they must come to the company's
backyard to arbitrate (or litigate). While there are obvious
advantages to this approach, New Prime highlights a significant
downside: choosing the company's locale provides a single forum in
which all workers across the country can come together and sue the
company on a collective basis.  Companies should therefore give
serious consideration to reversing course and requiring
transportation workers to adjudicate their disputes in the worker's
own home state. Doing so would preclude workers from opting in to a
collective outside of their chosen forum and therefore provides a
significant defense to nationwide collective actions in the event
their disputes are litigated in court. This is an arrow that can
even be in the quiver of companies with transportation workers in
California. The California Labor Code prohibits forum selection
provisions that require employees who primarily reside and work in
California to litigate or arbitrate outside of California. See
Labor Code 925. Requiring they arbitrate or litigate in their home
state of California is entirely consistent with the Code.

Include a Standalone Class and Collective Action Waiver

Historically, class and collective action waivers have been
included in arbitration agreements. Indeed, getting a case into
bilateral arbitration in order to avoid the possibility of a
nationwide class or collective is a driving force behind
implementation of arbitration programs. A less common and
admittedly less universally accepted approach is a standalone class
and collective action waiver not contingent on arbitration. Few
courts have addressed the issue and those that have are in
conflict. The Sixth Circuit, for example, ruled in Killion v. KeHE
Distributors LLC, 761 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2014), that "a plaintiff's
right to participate in a collective action cannot normally be
waived" unless an "arbitration clause is involved," whereas the
Fifth Circuit came out the other way and found a class action
waiver outside of an arbitration agreement to be enforceable in
Convergys Corporation v. NLRB, 866 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2017).  For
workers outside of the Sixth Circuit (and most likely outside of
California), standalone class and collective action waivers may
provide another layer of protection in the event their arbitration
agreements are not enforceable under New Prime.

Ensure Arbitration Agreements Contain a Severability Clause

In addition to shoring up arbitration agreements with language that
it is subject to a particular state arbitration statute, choosing
the appropriate forum, and requiring a class and collective action
waiver, transportation companies should be sure to include a
severability clause. A severability clause allows a court to carve
out invalid, illegal, or unenforceable contract terms while
preserving the other provisions. To the extent that any of the
above safeguards are rejected by a court, a broad severability
clause should allow for enforcement of other key provisions.

Segregate Intrastate and Interstate Work

Plaintiffs' attorneys are likely to read the New Prime decision as
opening up the door to lawsuits by gig economy workers who perform
some transportation-related duties pursuant to independent
contractor agreements, even if they are not directly involved in
the interstate transportation of goods. Indeed, federal courts have
held that even occasional interstate transportation can trigger the
FAA Section 1 exemption, so long as the worker is actually engaged
in moving goods in interstate commerce. Additionally, courts have
found the FAA Section 1 exemption applies to supervisors and
managers who do not by themselves transport goods, but are critical
to the operations of the company that provides transportation
services. But if the work performed is related to nothing more than
local deliveries, they are not within the category of workers
"engaged in interstate commerce" that are exempt from the FAA.

If a transportation and logistics company provides both intrastate
and interstate services, segregating the workers who perform only
intrastate services from those performing interstate services will
at least shield the intrastate workers who only make local
deliveries from being swept into the FAA Section 1 exemption.

Conclusion

Although New Prime took a little air out of the tires of companies
who have elected arbitration as the preferred method of alternative
dispute resolution with transportation contractors, all is not
lost.  As detailed above, state arbitration statutes provide an
alternative avenue for implementing an enforceable arbitration
program. In addition, forum selection, severability, and
class/collective waivers are important provisions that can be
inserted into contractor agreements to minimize the threat of a
class or collective action in the event that claims must be
litigated in court.   As companies invoke state arbitration laws to
enforce arbitration agreements, we may see legal challenges from a
creative plaintiff's bar, making the inclusion of severability
clauses, reverse forum selection clauses, and standalone class and
collective action waivers all the more important. [GN]


NGP MOTORS: Faces Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
NGP Motors, Inc. for alleged violations of the California Labor
Code. The case is captioned RICKY MIRANDA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, vs. NGP MOTORS, INC., a California Corporation and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13033 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff Ricky Miranda
alleges that NGP Motors, Inc. has failed to provide rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, failed to pay all wages, to comply
with itemized employee wage statement provisions, failed to
reimburse for business expenses, and failed to pay wages due at the
time of discharge.

Based in Hollywood California, NGP Motors, Inc. operates as
automobile dealer. It is engaged in the retail sale of new and used
automobiles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Otkupman, Esq.
     Meghan Maertz, Esq.
     OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
     28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
     Agoura Hills, CA, 91301
     Telephone: (818) 293-5623
     Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
     E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
             Meghan@OLFLA.com


NPMC: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------
Amy Smith, Leslie Turner, and Kelsi Frachiseur, Each Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. NPMC,
Home Health, LLC, and Trinity River Valley Home Health, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00245-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 11, 2019)
is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs,
including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff and other Home Health Care Workers lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees worked in excess
of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant.
However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs or similarly-situated
employees one and one-half times their regular rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a week.

According to the complaint, it was Defendant's commonly applied
policy to only pay Plaintiffs and other Home Health Care Workers
for the hours in which they billed Defendant's patients. The
Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way
it paid Plaintiffs and other Mental Health Professionals violated
the FLSA, it adds.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as Home Health Care Workers within
the 3 years preceding the filing of this Complaint.

Defendant NPMC, Home Health, LLC, is a domestic limited liability
company, providing home health care services to clients throughout
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel Ford, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


NURSING HOME: Jetter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Jetter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NURSING HOME CARE MANAGEMENT INC. d/b/a
PRESTIGE HOME CARE AGENCY, ALEXANDER GOROSHOVSKY, ALLA DORFMAN, and
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10. Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01611-ER (E.D.
Pa., April 12, 2019) is a collective action seeking to recover
unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The complaint asserts that Defendants systematically and willfully
deprived Plaintiff and other Caregivers of their overtime wages in
violation of the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA") by, among other things, failing to compensate these
employees at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Due to Defendants'
unlawful failure to properly pay overtime due and owing, Defendants
have improperly withheld wages due and owing from Plaintiff and
current and former Caregivers.

Plaintiff Maurice Jetter was employed by Defendants as a
Caregiver.

Nursing Home Care Management Inc is a Pennsylvania corporation, and
operates under the fictitious name Prestige Home Care Agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald D Wells, III, Esq.
     Robert J. Gray, Esq.
     2200 Renaissance Blvd , Suite 275
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Phone: 610-822-3700
     Facsimile: 610-822-3800
     Email: gwells@cwglaw.com
            rgray@cwglaw.com



OFFICIAL PEST: Faces Malahy Suit in Sacramento Court
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Official Pest Prevention Inc. The case is captioned as JAMES
MALAHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICIAL PEST PREVENTION INC.; and DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00253374-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., March 27, 2019).

Official Pest Prevention Inc. provides pest control services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Stralen, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T. STRALEN
          1810 S. St.
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 971-3100


OK GASMART: Underpays Gas Attendants, Hurtado Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HERRERA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OK GASMART INC.; and ABEDI
FARHANG, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01741 (E.D.N.Y., March 27,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Hurtado was employed by the Defendants as gas
attendant.

OK Gasmart Inc. operates a commercial gas station. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher K. Collotta, Esq.
          ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589-7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
          E-mail: CCollotta@laborlawsny.com


OLIN CORP: Finch Paper Suit Asserts Caustic Soda Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finch Paper, LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals,
Inc., Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical
Corporation (d/b/a OxyChem), Westlake Chemical Corporation,
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated, Formosa
Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00480 (W.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019) is a
civil antitrust action seeking damages and injunctive relief
arising out of the collusive and concerted restraint of trade in
sodium hydroxide, commonly known as Caustic Soda, by the Defendants
during a period spanning from at least October 1, 2015, to the
present (the "Class Period").

Caustic Soda is a commodity chemical sold in solid and liquid forms
that is produced as a co-product of chlorine production from the
electrolysis of brine or salt water. From approximately 2012 until
the fourth quarter of 2015, Caustic Soda prices were either
declining or flat, and industry margins were poor, given industry
overcapacity and flat demand. These conditions motivated the
Defendants to conspire and combine to restrict domestic supply; to
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which Caustic Soda
was and continues to be sold; and to allocate customers in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, asserts the complaint.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Defendants announced
Caustic Soda price increases in a coordinated fashion and began
increasing Caustic Soda prices despite sluggish demand, stable or
declining costs, and excess capacity. They also at times refused to
supply customers, put them on allocation, or refused to bid on
contracts while falsely claiming supply was tight or scarce.
Defendants' market shares have been relatively stable since 2015,
with customer turnover lower in the years since the fourth quarter
of 2015 than before that quarter. In sum, Defendants entered into
an agreement or understanding to increase prices of Caustic Soda
and not to compete on price for the business of each other's
customers, the complaint relates.

According to the Plaintiff, the alleged conspiracy was facilitated
by secret co-producer supply agreements; by exchanges of nonpublic,
commercially sensitive information (including future strategy,
supply, capacity, and price information) between and among
Defendants and their agents, both directly with each other, and
indirectly through third parties; by manipulation of a price index;
and by the characteristics of the industry: high market
concentration, high barriers to entry, interchangeability of
Defendants' products, inelastic demand, weak demand, a larger
number of purchasers with limited buying power, and relatively easy
information exchanges among the Defendants.

As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, and their transition
from passive members of an oligopoly to active coordinators of
supply and pricing, Caustic Soda prices in the United States paid
by Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been artificially
increased by a substantial amount, and maintained during the Class
Period above levels that would be expected due to supply and demand
conditions. Therefore, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
have been injured and have suffered damages, and they continue to
suffer such injuries as a direct and proximate result of
Defendants' actions, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Caustic Soda directly from one or more
Defendants during the Class Period.

Defendants are direct competitors and leading manufacturers of
Caustic Soda in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Rupp, Esq.
     Marco Cercone, Esq.
     Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
     RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
     1600 Liberty Building
     424 Main Street
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Phone: (716) 854-3400
     Facsimile: (716) 332-0336
     Email: rupp@ruppbaase.com
            cercone@ruppbaase.com
            bailey@ruppbaase.com

          - and -

     Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
     Ruthanne Gordon, Esq.
     Candice J. Enders, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215-875-3000


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Ryu Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Ryu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Optio Solutions LLC d/b/a Qualia
Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01868
(E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damags for Defendant's
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection
of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The debt was primarily for
personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a “debt"
as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Sometime after the
incurrence of the debt, the Plaintiff fell behind on payments.
Thereafter, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the Debt was
assigned or owed, otherwise transferred to Defendant for
collection.

Accoridng to the complaint, in its efforts to collect the debt,
Defendant contacted the Plaintiff by letter dated July 12, 2018.
The Letter fails to disclose whether the amount stated may increase
due to additional interest. The Letter also fails to disclose
whether the amount stated may increase due to additional fees.

The least sophisticated consumer could also reasonably read the
Letter to mean that the amount stated was dynamic due to the
continued accumulation of interest and/or fees.  Because the Letter
can reasonably be read by the least sophisticated consumer to have
two or more meanings, one of which is inaccurate, as described, it
is deceptive under 15 U.S.C. section 1692e.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com

PAFFORD EMS: Elizondo Seeks Proper Overtime Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Elizondo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pafford EMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00250-KGB (E.D. Ark., April 12, 2019) is action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act, Ark. ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including a
reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff and other Emergency Medical Transportation workers lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

It was Defendant's commonly applied practice to not pay Plaintiff
and other Emergency Medical Transportation workers time-and-a-half
for all of the hours over 40 hours each week during which they were
performing labor for Defendant, asserts the complaint.

As a result, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or other Emergency
Medical Transportation workers a lawful overtime wage of 1.5 times
their regular rate for all hours in excess of 40 in a week. The
Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way
it paid Plaintiff and other Emergency Medical Transportation
workers violated the FLSA and AMWA, the complaint relates.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Emergency Medical
Transportation worker within the 3 years preceding the filing of
this Complaint.

Pafford EMS, LLC, is an Arkansas limited liability company,
providing Emergency Medical Transportation services in Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chris W. Burks, Esq.
     Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
     WH LAW,PLLC
     1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
     North Little Rock, AR 72114
     Phone: (501) 891-6000
     Email: brandon@whlawoffices.com
            chris@whlawoffices.com


PAK RITE: Warehouse Staff Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando De La Rosa and Ubaldo Coneo, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Pak Rite Express
Inc., Calmar Enterprises, Inc., Arthur Munsch and Tom Cali,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02085, (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime, compensation for retaliation,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a warehouse business located at 155-06 South
Conduit Avenue, Jamaica, New York. De La Rosa and Coneo worked as
work as warehouse packers and claim to be compensated only for
their scheduled shift and never received overtime compensation for
pre-shift and post-shift work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PILLARS PROTECTION: O'Bryant Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Brandon Cavaness O'Bryant, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pillars Protection
Services, LLC Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01354-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio,
April 11, 2019) is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

Defendant is in the business of providing security and private
investigation services to the central Ohio region.

Security Guards regularly work more than 40 hours per week, but
they are not paid for all time spent performing compensable work in
excess of 40 hours per week, notes the complaint.

At the conclusion of their shifts, Security Guards are required to
drive from their assigned site back to Defendant's office in order
to drop off the site materials. Security Guards are not compensated
for this time spent driving. Instead, Security Guards are required
to clock out when they leave their assigned site.

Plaintiff O'Bryant was hired by Defendant on May 29, 2018, and has
worked in the position of Security Guard.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
     Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
     Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
     Mansell Law, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: 614-610-4134
     Fax: 614-547-3614
     Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
            Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
            Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com


PREMIER COIL SOLUTIONS: Galvan Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oswaldo Galvan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Premier Coil Solutions, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00771 (S.D. Tex., March 5, 2019), seeks overtime pay at
the correct overtime rate, liquidated damages, all costs and
attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim, prejudgment
interest and all further relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Premier Coil misclassified their Field Service Technicians as
independent contractors instead of as employees, thus denying them
overtime pay, says the complaint. Galvan worked for the Premier at
its Waller TX location. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Phone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


PRUDENTIAL LIGHTING: Perez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL
LIGHTING CORPORATION, a California Corporation and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13079 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2019) seeks the overtime payment and
payment of all meal and rest period compensations, which Plaintiff
was owed since he commenced to work for Defendant. Additionally,
Plaintiff is entitled to, and seeks, attorney's fees and costs, and
prejudgment interest.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other California employees
of Defendant, claims that Defendant has failed to pay all overtime
wages due to non-exempt employees. Defendant pays their employees
bonuses and commissions which are not included in the employees'
regular rate of pay for purposes of computing the proper overtime
rate. As a result, employees are not properly compensated for work
performed in excess of 8 hours in a workday and work performed in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay. These failures to pay all
overtime wages constitute violations of Labor Code, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee in California.

PRUDENTIAL LIGHTING CORPORATION is a California Corporation doing
business in Vernon, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Otkupman, Esq.
     Meghan Maertz, Esq.
     OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
     28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
     Agoura Hills, CA, 91301
     Phone: (818) 293-5623
     Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
     Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
            Meghan@OLFLA.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Hanlon et al. Sue over Sale of Opioid Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA HANLON; and AMY GARDNER, on behalf of her minor daughter
A.L.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.;
THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.;
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.
f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45206-DAP
(N.D. Ohio., March 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for selling and marketing an addictive opioid drug OxyContin.

According to the complaint, Purdue misleadingly promoted OxyContin
as being unique among opioids in providing 12 continuous hours of
pain relief with one dose. In fact, OxyContin does not last for 12
hours – a fact that Purdue has known at all relevant times.
According to Purdue's own research, OxyContin wears off in under
six hours in one quarter of patients and in under 10 hours in more
than half. This is because OxyContin tablets release approximately
40% of their active medicine immediately, after which release
tapers. This triggers a powerful initial response, but provides
little or no pain relief at the end of the dosing period, when less
medicine is released. This phenomenon is known as "end of dose"
failure, and the FDA found in 2008 that a "substantial number" of
chronic pain patients taking OxyContin experience it. This not only
renders Purdue's promise of 12 hours of relief false and negligent,
it also makes OxyContin more dangerous because the declining pain
relief patients experience toward the end of each dosing period
drives them to take more OxyContin before the next dosing period
begins, quickly increasing the amount of drug they are taking and
spurring growing dependence.

The Defendants' negligent marketing scheme caused and continues to
cause doctors to prescribe opioids to patients, including pregnant
mothers, for chronic pain conditions such as back pain, headaches,
arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Absent these Defendants' negligent
marketing scheme, these doctors would not have prescribed as many
opioids. These Defendants' negligent marketing scheme also caused
and continues to cause patients, including pregnant mothers, to
purchase and use opioids for their chronic pain believing they are
safe and effective.

Purdue Pharma L.P. engages in research, development, production,
and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter prescription
and non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The company
offers a portfolio of medical products in various categories,
including prescription opioids, sleep, laxatives, antiseptics, and
dietary supplement. It serves healthcare professionals, patients,
and caregivers in the United States and internationally. The
company has strategic research collaboration agreement with Exicure
Inc. and Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was formerly
known as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its name to
Purdue Pharma L.P. in January, 1991. The company was founded in
1892 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 399-0009
          Facsimile: (504) 309-6989
          Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
          Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-9065
          Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
          Email: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27 th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                 ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                 assistant@khrlawoffices.com


RJD CONSTRUCTION: Class in Neris FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDGAR NERIS on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. R.J.D. CONSTRUCTION, INC., and
RICHARD J. DAILEY, individually, Defendants, CV 18-1701 (ADS) (AKT)
(E.D. N.Y.), Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Certification, subject to the directives in the
Memorandum and Order.

Neris commenced the putative collective and class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules,
and Regulations ("NYCRR").  He seeks to recover, among other
things, for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages
and failure to provide mandated wage notices and wage statements.

The Defendants are engaged in the construction business.  The
Plaintiff worked for them as a manual laborer from around February
2001 until January 2016.  While working for the Defendants, the
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.  During
the busy months of the year, the Plaintiff regularly worked Monday
through Saturday, beginning work at approximately 6:30 a.m. each
morning.  The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.  The Defendants also
failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the
Plaintiff, and failed to provide him with any wage notice or wage
statements.  He also states that there are many current and former
employees of the Defendants who were treated in the same manner as
he was.

The Plaintiff now moves for conditional certification as a
collective action and for permission to disseminate
court-authorized notice, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA.
He seeks, among other relief, to conditionally certify as a
collective all construction workers who give their consent in
writing to become a party Plaintiff and who worked for the
Defendants at any time during the three years prior to the filing
of their respective consent forms.

The Plaintiff has attempted to meet his modest factual burden for
conditional certification by way of (i) a declaration as to his own
observations and his conversations with co-workers, and (ii) copies
of time sheets and wage statements he received while employed for
Defendants, which he has attached to his declaration.

The Defendants oppose tje Plaintiff's motion solely in an Attorney
Affirmation, arguing primarily that the only evidence the Plaintiff
has provided in support of certification is articulated by means of
vague, general and ambiguous hearsay.

Judge Tomlinson disagrees.  He finds that the Plaintiff's
declaration sets forth facts sufficient to meet his modest factual
burden at this point in the litigation.  The Plaintiff's assertions
are sufficient to meet the Plaintiff's "lenient" evidentiary
showing: they set forth a plausible factual nexus connecting the
Plaintiff and other specifically named employees of the Defendants
by way of the Defendants' failure to pay each of them overtime
wages.

Moreover, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's assertions are
supported by information about how he learned what he learned, as
well as with copies of actual time sheets the Plaintiff and other
employees were allegedly forced to sign in furtherance of the
Defendants' unlawful policy.  These facts are sufficient to support
a grant of conditional certification as a collective action at this
time.

As to the opt-in notice period, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff
has provided with his declaration what he claims are copies of the
time sheets which the Defendants directed him to complete in
furtherance of their unlawful policy.  She credits these time
sheets as substantial evidence of willfulness.  With respect to the
calculation of the limitations period, courts often begin counting
back from the date of the conditional certification order since the
statute of limitations on FLSA claims continues to run until a
plaintiff consents to join the action.  She will permit notice to
be keyed to the six-year period prior to the date the Complaint was
filed -- March 19, 2018.   Therefore, based on the foregoing
discussion, she grants the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification as a collective action.  The collective is designated
as follows: All hourly construction workers employed by R.J.D.
Construction, Inc., or Richard J. Dailey since March 19, 2012.

It is not clear what purpose inclusion of the contact information
for the Defendants' counsel in the Notice of Pendency would serve.
The Judge therefore declines to Order that this information be
included.  However, she does think that a separate heading should
be inserted on the notice, titled "Right to Retain Other Counsel."
She directs that the proposed Notice be amended so that the two
sentences on page (2) of the Notice addressing opt-in Plaintiffs'
rights to obtain other counsel or proceed pro se be moved from
their current location and placed under a separate heading reading
"RIGHT TO RETAIN OTHER COUNSEL," which will appear as Section (5),
immediately following Section 4, titled "CONSENT TO JOIN FORM."

Having considered the case law in the Circuit on both sides of the
issue and the policy concerns which underlie these decisions, the
Judge, in her discretion and consistent with the Court's prior
decisions, directs opt-in forms be mailed to the Clerk of the
Court.  She is also directing the Clerk of the Court to redact the
address and telephone number of each opt-in prior to filing the
forms on ECF.  The Clerk's Office will need to retain the
unredacted originals in order to provide them to the Plaintiff's
counsel.

The Defendants will provide the names, last known mailing
addresses, last known telephone numbers, and dates of employment of
all potential opt-ins to the extent they have this information.
They are not required and will not provide social security number
or dates of birth.  The Defendants will provide this information to
the Plaintiff's counsel within 21 days of this Order.

In light of the length of time that has passed since the instant
motion was filed, and the diligence of the Plaintiff's counsel in
pursuing certification (the instant motion was filed less than two
months after the Complaint), the Judge is granting equitable
tolling from the date the motion was filed.

Finally, the Plaintiff requests that the Notice of Pendency be
circulated in both English and Spanish.  Generally, courts permit
notice to be translated into the mother tongue of non-English
speaking groups of potential plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Notice
of Pendency will be circulated in both English and Spanish.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tomlinson granted the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) in accordance with this Memorandum and
Order.  She set the matter down for an in-person conference on June
13, 2019 at 11 a.m. which will give the counsel time to circulate
the Notice of Pendency and receive any opt-in responses.  At that
point, further discovery will be scheduled and the counsel should
be prepared to discuss the calendar at the conference.  To the
extent that there are any other outstanding issues at this time,
the counsel should submit a brief letter to the Court outlining
what else needs to be addressed.

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

Edgar Neris, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Arcadio Romero --
promero@romerolawny.com -- Law Office of Peter A. Romero PLLC.

R.J.D. Construction, Inc. & Richard J. Dailey, Individually,
Defendants, represented by James J. O'Rourke -- info@jjoi.com --
James J. O'Rourke & Associates, PLLC.


RUSHMORE ENERGY: Perrong Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PERONG, individually and on ehalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RUSHMORE
ENERGY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01367-JP (E.D. Pa.,
April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages under the Telephone
Cosumer Protection Act.

Rushmore made a pre-recorded telemarketing call to Mr. Perrong's
residential telephone number, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Mr.
Perrong's telephone number is charged per call and making an
automated and telemarketing call to such a number is separately
prohibted bt the TCPA, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff never consented to receive the call, which was placed
to him for telemarketing proposes. Because telemarketing campaigns
generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of
potential customer en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of proposed nationwide class of other persons who received
illegal telemarketing calls from the Defendant.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIN, PC
          304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburg, PA 15129
          Telephone: (412) 281 1250
          E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com

SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED: With et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA WITH; JACQUELINE CHRISTIANSEN; AND GLENWOOD JOHNSTON; on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiffs, v. SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00358-NBF (W.D. Pa., April 1, 2019), seeks recover damages
for non-payment of wages owed to the Plaintiffs and all similarly
situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

The Plaintiffs and members of the Class worked in excess of 40
hours in one or more workweeks. The Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages to Plaintiffs and members of the Class violated the
overtime provisions of the FLSA. Under the FLSA, Plaintiffs and
members of the Class are entitled to recover from Defendant the
overtime pay improperly withheld by Defendant, plus interest,
attorney's fees, and costs, the lawsuit says.

Schlumberger owns, leases and/or operates a "mixed fleet" of
vehicles, i.e., vehicles with less than 10,000 lbs. GVWR and more
than 10,000 lbs. GVWR, and/or assigns its drivers to operate a
"mixed fleet" of vehicles owned, leased and/or operated by others.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as drivers for all or
part of the time from in or about May 2017 until in or about
October 2018. They were employed as part of Defendant's so-called
"Driver Outsource Program."

The purpose of the Driver Outsource Program, which has been in
place by Defendant since at least April 2016 and remains in place,
was to have designated drivers for Defendant's oil and gas field
work.

The Plaintiffs normally worked seven days each week, with few if
any days off during their employment. As drivers, the Plaintiffs
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single week, frequently in
excess of 60 hours. The Plaintiffs regularly drove smaller vehicles
to transport personnel, equipment and supplies to and from
locations as needed to support Defendant's operations.

Schlumberger Limited is the world's largest oilfield services
company providing services including, but not limited to, drilling,
production and well intervention.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP LLC
          100 First Avenue, Suite 650
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

SELECTION MANAGEMENT: White Sues over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
TASHANA WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01372-ELR-CMS (N.D. Ga., March 27,
2019) alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Eleanor L. Ross and referred to Magistrate
Judge Catherine M. Salinas.

Selection Management Systems, Inc., doing business as
SELECTiON.COM, provides background checking services. Selection
Management Systems, Inc. was founded in 1991 and is based in
Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Andrew Weiner, Esq.
         Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
         WEINER & SAND LLC
         7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
         Atlanta, GA 30305
         Telephone: (404) 205-5029
         Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
         E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                 js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


SHARKS SPORTS: Faces Salsiccia et al. ADA suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO SALSICCIA; and SCOTT BLANKS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARKS SPORTS &
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; THE CITY OF SAN JOSE; and THE SAN JOSE ARENA
AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01546-NC (N.D. Cal., March
26, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins.

Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC operates sports and entertainment
facilities in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment LLC and changed its name to
Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC in August 2011. The company was
founded in 2000 and is based in San Jose, California. As of March
20, 2002, Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC operates as a
subsidiary of San Jose Sports & Entertainment Enterprises. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meredith Jayne Weaver, Esq.
          Stuart John Seaborn, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center St., Fourth Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: mweaver@dralegal.org
                  sseaborn@dralegal.org


SHARP ELECTRONICS: Sells Defective Microwave Ovens, Haight Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN HAIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-371 (N.D.N.Y., March 27, 2019) alleges that the
Defendant designs, manufactures and sells defective microwave
ovens.

According to the complaint, the microwave ovens all contain a
defect that makes them unreasonably dangerous, as they are
susceptible to catching fire, and unsuitable for their intended
use. More specifically, the ovens are defectively designed and
manufactured such that, under normal and intended use, the
electromagnetic waves generated by the magnetron tube are unable to
properly move through the waveguide into the cooking cavity,
resulting in buzzing, smoking, overheating, and eventual
destruction of the magnetron, leading to scorching of the
waveguide.

Sharp Electronics Corporation manufactures, distributes, markets,
sells, and services electronic products and solutions in the United
States. The company was founded in 1962 and is based in Montvale,
New Jersey. Sharp Electronics operates as a subsidiary of Sharp
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L. Street, NW,Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  harper@wbmllp.com


SHARP GROSSMONT: Sued for Secretly Recording Gynecology Surgeries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Azeen Ghorayshi, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that eighty-one
women are suing Sharp Grossmont Hospital in San Diego, California,
after learning that they were secretly recorded by hidden cameras
installed in the hospital's gynecology operating rooms, according
to a complaint filed in California Supreme Court.

From July 17, 2012, to June 30, 2013, roughly 1,800 women were
recorded in the three operating rooms at the hospital's women's
center, the complaint stated.

The motion-sensing cameras recorded video of births, emergency
C-sections, miscarriages, hysterectomies, sterilizations, and a
variety of other procedures. The videos depicted the women's faces
as they entered the hospital rooms for their operations, some were
recorded undressing, and some were unconscious during the course of
their procedures. None of the women were told they were being
recorded.

"It's such a shocking breach of patient privacy," Allison Goddard,
the attorney representing the women in the case, told BuzzFeed
News. "I've talked to hundreds of women who were affected by it.
The response is nearly universal: They just can't believe it
happened."

The laptop cameras were installed on anesthesia carts in the
operating rooms to address a drug theft issue at the hospital,
Sharp Grossmont spokesperson John Cihomsky told BuzzFeed News. "The
purpose of the three cameras was to ensure patient safety by
determining the cause of drugs missing from the carts," Cihomsky
said.

Due to the pending litigation, Cihomsky declined to comment further
on the case.

A class-action lawsuit against the hospital was originally filed in
2016. The court denied its class certification, as well as the
hospital's motion for a summary judgment, so 81 plaintiffs refiled.
Goddard said they were expecting more women to join the lawsuit.

In addition to the breach of privacy involved in filming the women
without their consent, the complaint also alleges that the hospital
was "grossly negligent" in storing and protecting the recordings.

The videos were stored on desktop computers, some of which were not
password-protected, the complaint states. Also, the hospital did
not log who accessed the recordings, or when they accessed it. In
addition, the hospital destroyed at least half of the recordings,
but could not confirm whether the files were recoverable.

"Sharp violated their right to privacy and breached its fiduciary
duty in the most egregious way by secretly recording them, allowing
non-medical personnel to view the recordings without making any
effort to track who was viewing them, and then destroying some of
the recordings," the complaint states.

The videos were typically filmed from behind the women's heads
during their procedures, Goddard said, sometimes depicting the
women's bellies, and the tops of their thighs. In some of the
videos, surgeries are visible, as well as parents meeting their
babies for the first time.

"For some women it was the happiest day of their lives, and for
some it was the saddest," Goddard said. [GN]


SIMPLEHUMAN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fewtrell Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
STACEY FEWTRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLEHUMAN, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10651 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 28, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Fewtrell was employed by the Defendants as
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee.

Simplehuman, LLC provides home furnishing products, including trash
cans, soap pump, sensor mirrors, kitchen and bath tools.
Simplehuman serves customers in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIX FLAGS: Masuda Funai Discusses Illinois Supreme Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenton P. Knop, Esq. -- kknop@masudafunai.com -- of Masuda, Funai,
Eifert & Mitchell, Ltd., in an article for Mondaq, reports that the
Illinois Supreme Court's recent ruling that actual harm is not
required to establish a cause of action for a violation of
Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") affirmed
BIPA's "preventative and deterrent" purposes. Businesses that
anticipate coming into contact with biometric identifiers or
biometric information of Illinois residents should conduct an
immediate review of their biometric data collection and handling
policies and practices, and take appropriate action to ensure that
they are in full compliance with BIPA's requirements.

On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its ruling
in the Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. case (2019 IL
123186). [GN]


SNIDER INTERESTS: Faces Esquivel et al. Suit in Kern County
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snider Interests,
LLC. The case is captioned as JORGE ESQUIVEL; CRYSTAL RAMOS; OMAR
AGUILAR MAGANA; SELINA MOLINA; DOMINGO AGUIRRE, Jr.; EMMALINDA
AYON; NATO G. BARAJAS; ROSANGELA BENITEZ; JULIO BECERRIL; REBECCA
BECERRIL; WALTER BENITEZ; JARED BENNETT; EMMANUEL BERMUDEZ; YAJAIRA
M. BERMUDEZ; LAZARO BOJORQUEZ; ANGEL CABRAL; ALEXANDER DELCID; JUAN
CORONA; LOURDES DELGADO; FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ EDEZA; TOMASA
RODRIGUEZ; CYNTHIA CARILLO; LOAYSA ESCOBAR; LUIS E. FUENTES; RAUL
ALCARAZ GARCIA; MANUEL DE JESUS GARZA,, III; JUAN SALDANA; ARACELI
HEREDIA; JOSE G. HERNANDEZ; RODOLFO INIGUEZ; ISMAEL LARRALDE;
ELIAZAR R.; YESENIA K. LUIS; SILVIA MACHADO; SILVANO DUARTE; JORGE
MARTINEZ; NOE MENDEZ; EDITH MENDEZ; RODOLFO MORFIN; JESUS MOTA;
SALEH MUTHANA; MARIA NAVARRO; ERIK NAVARRO; MIGUEL PELAYO; MARIA DE
JESUS GONZALEZ; JOSE ALEJANDRO PEREZ; JUANITO RAMIREZ; ALEJANDRO
ROSAS; EDWIN SANCHEZ; JOSE SANCHEZ; IVAN SIERRA; TERESA SIERRA;
CHRISTOPHER M. SOTO; ASHLEY L. SOTO; MIGUEL PELAYO; MARIA DE JESUS
GONZALEZ; JOSE ALEJANDRO PEREZ; JUANITO RAMIREZ; ALEJANDRO ROSAS;
EDWIN SANCHEZ; JOSE SANCHEZ; IVAN SIERRA; TERESA SIERRA;
CHRISTOPHER M. SOTO; ASHLEY L. SOTO; FELIPE TORRES; SHANNA J.
CEBALLO; DANIEL WILSON; JUANA WILSON; SERGIO ZAMORA; NORMA ZAMORA;
ALFONSO ZAVALA; ROSA ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNIDER INTERESTS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100852 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March
27, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge David R. Lampe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danil J Monteleone, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIL MONTELEONE
          8132 Tunney Ave.
          Reseda Ranch, CA 91335
          Tel: (818) 349-9666
          Fax: (818) 998-4735


SOUTHERN VALLEY: Migrant Farm Workers Seek Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
JESUS BEJINES-GONZALEZ, ABRAHAAM SAYAGO-HERNANDEZ and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT &
VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.; KENT HAMILTON; HAMILTON
FARMS MEX, L.P.; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.; KENDA PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK
HOLDINGS, LLC; WK MEX PROPERTIES, L.P.; and WKW, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 7:19-cv-00055-HL (M.D. Ga., April 11, 2019) seeks to
secure and vindicate their rights under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act ("AWPA"), under Georgia contract law, and the common
law of fraud.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by
willfully failing to pay at least the required hourly wage for
every compensable hour of labor performed in a workweek (including
by failing to reimburse their employment related expenses as
required by law) to each Plaintiff, to each individual who may opt
into this action as allowed by the FLSA ("Opt In Plaintiff"), and
to other similarly-situated workers. Defendants further violated
the FLSA by willfully failing to pay each Plaintiff, Opt-In
Plaintiff, and other similarly-situated worker employed in
Defendants' packing shed operations overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of forty hours in a workweek, adds the complaint.

Plaintiffs are agricultural workers employed by Defendants during
the past six years to work at Defendants' operations.

Defendants imported H-2A workers under job order contracts to
plant, harvest, and pack produce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Dawson Morton, Esq.
     Dawson Morton, LLC
     1003 Freedom Blvd.
     Watsonville, CA 95076
     Phone: (404) 590-1295
     Email: dawson@dawsonmorton.com



SOUTHWEST SYSTEMS: Does not Pay Installers OT Wages, Glessner Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Glessner, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Southwest Systems Enterprise
Communications, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00213-EJM (D.
Ariz., April 15, 2019) is a collective action seeking to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to workers under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arizona Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant SSEC did not pay overtime
to its "Field Network Engineers." Instead, SSEC pays these
blue-collar computer network installation employees a flat weekly
rate, even though they routinely work over 40 hours per week in
violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the requirements
of Arizona's wage statutes, and California's Labor Code, says the
complaint.

Glessner and the Class Members were employed by SSEC to install
computer networks.

SSEC is a computer network installation company based in
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
     Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C.
     4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
     Phoenix, AZ 85018
     Phone: (602) 240-6900
     Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
     Email: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com

          - and -

     David I. Moulton, Esq.
     Bruckner Burch PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713)877-8788
     Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
     Email: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


SPIN EMPIRE: Construction Workers' Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Donaldson, Winston Bradbury, Quasheca Wright and Richard
Franklin, individually and on behalf of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Spin Empire LLC and Tony Clanton,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01309 (E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages,
spread-of-hours, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Spin Empire performed subcontracting work at 546 Gulf Avenue,
Staten Island NY, where Plaintiffs worked in construction. They
claim to be denied overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40
hours per week, spread-of-hours and wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
      AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
      45 Broadway, Suite 1420
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 825-1400
      Email: rob@akinlaws.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: May 22 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that Subaru WRX/STI
owners who had engine failure have benefits coming. Here are the
steps you should take.

If you own a 2012-2017 Subaru WRX or WRX STI with an EJ25 2.5-liter
turbo engine, you could have an issue with engine failure. A class
action lawsuit was filed against Subaru of America (SOA) because of
a defect within the engine manufacturing which could lead to
premature engine failure. It was settled by the Camden, N.J.
automaker recently, and the suit estimates the number of WRX/STI
owners effected could number more than 100,000.

What should you do if you own a 2012-2017 Subaru WRX/STI?

The settled lawsuit contends the problem in the WRX/STI 2.5-liter
engine was caused by "inadequate oil lubrication to the bearings
and crankshaft" causing "sudden and catastrophic engine
self-destruction as overheated internal parts seize" and by "severe
driving conditions." If your EJ25 engine fails in your WRX or STI,
it could cost you $6,000 or more to get your 2.5-liter turbo Boxer
engine repaired.

The recent settlement allows for WRX/STI owners to receive from
$3,500 up to $6,500 if they had this problem and if they got it
repaired at an independent repair shop, but you must produce your
receipts. WRX/STI owners who had engine repairs made at an
authorized Subaru dealer can get 100% reimbursement for
out-of-pocket expenses. Subaru is also extending the powertrain
warranty up to an additional eight years on 2012-2017 model years
or up to 100,000 miles.

Who is eligible?

Anyone who leased or purchased a 2012-2017 Subaru Impreza WRX or
WRX STI with an EJ-series 2.5-liter turbocharged engine is eligible
to get these settlement benefits. Your WRX/STI must be manufactured
between October 11, 2011, and November 16, 2016, with bearing
vehicle identification numbers (VIN) ending with CG203168 and up
for 5-door models, and CG006225 through H9826807 for 4- door
models.

What should WRX/STI owners do?

Owners can file a claim here and it must be done by May 22, 2019.
You are not required to submit a claim form to receive the benefit
of the 8 year/100,000 mile extended warranty. 2012-2017 WRX/STI
owners are automatically eligible.

It would also be a good idea if you own a 2012-2017 Subaru WRX or
STI with the EJ25 2.5-liter engine, to make an appointment with
your Subaru dealer to get it checked out. Your engine may not have
failed, but one way to determine if you could be having a problem
is if you begin to experience a slight decrease in power which
could be a sign of major issues ahead. [GN]


SYNERGY FINANCIAL: Estese Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Estese, Plaintiff, v. Synergy Financial Partners Inc. and
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01618, (N.D. Ill., March 6,
2019), is a class action suit seeking damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Synergy is engaged in the marketing and solicitation of financial
and/or loan services. Estese claims to have received unsolicited
telemarketing calls from Synergy. She is registered with the
National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Levin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
      Northbrook, IL 60062
      Phone: (224) 218-0882
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


TABOR COMMUNITY PARTNERS: Shaw Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Tabor Community
Partners (TCP) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The case is captioned
TAISHA SHAW, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TABOR COMMUNITY PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01620-HB (E.D. Pa., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff Taisha Shaw
alleges that TCP has violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff
and the FLSA collective overtime premium compensation for all hours
worked over 40 per week. Accordingly, Plaintiff Shaw seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated
damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and such
other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

TCP contracts with the Philadelphia Department of Human Services to
serve as the Community Umbrella Agency (CUA). As a CUA, TCP manages
cases in the 5th and 14th police districts in the Northwest Section
of Philadelphia, providing community-based service delivery to
vulnerable children and families. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Telephone: (215) 884-2491


TAMPA BAY SPORTS: Hanley Sues Over SMS Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------
Bryan Hanley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tampa Bay Sports and Entertainment LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00550, (M.D. Fla., March 5, 2019), seeks
statutory damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting
from the transmittal of advertising and telemarketing text
messages, en masse through the use of an automatic telephone
dialing system without any of the recipients' prior express written
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant owns the Tampa Bay Lightning, a professional ice hockey
team based in Tampa. It allegedly uses SMS ads sent en masse to
convince fans to sign up to enter into prize sweepstakes or
otherwise to receive purely informational texts. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David P. Milian, Esq.
     Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
     Juan J. Rodriguez, Esq.
     CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 372-7474
     Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
     Email: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
            rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com
            jrodriguez.@careyrodriguez.com


TARONIS TECH: Hatten Files Class Action Over Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hatten, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ROBERT L
DINGESS, SCOTT MAHONEY, ERMANNO P. SANTILLI, KEVIN POLLACK, and
WILLIAM W. STAUNTON, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00889-CEH-TGW
(M.D. Fla., April 15, 2019) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Taronis common stock between January 28, 2019 and February
12, 2019, both days inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

On January 28, 2019, the Company announced a purported contract for
use of its metal cutting fuel by the City of San Diego, which
received widespread attention. On this news, the Company's stock
rapidly increased over 25% in the following two days. On January
29, 2019, the Company amended its certificate of incorporation to
effectuate a reverse stock split, with every 20 shares of
outstanding Company stock becoming 1 share of Company stock at the
close of business on January 30, 2019. On January 31, 2019, the
Company changed its name from MagneGas Applied Technology
Solutions, Inc. to Taronis. On February 6, 2019, the Company
announced a secondary stock offering registering over 3 million
shares.

According to the complaint, the statements issued by the Plaintiffs
were materially false and/or misleading because they misinterpreted
and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business and operations which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company did not have a contract with the City of San Diego;
(ii) the Company or its management had engaged in a scheme to
defraud; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Taronis securities during the Class Period at
artificially inflated prices.

Defendant Taronis is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Clearwater, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Tomchin, Esq.
     Brett P. Abner, Esq.
     TOMCHIN & ODOM, P.A.
     6816 Southpoint Parkway, Suite 400
     Jacksonville, FL 32216
     Phone: (904) 353-6888
     Fax: (904) 353-0188
     Email: tomchin@tomchinandodom.com
            pleadings@tomchinandodom.com

          - and -

     Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
     Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-545-4600
     Fax: 212-686-0114
     Email: Guiney@whafh.com
            kcooper@whafh.com


TECTON CAFE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Morales Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Morales and Jorge Raymundo Rivera, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tecton Cafe
Inc. (d/b/a Estancia 460), ("Defendant Corporation"), Stacey Sosa
and Elias Sosa, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03303 (S.D. N.Y.,
April 12, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime
wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.


The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and other employees to work without providing the
minimum wage compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.
In addition, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
unlawfully appropriating Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees'
tips and made unlawful deductions from these Plaintiffs' and other
tipped employees' wages.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants Tecton Cafe Inc.
(d/b/a Estancia 460), Stacey Sosa, and Elias Sosa.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Argentinian bistro, located
at 460 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10013 under the name
"Estancia 460".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TELIGENT INC: Mo-Kan Iron Workers Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Teligent, Inc. and JASON
GRENFELL GARDNER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03354 (S.D. N.Y.,
April 15, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of Plaintiff
and all other persons or entities, except for Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Teligent common stock between May
2, 2017 and November 7, 2017, inclusive. This action is brought on
behalf of the Class for violations the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies, asserts the complaint.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
regarding, and/or failed to disclose, product non-conformities in
research and development ("R&D") and non-compliance with applicable
regulations.

According to the complaint, the Company continued to mislead
investors until November 6, 2017, when the truth began to emerge.
That day, after the market closed, Teligent issued a press release
disclosing its third quarter 2017 ("Q3 2017") results, which
exposed the depths of Teligent's R&D, production, and legal issues.
According to the press release and Form 10-Q filed shortly
thereafter on November 9, 2017 ("Q3 2017 10-Q"), total revenue fell
to $13.7 million, a 15.4% drop from the prior year's Q3 revenue of
$16.2 million. The Company's revenue was also off 25.5% from its
second quarter 2017 revenue of $18.4 million. On this news,
Teligent's share price fell $2.29 on November 7, 2017.

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

Plaintiff Mo-Kan acquired Teligent common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged due to the
federal securities violations and related misstatements.

Teligent is a specialty generic pharmaceutical company incorporated
under the laws of the province of Delaware and is headquartered in
Buena, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
     Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
     Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: 212-223-6444
     Facsimile: 212-223-6334
     Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
            dbroggi@scott-scott.com
            rswartz@scott-scott.com
            jjacobson@scott-scott.com


TWIN VILLAGE:  Owes Sales Staff Overtime Pay, Says Smith
--------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL BRANDON SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs. v. Twin Village Management LLC
d/b/a Sundance Memory Care, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00406
(W.D. Tex., April 11, 2019) is a collective action complaint
against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to sales
staff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Mr. Smith regularly worked more than 40 hours a week,
without receiving overtime pay required by federal law, notes the
complaint. Mr. Smith regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek. On average, he worked in excess of 55 hours per week, but
he never received overtime compensation for his time. Mr. Smith's
supervisors were aware that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek, because it was expected from sales employees, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Russell Smith was the Regional Community Liaison for
Sundance from April 28, 2018, until March 18, 2019.

Twin Village Management LLC owns, manages, and supports memory care
communities in Texas, including Sundance Memory Care, in Cypress,
Katy, Cedar Park, and Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas R. Lawson, Esq.
     MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
     1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 337-5580
     Telecopy: (713) 337-8850
     Email:Nick.Lawson@mhllp.com


TWO JINN: Does not Properly Pay Fin'l. Service Reps, Medina Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SARA MEDINA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TWO JINN, INC., dba ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, a
California corporation; TRITON MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2019-00018891-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.,
April 11, 2019) is brought as a "Representative Action" arising
from Defendants' violations of the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") of 2004, California Labor Code and is filed on behalf of
Plaintiff and all non-exempt, hourly-paid financial service
representatives, sales representatives, or other non-exempt,
hourly-paid office employees who are employed by, or formerly were
employed by, Defendants within the State of California during the
relevant time period.

As a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including straight pay,
overtime and/or double-time, and Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees meal and rest break
premiums, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees' wage statements
were inaccurate, in violation of the Labor Code, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Defendants' corporate
office in Carlsbad, California from approximately November 2011 to
approximately April 2017, as a non-exempt, hourly-paid financial
service representative.

Defendants are in the Bail Bonds Services industry. Defendants
provide bail bonds services, including providing consulting and
customized payment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David R. Markham, Esq.
     Maggie Realin, Esq.
     Michael J. Morphew, Esq.
     THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
     750 B Street, Suite 1950
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 399-3995
     Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
     Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com
            mrealin@markham-law.com
            mmorphew@markham-law.com

          - and -

     Matthew Wilson, Esq.
     WILSON LAW GROUP, PC
     11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Phone: (858) 777-9815
     Facsimile: (858)777-9812
     Email: matthew@wilsonlawcorp.com


U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION: Ford & Harrison Discusses Pay Gap Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Starnes Gray, Esq., of Ford & Harrison LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that on March 8, 2019, all 28 players on the
women's national team initiated a proposed class and collective
action in federal court against the U.S. Soccer Federation. Their
action alleged discrimination based on sex in violation of the
Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended (Title VII). Notably, the players chose to file suit on
International Women's Day, which is intended to celebrate the
social, economic, cultural, and political achievements of women, as
well as to raise awareness of gender equality issues.

On March 8, 2019, all 28 players on the women's national team
initiated a proposed class and collective action in federal court
against the U.S. Soccer Federation. Their action alleged
discrimination based on sex in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA)
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title
VII). Notably, the players chose to file suit on International
Women's Day, which is intended to celebrate the social, economic,
cultural, and political achievements of women, as well as to raise
awareness of gender equality issues.

Litigation Background
As previously reported, several players filed charges of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) in March 2016 alleging discrimination based on sex. After
completing its investigation, on February 5, 2019, the EEOC (the
federal agency charged with investigating allegations of employment
discrimination) issued the players’ Notices of Right to Sue,
allowing them to file the instant lawsuit within 90 days of
receipt.

The lawsuit alleges that "the female players have been consistently
paid less money than their male counterparts. This is true even
though their performance has been superior to that of the male
players—with the female players, in contrast to the male players,
becoming world champions." The complaint alleges that the women
outperformed the men's team in terms of revenue, profit, and
performance.

The complaint goes on to state that the female players spend more
time practicing for and playing in matches, training in camps,
traveling, and participating in media sessions than similarly
situated male players -- all while earning less pay. The complaint
further alleges that the female players have endured other less
favorable terms and conditions of employment than their male
counterparts, such as having to play on inferior surfaces (i.e.,
artificial turf) with a greater chance of serious injury.

Meanwhile, at the administrative phase, the Federation denied the
pay discrimination allegations and pointed out that the female
players receive benefits that the male players do not, such as
severance pay, medical insurance, maternity leave, child care, and
a relocation allowance. The Federation also pointed out that the
men's and women's teams have separately negotiated collective
bargaining agreements governing pay and other issues.

Legal Framework
Federal law generally prohibits discriminatory employment practices
based on sex. Under the EPA, men and women in the same workplace
must be given equal pay for equal work. Title VII also makes it
unlawful to discriminate based on sex regarding pay and benefits.
Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of salary
discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to prove, by a
preponderance of evidence, that the pay differential is justified
by the existence of one of the four statutory exceptions: (1) a
seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system that measures
earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a
differential based on any factor other than sex.

Bottom Line
The bottom line for employers is to regularly audit pay practices
and policies to prevent and correct potential pay disparity issues.
Consistency and training are key to avoiding not only legal
missteps but also serious employee morale issues.

This lawsuit comes less than 3 months before the reigning world
champions will defend their title at the Women's World Cup in
France beginning on June 7. It remains to be seen whether these
athletes will still be locked in litigation at that time, but they
are reportedly not considering any boycott or protest during (or
leading up to) the tournament. However, the litigation proceeds,
this writer (and long-time soccer fan) is hoping they bring home a
4th world championship. [GN]


UBER TECH: $20MM Settlement in O'Connor Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. HAKAN YUCESOY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
Nos. 13-cv-03826-EMC, 15-cv-00262-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs brought two lawsuits -- O'Connor v. Uber Techs.,
Inc. and Yucesoy v. Uber Techs., Inc. -- against Defendant Uber,
alleging that Uber misclassifies its drivers as independent
contractors rather than employees.  Five years of contentious
litigation ensued.  The parties eventually entered into an
agreement to settle both suits in March 2019.

The Settlement Agreement covers all Drivers in California and
Massachusetts who have used the Uber App at any time since Aug. 16,
2009, up to and including Feb. 28, 2019, and who have validly opted
out of arbitration or for whom Uber has no record of acceptance of
an arbitration agreement.  Thus, the settlement class does not
include drivers who must pursue their claims against Uber in
individual arbitration following the Ninth Circuit's rulings in
Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc. and O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.

Although the O'Connor and Yucesoy cases were limited to claims
based on expense reimbursement and tips, the Settlement Agreement
contains an expansive release provision: it requires settlement
class members to release "any and all" claims based on or
reasonably related to the claims asserted in O'Connor and Yucesoy,
including claims for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, interest,
and penalties.  The Settlement Agreement requires that the
Plaintiffs file amended complaints expanding the causes of action
to include all claims related to the alleged misclassification of
drivers as independent contractors.  As a result, the Settlement
Agreement covers claims that are brought in at least eight other
lawsuits against Uber currently pending in federal and California
and Massachusetts state courts, effectively terminating those
suits.

Unlike the First Proposed Settlement, the Settlement Agreement does
not include any PAGA claims and would not release any PAGA claims.
Nor does it purport to resolve the key underlying dispute whether
Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors.

In exchange for the Class Members' release of their claims, the
Settlement provides monetary and non-monetary consideration.  The
monetary component of the Settlement is a $20 million
non-reversionary fund. From the fund, $5 million will be deducted
for attorneys' fees, $146,000 for costs of claims administration,
and $40,000 for incentive awards for the settlement class
representatives.

The remainder -- an estimated $14,814,000 -- will be distributed to
the Class Members who timely submit claims.  Assuming a 50% claim
rate -- which the Plaintiffs' counsel represents has been typical
in similar settlements --  the Class Members who drove 0 to 1,000
miles would receive approximately $360, those who drove 10,000
miles would receive $4,000, and those who drove 100,000 miles would
receive $36,000. The average settlement share for each claiming
class member, after attorneys' fees are deducted, would be
approximately $2,206.  If the claim rate is 100%, these numbers
would be halved.

After an initial distribution is made to drivers whose claims are
approved by the Settlement Administrator, a second distribution of
uncashed checks will be made to claimants who cashed their checks,
in proportion to their on-trip mileage.  Any funds remaining after
the second distribution will be distributed to two cy pres
beneficiaries: Legal Aid at Work, for unclaimed funds in the
California settlement pool, and Greater Boston Legal Services, for
unclaimed funds in the Massachusetts settlement pool.

Uber also has agreed to modify its business practices in three
ways.  First, Uber will maintain a comprehensive, written policy
governing the deactivation of drivers' accounts that will be easily
accessible online.  Second, the deactivation policy will provide
several safeguards to drivers: low passenger acceptance rates will
not be grounds for deactivation; Uber will provide advance warning
before a driver is deactivated for reasons other than safety
issues, physical altercation, discrimination, fraud, sexual
misconduct, harassment, or illegal conduct; if a driver is
deactivated, Uber will provide the driver with an explanation for
the deactivation; and Uber will institute a formal appeals process
for deactivation decisions.  Third, except for the excluded
matters, drivers whose accounts are deactivated will have the
opportunity to take a "quality course" and be "eligible for
consideration for reactivation" upon completion of the course.  It
appears that drivers will be required to pay for these courses,
although Uber states it will work with third-party providers to
help lower the cost of these courses.

These policy modifications "shall expire" upon either two years
after Final Approval, or changes to any applicable statute,
regulation, or other law that Uber reasonably believes would
require a modification to any of the provisions, whichever is
earlier.  Thus, the modifications will remain in effect for at most
two years.

Judge Chen concludes that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable.  Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval.  Leave is granted for the
Plaintiffs to file the proposed Amended Complaints for Settlement
attached as Exhibits A and B to the Settlement Agreement.

Named Plaintiffs Matthew Manahan, Elie Gurfinkel, Mokhtar Talha,
Pedro Sanchez, Aaron Dulles, and Antonio Oliveira are designated as
the representatives of the provisionally certified Settlement
Class.  Shannon Liss-Riordan and Adelaide Pagano of the law firm of
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., whom the Court finds are experienced
and adequate counsel for purposes of these settlement approval
proceedings, are designated as the Class Counsel.

The form and content of the proposed Summary Notice,and the notice
methodology described in the Settlement Agreement are approved.
The reminders described in Paragraph 137 of the Settlement
Agreement will be sent to all the settlement class members who have
yet to submit claims, regardless of the size of their Settlement
share.  The form and content of the revised proposed Long Form
Notice, filed by the parties at Docket No. 928-2, is approved.  The
language on the first page describing the average and estimated
amounts class members may receive will be put in bold.

The deadlines set by the Order are as follows:

      a. The Long Form Notice will be disseminated within 21 days
after the entry of the Order;

      b. The Summary Notice will be disseminated within 21 days
after the entry of the Order;

      c. Motion in support of the Final Approval of the Settlement
will be filed on or before 35 days before the Fairness Hearing;

      d. The Class Counsel will file their Fee Application on or
before 35 days before the Exclusion/Objection Deadline;

      e. The Settlement Class members who desire to be excluded
will submit requests for exclusion postmarked (or the equivalent
for e-mail) no later than 60 days after the Notice Date (the
Exclusion/Objection Deadline);

      f. All written objections to the Settlement Agreement and the
Fee and Service Application and written notices of the objecting
class member's intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing will be
filed with the Court and postmarked and mailed to the Settlement
Administrator no later than the Exclusion/Objection Deadline;
      
      g. Any opposition to the Motion in support of the Final
Approval of the Settlement will be filed with the Court on or
before 21 days before the Fairness Hearing;

      h. All documents in support of final approval of the
Settlement Agreement, and in response to objections to the
Settlement Agreement or the Fee and Service Application, will be
filed with the Court on or before 14 days before the Fairness
Hearing; and

      i. The Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on July
18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.

In consultation with and with the approval of Uber, the Class
Counsel is authorized to establish the means necessary to
administer the proposed settlement and implement the claim process,
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  The
Order disposes of O'Connor Docket No. 915 and Yucesoy Docket No.
321.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3vKzSh from Leagle.com.

Hakan Yucesoy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Abdi Mahammd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Mokhtar Talha, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Brian Morris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Pedro Sanchez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Antonio Oliveira,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, &
Aaron Dulles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Adelaide Pagano
-- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac
vice.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Debra Wong Yang
-- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, Marcellus
Antonio McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay
Saikrishna Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Joshua
Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP, Peter C. Squeri, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theane
Evangelis , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Theane D. Evangelis --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Travis Kalanick, Defendant, represented by Dhananjay Saikrishna
Manthripragada -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher LLP, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP,
Peter C. Squeri, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


UNIFIED PARKING: Espinosa Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Cal. Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CARMONA ESPINOSA, an individual, RENE MANUEL VALENCIA
CAMPOS, an individual, FERNANDO GARCIA GUZMAN, an individual,
Plaintiffs, v. UNIFIED PARKING SERVICE INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV12502 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 11, 2019) is
a class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
current and former non-exempt hourly wage earners employed in the
State of California of Defendant and other as of yet unnamed
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant UNIFIED is in
possession of the relevant records that will enable an accurate
calculation of the time worked and wages owed to Plaintiffs. At all
times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were full-time,
non-exempt employees. At no time were Plaintiffs paid withheld or
unpaid wages due and owing to them, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Espinosa began working for Defendant in 2010 as a
supervisor until October 2018. Plaintiffs Campos and Guzman began
working for Defendant as parking attendants or November 11, 2014
until October 3, 2018.

Defendant is in the business of parking management and valet
parking.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Esq.
     Raina Singer. Esq.
     LEVIN & NALBANDYAN, LLP
     811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213)232-4848
     Fax: (213)232-4849
     Email: jnalbandyan@LNtriallawyers.com
            rsinger@LNtriallawyers.com



UNITED MEDICAL: Gordon Sues Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Mikhail Gordon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED MEDICAL RECOVERY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00259-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., April 12, 2019) is a
putative class action against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The Defendant sent Plaintiff initial written communication dated
May 25, 2018. This letter was Defendant's initial communication
with Plaintiff with respect to a debt. However, the May 25, 2018
letter failed to convey that Plaintiff must dispute the debt in
writing in order to require Defendant to obtain and mail Plaintiff
verification of the Debt, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

Defendant is a Mississippi Limited Liability Company who was
engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of
attempting to collect a "debt".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
     Hussey Law Firm, LLC
     82 Plantation Pointe Road, No. 288
     Fairhope, AL 36532-1896
     Phone: (251) 928-1423
     Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
     Email: chussey@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com



UNITED STATES: ICE Blames Border Crisis on Flores Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Monitor reports that officials with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement pointed
their fingers squarely at lawmakers for what they call a
humanitarian, operational and policy crisis at the southwestern
border; this as detention facilities reach as much as 300 percent
over capacity.

The lack of accommodations to appropriately manage the numbers
prompted ICE's announcement on March 29 that, beginning April 1,
the agency will house about 700 adult females at the Karnes
detention facility in Karnes City, Texas. This is due to the
current volume of families surrendering to U.S. Border Patrol
agents at the southwest border, with ICE and CBP officials agreeing
that the situation has left ICE's "limited transportation
resources" overwhelmed.

ICE officials said in a news release that the move would be
temporary, and would last "about 90 days."

". . . . ICE is currently only able to route a limited number of
families apprehended at that border to the one other family
residential center in Texas -- the South Texas Family Residential
Center in Dilley, TX," the release stated. "Additionally, ICE adult
detention space is near capacity. As such, ICE has determined that,
at this time, Karnes will better meet operational needs by also
serving partially as an adult detention facility."

The decision by ICE officials comes more than a week after CBP
confirmed it was releasing immigrant families with a notice to
appear due to lack of space in the detention facilities in the Rio
Grande Valley sector, with El Paso, Yuma, San Diego and Del Rio,
facilities ready to do the same.

The strain on the immigration system itself is due to a growing
number of immigrant families arriving in and around ports of entry,
which CBP Chief Operating Officer John P. Sanders said will push
the total number of apprehensions in March past the 100,000 mark.

Sanders said of those 100,000 apprehensions expected for March,
roughly 58 percent, or 58,000 will be comprised of families and
another 9,000, or nearly 10 percent, will be made up of
unaccompanied children.

". . . By any definition I cannot look at this and say that it is
not a humanitarian crisis; there are other parts to this crisis…
There's the humanitarian crisis, there is the operational crisis,
and of course there is the policy crisis that we're facing in terms
of the laws that need to be changed -- all very important," Sanders
said.

Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy director of ICE, said they're limited in
what they can do because of laws and guidelines like the Flores
settlement.

The Flores Settlement is an agreement put in place to protect
children taken into custody at the southern border that was
established more than 20 years ago as part of a class-action
lawsuit first filed in 1985.

The settlement agreement stipulated among other things how long the
government can detain immigrants, dictating a 20-day maximum
detention period for immigrant families. It was reached between the
federal government and child welfare and legal advocates who had
demanded government officials address child welfare violations
within the immigration detention system

Vitiello said if agents could detain the migrant families longer,
that would allow for them to get their due process, including
taking care of any immigration status-related issues before being
released.

"A fix to Flores that allows us to maintain the high standards we
have for family detention, but enough capacity across the continuum
in order for people to go through their due process claims — be
heard," Vitiello said. "If they have the right to asylum, that the
judge adjudicates as such, then we welcome them. But if not,
they're returned.

"In my career, what I've seen, if you hand out a consequence for
illegal behavior, you get less (of the behavior), and right now
that loophole is so open that people are sending their children, or
coming to the border with their children, and we don't have a way
to address that operationally."

That option would require additional funding for bed space, and on
the judicial end, hiring of more immigration officers to help
expedite an asylum process that can currently take anywhere from
six months to several years.

Vitiello, who in the past has worked in the RGV sector as the chief
Border Patrol agent, said there is no doubt that there's a crisis
at the U.S.-Mexico border, stating that ICE has released more than
108,000 immigrants since December 2018.

"There's absolutely an unmitigated crisis going on on the southwest
border, and it's not about how many people are being arrested. That
number is significantly higher than it was just a year ago, but
it's what has happened to the people," Vitiello said during a panel
at the expo, adding that Border Patrol stations are not designed to
house children regardless of how long they're kept.

With regard to ICE, Vitiello described the operational aspects of
current laws as "a terrible scenario" when considering the limited
resources and accommodations.

"The Flores settlement agreement and subsequent court cases that
have been lost as it relates to the government -- we can't keep
families in detention," Vitiello said. "There's not enough space.
There's not enough time for them under the terms of the agreement
to have their cases heard, whether for asylum claims or removal
purposes.

"We're in a situation where we're encouraging people to take this
dangerous journey."

Despite prior instances of surges in both unaccompanied minor
children and families arriving at the southwest border -- and most
recently in 2014 when a surge of unaccompanied minor children
started arriving in droves, leading to the utilization of emergency
shelters in places like California, Texas and Arizona, to name a
few -- ICE and CBP officials said the blame lies with how the laws
are currently written. Laws they say that need to be changed.

In fiscal year 2014, Border Patrol agents apprehended more than
68,500 unaccompanied children who arrived at the southwest border
— the highest number of apprehensions since CBP began recording
that demographic in 2010. This was a more than 75 percent increase
in unaccompanied minor apprehensions at the southwest border from
just the year before in 2013, when agents apprehended 38,759
unaccompanied children, according to the agency's website.

In fiscal year 2019, CBP is reporting just through February, at
about the half-year mark, nearly 27,000 unaccompanied children
apprehensions at the southwest border -- nearly half of the number
of apprehensions made during the highest mark in 2014, which saw
68,500.

CBP recorded the highest number of family apprehensions last year,
fiscal year 2018, with 107,212 apprehensions at the southwest
border -- a more than 40 percent increase in family apprehensions
from fiscal year 2017, when agents apprehended more than 75,000
families. This was a slight decrease from fiscal year 2016.

So far this fiscal year, CBP is reporting through February that
they have apprehended 136,150 families at the southwest border,
which already surpasses the 2018 mark.

Locally, the mayor of Brownsville said CBP conveyed to him on March
29 that they would release thousands of immigrants throughout
Brownsville, Harlingen and McAllen over the next few days.

Hidalgo County Judge Richard F. Cortez said the county would hold
the federal government responsible for any "adverse consequences"
resulting from the release of more than 2,000 asylum seekers thus
far.

"We are calling on the federal government to act responsibly along
this nation's southern border. Reckless rhetoric and irresponsible
policy decisions have real impact on our communities," Cortez said
in a prepared statement. "Over 2,000 asylum seekers have been
released on our streets. We commend the tireless efforts of local
CBP, ICE, DHS and other law enforcement officials and call on the
federal government to support these brave men and women by stopping
unnecessary fear-mongering and providing them the resources
necessary to address this humanitarian crisis."

CBP officials stated that in order to avoid a safety risk to the
migrants, and their own agents due to facilities that were
overcapacity, they had started releasing families from their
detention facilities with a notice to appear. They were hoping to
alleviate a system that was "overwhelmed" by the number of families
and unaccompanied minors surrendering to agents at the southwest
border.

President Trump threatened via Twitter on March 29 to shutdown the
southwest border if Mexico does not stop undocumented immigrants
from entering the U.S.

"The DEMOCRATS have given us the weakest immigration laws anywhere
in the World. Mexico has the strongest, & they make more than $100
Billion a year on the U.S. Therefore, CONGRESS MUST CHANGE OUR WEAK
IMMIGRATION LAWS NOW, & Mexico must stop illegals from entering the
U.S.," Trump tweeted on March 29.

On March 28, it was announced that Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was expected to ask Congress, as part of
a legislative proposal, for more bed space, the ability to hold
families past the 20-day period established by the Flores
agreement, and the authority to deport unaccompanied minor
children. [GN]


UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UNITED TRANZACTIONS,
LLC. The case is styled as JULIAN T. LEWIS on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED TRANZACTIONS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01564-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., April
18, 2019).

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

United TranzActions, LLC provides payment solutions for automotive,
furniture, building materials and supplies, equipment sales and
rentals, trucking, retail, manufacturing, healthcare and
hospitality, and distribution industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric D. Coleman, Esq.
     Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
     Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
     SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
     2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8151
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com
            thatz@sulaimanlaw.com
            nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com


VERSUM MATERIALS: Board Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Providence, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated stockholders v. Versum Materials, Inc., Seifolla Ghasemi,
Guillermo Novo, Jacques Croisetiere, Yi Hyon Paik, Thomas J.
Riordan, Susan C. Schnabel, Alejandro D. Wolff, and Broadridge
Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2019-0206 (Del. Chancery
Ct., March 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty in the negotiation, approval and
disclosure of a merger with Entegris, Inc. and the Board's response
to a third-party, all-cash all-shares offer, including
implementation of a Shareholder Rights Plan (the "Rights Plan" or
the "Poison Pill").

The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty, care and
disclosure by entering into merger and employment discussions and a
confidentiality and standstill agreement with Entegris without
Board authorization and without full and prompt disclosure to the
Board, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff City of Providence, the capital city of the State of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, is a beneficial owner of
Versum stock and has beneficially owned shares of Versum common
stock at all relevant times.

Headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, the Defendant Versum is a global
provider of innovative solutions to the semiconductor and display
industries with expertise in the development, manufacturing,
transportation and handling of specialty materials such as
high-purity chemicals and gases.

The Individual Defendants are members of the board of directors of
Versum. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
      Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
      PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
      1310 N. King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 888-6500


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Szabados Suit Asserts Labor Code Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATALIN SZABADOS, individually, and as a representative of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES,
LLC and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV12879 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 12, 2019) is a representative
action for recovery of civil penalties pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").

Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7 covers retail
employees. That order governs the provision of suitable seats in
employment in the workplace. Plaintiff alleges that Victoria's
Secret failed to provide her and other fitting room attendants with
seats as required by section 14. By failing to provide seats,
Victoria's Secret violated Labor Code section 1198, asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff alleges she is an aggrieved employee and that other
fitting room attendants who were employed by Victoria's Secret in
California are also negatively impacted by the aforementioned
Victoria's Secret policies. A violation of Labor Code Section 1198
provides a private right of action under PAGA to recover civil
penalties, relates the complaint.

Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a fitting room
attendant and doing other duties in the County of Los Angeles.

Victoria's Secret is a statewide retail chain operation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
     K.L. Myles, Esq.
     Michael D. Carr, Esq.
     KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
     550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
     Glendale, CA 91203-1922
     Phone: (818) 547-5000
     Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
     Email: aej@kpclegal.com
            klm@kpclegal.com
            mdc@kpclegal.com


VIP KIDZ: Curry Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------
SYKRA CURRY, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VIP KIDZ LLC, and MARIA A. MANTILLA, individually
Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80508-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 12, 2019)
is an action for unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief,
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

When Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during a pay week,
Plaintiff was paid only her straight, regular hourly rate for all
hours worked, with no additional compensation for the overtime
hours worked, asserts the complaint. The Defendants failed to
comply with the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and all similarly
situated employees complete overtime compensation for overtime
hours worked, the complaint relates.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants in this capacity from August 28,
2016, through February 8, 2019 as a Medical Assistant.

VIP KIDZ LLC was a Florida limited liability company doing business
in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary A. Isaacs, Esq.
     Gary A. Isaacs, P.A.
     712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400
     North Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Phone: (561) 844-3600
     Email: gai@fcohenlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Newsom Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Report Inquiries
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEISHA NEWSOM, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00709 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2019) seeks damages arising out
of Defendant's systematic unauthorized credit inquiries.

Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), to insure
fair and accurate reporting, promote efficiency in the banking
system, and protect consumer privacy. At no point prior to or after
June 8, 2016, did Plaintiff have an account with Defendant. At no
point prior to or after June 8, 2016, did Plaintiff inquire about
Defendant's services. Nonetheless, on June 8, 2016, Defendant
pulled Plaintiff's Equifax credit report without a permissible
purpose. Despite the fact that Plaintiff did not have an account
with Defendant, Defendant submitted an unauthorized account review
credit report inquiry to Equifax.

Upon review of Plaintiff's Equifax credit report dated April 28,
2017, Plaintiff discovered Defendant's unauthorized credit inquiry.
Defendant's inquiry was unauthorized and illegal. Plaintiff did not
seek out nor inquire about Defendant's services or credit
extensions. Therefore, inquiry was not promotional. Furthermore,
Plaintiff did not have an account with Defendant and thus, had no
reason to pull Plaintiff's credit report or collect on a debt, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resided in the City and County of
Riverside, State of California, whose credit report(s) were
affected by at least one unauthorized inquiry by Defendant.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART, APC
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3609
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


WORKHORSE RESTAURANT: Maldonado Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simon Marquez Maldonado, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Workhorse Restaurant Inc. (d/b/a
Regional), Dario Arenella, Pietro Arenella (a.k.a. Pierpaolo), and
Jody Arenella, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03300 (S.D. N.Y., April
12, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of
the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime
wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Plaintiff Marquez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked, asserts the
complaint.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff Marquez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, the
complaint relates.

Plaintiff Marquez was employed as a cook and a salad preparer at
the restaurant.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located
at 2607 Broadway, New York, NY 10025 under the name
"Regional".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZALE DELAWARE: Faces Leos Suit in Sacramento Court
--------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Zale Delaware Inc. The case is captioned as CAROLINA LEOS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ZALE DELAWARE INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 34-2019-00253281-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March
26, 2019).

Zale Delaware, Inc. provides retail sale of jewelry. The Company
operates stores that offer diamond jewelry, watches, cultured
pearls, gemstones, gold, silver, and platinum for men and women.
Zale offers its products for sale in retail locations and through
the internet. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W Olympic Blvd, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001


ZOGENIX INC: Lake Files Class Action Over Misleading, False Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Immanuel Lake, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZOGENIX, INC., STEPHEN J. FARR, and MICHAEL
P. SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01975 (N.D. Cal., April 12,
2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zogenix's securities between February 6, 2019
through April 8, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Zogenix is a pharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes therapies for the treatment of transformative
central nervous system disorders in the United States. The Company
was formerly known as SJ2 Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name
to Zogenix, Inc. in August 2006. Its lead product candidate is
ZX008, which is also known commercially by its trademarked name
"FINTEPLA." FINTEPLA is a low-dose fenfluramine that is in Phase
III clinical trials for the treatment of seizures associated with
Dravet syndrome. On February 6, 2019, Zogenix announced the
submission of its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") for FINTEPLA.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zogenix's
NDA for FINTEPLA contained inadequate non-clinical data and an
incorrect version of a clinical dataset; (ii) consequently,
Zogenix's NDA for FINTEPLA was unlikely to gain FDA approval; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Plaintiff acquired Zogenix securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 405-7190
     Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com



                            *********

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 ***