CAR_Public/190506.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 6, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 90

                            Headlines

5 STAR PIZZA: Slaughter Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
ABBVIE INC: Law Enforcement Health Sues Over Humira Drug Monopoly
ABILITY INC: Appeal in NY Securities Suit Dismissed
ABILITY INC: Levy's 3rd Amended Complaint Dismissed
ABILITY INC: Settlement Negotiation in Ladragor Suit Ongoing

AGUILAR MEAT: Gaspard Seeks Reimbursements, Wage Statements
AIRPORT TERMINAL: Cisneros Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALLIANCE CAS: Claxton Files Suit Over Confusing Collection Letter
ALLURE DAY SPA: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ALLY FINANCIAL: Glick Sues Over Autodialed Calls

AMERICAN RENAL: Giljohann Files Class Suit Over Misleading Reports
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Abelar Files Labor Class Action in Calif.
AMERICAN TIRE: Padilla Sues Over Data Breach
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Contreras Suit Removed to Calif. District Ct.
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Edgar Suit

APEX SYSTEMS: Denied Workers Overtime Wages, Dietrick Suit Says
ARES SECURITY: Deecki Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
ARKANSAS TOTAL: Court Certifies Class of Care Coordinators
ASCENSION DATA: Prioleaus Sue over Data Breach
BASS & MOGLOWSKY: Shoemaker Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin

BEHR PROCESS: Gurkov Seeks Damages Over Paint Product 's False Ad
BRAMAN HYUNDAI: Schaevitz Seeks to Certify Class
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit to Begin 2020
CHAFFEY FEDERAL: Reingrover Hits Unauthorized Account Debiting
CONAGRA FOODS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Negrete Suit Ruling

CRAIN FORD: Does not Pay Correct Min., Overtime Wages, Barnett Says
DENSO CORP: Faces Irving Antitrust Suit Over Radiator Price-fixing
DMD PIZZA: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Compensation
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Freeman Says Facility Not Wheelchair-Friendly
DUPLIN COUNTY: Court Grants FLSA Conditional Class Certification

EBY MANAGEMENT: Watson Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
EL JACAL: Pineda Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
ERIC RYAN CORP: Gorss Appeals TCPA Class Cert. Denial to 2nd Cir.
ERNST & YOUNG: Sullivan Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website
FAMILIES INC: Mikolajczak Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Freem Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
FERROGLOBE PLC: Jam-Wood Sues Over False, Misleading Reports
FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Consumer Action over Tenant Holding Fee
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Harrell RESPA Suit
FRIDAY KNIGHTS: Terranova Action Seeks Unpaid Wages, Pay Stubs

FUELCO ENERGY: Court Approves Distribution of Notice
FUSION CONNECT: Satarzadeh Sues over Misleading Financial Report
GAB & AUD: Blind-Inaccessible Website Violates ADA, Duncan Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit over Cadillac SRX Headlight Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Francis Sues Over 8L90/8L45 Transmission Defect

GENESIS FS CARD: Newsom Sues over Credit Background Checks
GLOBAL PRISONER: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GOLD STANDARD: Zollicoffer et al. Seek to Certify Class
HAMRA CHICAGO: Swanson Sues Over BIPA Violation
HARPER'S TREE: Kennington Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

INSIGHT GLOBAL: Failed to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Dikio Says
ISLACEL CORP: Guerra Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
J.G. WENTWORTH: Baker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Loan Officers
JS MAID CLEANING: Perez-Barrios Claims Overtime Pay for Hrs Over 40
K POWER CONSTRUCTION: Appeals Ruling in Menacho Suit to 4th Cir.

KRAFT HEINZ: Iron Workers Plan Files Securities Class Action
LANDS' END: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class
LANG PHARMA: Gaminde Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
LIBERTY CAPITAL: Boehm Sues Over Unauthorized Telemarketing Calls
LIFE LINE: Harrington Disputes Vague Collection Letter

LION ELASTOMERS: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Stuntz FLSA Suit
MARITIME EXPLORATIONS: Buddenhagen Owns 1,450,000 Maritime Shares
MATTEL INC: Black Sues Over Dangerous and Defective Sleepers
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Mantak Files Suit Over Cambria Merger Deal
MDL 2428: Aquino, et al. v. Fresenius Moved to D. Massachusetts

MDL 2885: Fontenot Blames Defective Earplugs for Hearing Loss
MDL 2886: Carbonaro Suit Consolidated in Allura Fiber Litigation
METAMORPHOSIS DAY SPA: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Pokoik Hits Share Drop Over Antitrust Row
MIRAND RESPONSE: Drake Sues Over TCPA and FDCPA Violation

MJ-MC HOME: Adolphe Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violation
MOTEL 6: Marshall Suit Asserts FACTA Violation
MOWI ASA: Euclid Fish Co. Files Suit Over Salmon Price-fixing
MR. CLARK 3473: Conner Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Made Unsolicited Calls, Carlin Suit Asserts

NBTY INC: Porter et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
NCAA: Chipps Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Gillus Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Walker Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
NORTH AMERICAN CREDIT: Zevon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

O ORGANICS: Freedline Sues Over Misleading and False Advertising
OHIO MULCH: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Subclasses
PAYCRON INC: Jackson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
PETE'S FRESH: Collier Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
PIONEER ENERGY: Nugent Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

PIZZAROTTI LLC: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gil Suit Says
PPB INC: Conyers to Recover Unpaid Wages, Benefits
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Donaldson Files Action Over lllegal Kickbacks
PRINTERS ROW: Violates Disabilities Act, Conner Suit Asserts
QUORUM HEALTH: Appeals Cert. Class Order in Zwick Partners Suit

ROCK SOLID: Gatlin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SB DIRECTIONAL: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Foutch Suit Asserts
SCOTT BENNETT: Paz-Rivera Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SHAW INDUSTRIES: Appeals Dist. Ct. Ruling in Fitch Suit to 9th Cir.
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Boddie Sues Over Unpaid Compensations

SIMPLE FINANCE: Crosson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SMART/OLYMPIA: Conner Files ADA Class Action in Illinois
SODEXO INC: Bid for Class Certification Moot, Court Says
SPECTRUM BRANDS: May 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion
SPEEDWAY LLC: DaRosa Suit to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Compensation

STEVENSON UNIVERSITY: Brooks Seeks Pay for Hrs Worked More than 40
SUMMIT RETAIL: Modeski's Class of Brand Representatives Certified
SUNCOKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Deficient SEC Reports
SUNTRUST BANKS: LR Trust Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
SUPERIOR CAKES: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Salas Suit
TREEHOUSE FOODS: MSPERS Seeks to Certify Class
TRIPLE S PROPERTIES: Martinez's Bid to Certify Class Denied
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Fodge Appeals W.D. La. Ruling to 5th Circuit
TWIN AMERICA: Ward et al. Seek to Certify Employee Class

UNITED STATES: 5th Circuit Appeal Filed in People's Suit v. FEMA
UNITED STATES: Kentucky Appeals Ruling in Stewart APA Suit
UNITED STATES: Machado-Erazo Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
UNIVERSAL MOLDING: Garcia Action Seeks Unpaid Wages and Benefits
UNLIMITED CARE: Sued for not Paying Workers Proper Wages

UTILITY SOLUTIONS: Price Files Labor Suit to Recoup Unpaid Overtime
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Haggar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VIEGA LLC: Al's Discount Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
WABCO HOLDINGS: Collier Says ZF Merger Deal Docs Lack Info
WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND: Keim Suit Alleges FCRA Violation

WHITEHALL HOTEL: Conner Brings Class Action Under ADA
WISCONSIN: Mccaa's Bid to Appeal Without Prepayment Granted
WKS FROSTY: Tapia Sues Over Inaccurate Wages, Missed Breaks
WOODLAND FOODS: Gomez Sues Over BIPA Violation
YOU MAKE ME FEEL: Sued for Failure to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL

ZESTY INC: Pfeifer Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations

                            *********

5 STAR PIZZA: Slaughter Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against 5
Star Pizza, LLC and Susan Graves for violations of the wage and
hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and West
Virginia law. The case is captioned Robert Slaughter, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 5 Star Pizza,
LLC, Susan Graves, John Doe Corporation 1-10, John Doe 1-10;
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01456-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 16,
2019). Plaintiff Robert Slaughter alleges that the Defendants have
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and West Virginia law by
failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers
the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all ours worked.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and
equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals with minimum wages as
required by the FLSA and the West Virginia law.

5 Star Pizza, LLC operates over 100 Domino's Pizza stores in 9
states, including West Virginia and Ohio. Susan Graves is the CEO
of 5 Star Pizza, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
     BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Telephone: (614) 604-8759
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

              - and -

     Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
     Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
     BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Telephone: (513) 715-8711
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Website: www.billerkimble.com
     E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
             pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


ABBVIE INC: Law Enforcement Health Sues Over Humira Drug Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement Health Benefits Inc., on behalf of itself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE
BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD, and AMGEN INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02415 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2019) seeks to recover
overcharges for the plaintiffs and all similarly situated.

AbbVie's drug Humira has been the best-selling drug in the United
States for six years running, in 2018 bringing in more than $13.6
billion in sales in the U.S. and nearly $20 billion worldwide. The
original patent on Humira, a biologic drug approved in the U.S. in
2002, expired in late 2016, which should have led to competition
for Humira prescriptions from manufacturers of biosimilar drugs.
Biologics and their biosimilars are relatively new, but in many
respects, they are similar to traditional brand and generic drugs.
The effect of generic competition on brand drugs is
well-established: once competition begins, brand sales fall rapidly
as the generics compete on price with the brand. Prices continue to
decrease as more generic competitors enter the market. The same
basic principles apply to biologics, and a similar reduction in
Humira's market share and a substantial drop in revenues from the
drug would follow entry by biosimilar versions of Humira.

According to the complaint, AbbVie created a virtually impenetrable
patent thicket--an "absolute minefield of IP"--to snare and mire
down any potential competitor. The more patents, valid or not, to
contend with, the longer AbbVie could keep competition for Humira
at bay and thus the longer Humira could command supra-competitive
prices. AbbVie now has filed more than 240 patent applications and
obtained well over 100 patents ostensibly covering Humira. But the
patents served AbbVie's purpose: creating a thicket so dense that
competitors would have to engage in costly and time-consuming
litigation over dozens upon dozens of patents before they could
launch competing products. In addition, AbbVie paid a potential
competitor to delay entry even further. At least nine companies
have indicated an intent to market biosimilars to compete with
Humira. Three currently have approval from the FDA. But none have
launched. Instead, AbbVie entered into deals with each to delay
their entry until various dates in 2023, the complaint relates.

Because of AbbVie's unlawful scheme and monopolization of the
market, AbbVie has continued to reap the benefits of being the
exclusive seller of Humira on the U.S. market, even though the
primary patent on Humira expired at the end of 2016 and the FDA has
approved several biosimilars to compete with Humira. Absent
AbbVie's patent thicket and its pay-for-delay deal with Amgen,
competition for Humira would have begun as early as the end of
2016, when the original composition patent for Humira expired.
Because of AbbVie's unlawful scheme and the delay it bought from
Amgen, Humira's sales have not yet faced competition and may not
face competition until 2023. Under this scheme, AbbVie and Amgen
win. Humira purchasers lose.

The plaintiff, Law Enforcement Health Benefits Inc., and class
members are end-payers for Humira. They are the last links in the
pharmaceutical distribution chain, and they paid overcharges for
Humira as a result of AbbVie's anticompetitive conduct and Amgen's
agreement not to compete with AbbVie, says the complaint.

Plaintiff LEHB is a voluntary employee benefits plan organized
pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code to provide health benefits to
its eligible participants and beneficiaries.

AbbVie Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lisa B. Weinstein, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
     30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 214-0000
     Fax: (312) 214-0001
     Email: lweinstein@gelaw.com

          - and -

     Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
     Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY
     Phone: (646) 722-8500
     Fax: (646) 722-8501
     Email: reisler@gelaw.com
            delman@gelaw.com

          - and -

     Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
     HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
     310 Clifton Avenue
     Minneapolis, MN 55403
     Phone: (612) 338-4605
     Fax: (612) 338-4692
     Email: rsteiner@heinsmills.com


ABILITY INC: Appeal in NY Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Ability Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit has entered an order dismissing
the appeal made in the case entitled, In re Ability Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 16-cv-03893-VM.

On May 25, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned In re
Ability Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 16-cv-03893-VM
(S.D.N.Y) was filed against the company, Anatoly Hurgin and Avi
Levin in the Southern District of New York in the United States.
The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of
a putative class of all purchasers of the Company’s ordinary
shares between September 8, 2015 and April 29, 2016.

The complaint broadly alleges that certain of the Company's public
statements were false, and that the Company materially overstated
its income and failed to disclose that it had material weaknesses
in its internal controls. The complaint does not specify the amount
of damages sought.

On July 25, 2016, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, Anatoly Hurgin and Avi Levin in the Southern
District of New York in the United States.

The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of
a putative class of all purchasers of our ordinary shares between
September 8, 2015 and April 29, 2016.

The complaint broadly alleges that the Company's financial
statements were false and misleading and were not prepared in
conformity with GAAP, nor was the financial information a fair
presentation of the company's operations. The complaint does not
specify the amount of damages sought.

These two putative class actions have been consolidated into one
action and co-lead plaintiffs have been appointed. In accordance
with a schedule adopted by the court, co-lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 28, 2017. In the amended complaint,
co-lead plaintiffs have added the company's former director,
Benjamin Gordon and the company's auditor, BDO Ziv Haft as
defendants.

The amended complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants, a claim pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Messrs. Hurgin, Levin and Benjamin Gordon, a claim pursuant
to Section 11 of the Securities Act against the company, BDO Ziv
Haft and Messrs. Hurgin and Benjamin Gordon, and a claim pursuant
to Section 15 of the Securities Act against Messrs. Hurgin, Levin
and Benjamin Gordon on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of the Company's ordinary shares between September 8, 2015 and
April 29, 2016.

The amended complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought. The complaint broadly alleges that certain of the
Company’s public statements were false, that it had material
weaknesses in its internal controls, that its financial statements
were false and misleading and were not prepared in conformity with
GAAP, nor was the financial information a fair presentation of the
Company's operations, and that its registration statement contained
material misstatements and omissions.

On August 17, 2017, the court ordered a stipulated schedule
recognizing that all parties had agreed to a mediation on October
17, 2017 and all deadlines were reset until after that mediation
took place.

On December 21, 2017, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU"), to memorialize an agreement in principle
to settle all claims of participating class members in the class
actions consolidated in the lawsuit captioned In re Ability Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 16-cv-03893 (VM), pending in the
Southern District of New York (the "New York Class Action
Litigation"). The MOU provides for an aggregate settlement payment
of $3.0 million, which includes all plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses, as well as any other class notice and administrative fees
related to the resolution of the New York Class Action Litigation.


On May 18, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and on September 14, 2018, the court granted final
approval to the settlement, overruling the one objection that was
filed. The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims against
the Company and the named individuals in the New York Class Action
Litigation.

On September 17, 2018, the objector whose objection was overruled,
Brian Levy, filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit.

On or about March 15, 2019, a stipulation for dismissal of the
appeal was filed, and the Court entered the order dismissing the
appeal.

Of the $3.0 million settlement, an amount of $250,000 was funded by
the Company and the remaining $2.75 million was funded by the
Company's insurance proceeds and contributed by other defendants.
The ultimate impact of this class action settlement on the Levy
Litigation (Case No. 2015-CA-003339), Pottash Litigation (Case No.
502016CA013823), Hammel Litigation (Case No.
50-2018-CA-000762-MB-AG) and the Ladragor Litigation (C.A.
8482-05-16), each as further described herein, has yet to be
determined, however, some or all of the claims raised in such other
actions may be deemed to be resolved, settled and disposed of as
part of such class action settlement.

The Company intends to continue to attempt to settle and resolve
the litigation. There is no assurance that the court will finally
approve the settlement.

In connection with the entry into of the MOU, the Company entered
into an agreement with its insurer (the “Discharge Agreement”),
pursuant to which the Company agreed to discharge the insurer from
liability with respect to any U.S. claims (excluding the Ladragor
Litigation in Israel) in consideration for an aggregate settlement
amount of $5.0 million, of which $2.5 million is to be used for
settlement of the New York Class Action Litigation and the
remaining amount is to be used to cover various defense and legal
costs. Accordingly, no insurance proceeds will be available for any
U.S. claims other than with respect to the settlement of the New
York Class Action Litigation.

Ability Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides interception,
geolocation, and cyber intelligence products and solutions for
security and intelligence agencies, military forces, law
enforcement agencies, and homeland security agencies worldwide.
Ability Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv,
Israel.


ABILITY INC: Levy's 3rd Amended Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Ability Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Florida court
dismissed all counts of the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice
as to the plaintiff Brian Levy.

On October 15, 2015, plaintiff Brian Levy, purportedly on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, filed a first amended
class action and derivative complaint against Cambridge Holdco
Corp., ACSI, the individual members of the board of directors of
Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corp. ("Cambridge"), and Cambridge,
and the Company as nominal defendants in case number 2015CA003339
in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach
County, Florida.

The complaint generally alleged, among other things, that the
members of the Cambridge board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Cambridge stockholders by approving the
contemplated merger with ACSI, and that ACSI was aiding and
abetting the Cambridge board of directors in the alleged breach of
their fiduciary duties.

The action sought injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of
fees and costs, among other remedies. On February 17, 2016, ACSI
filed a motion and supporting memorandum of law to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint on the grounds that the Court lacked
personal jurisdiction over ACSI; the derivative aiding and abetting
claim was extinguished by the closing of the Business Combination
and the claims against ACSI were insufficiently pleaded.

On September 15, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss in its entirety without prejudice, and the Judge dismissed
the amended complaint. However, the court provided the plaintiff
with 45 days within which to file a further amended complaint. On
October 22, 2016, a second amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiff. On January 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on multiple grounds, including
various pleading deficiencies that the plaintiff has failed to
adequately correct. On March 9, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
response to the motion to dismiss.

On June 21, 2017, the Judge entered an order (the "June 21 Order"),
granting a partial motion to dismiss as to the counts against ACSI
due to lack of personal jurisdiction over ACSI. ACSI was therefore
dismissed from the case without prejudice, and it is unclear at
this stage whether the plaintiff will attempt to bring ACSI
directly back into the action in the future. On the other hand,
pursuant to the Judge's ruling, the Company still remains as a
necessary party and named defendant in the case. In the June 21
Order, the Judge also partially denied the motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, and the purported class action and
derivative claims against the individual defendants for alleged
breach of fiduciary duties, failure to disclose and ultra vires
acts still remained pending.

On July 21, 2017, the Company and each of the individual defendants
filed their answer and affirmative defenses raising numerous
substantive and legal defenses to the alleged claims set forth in
the second amended complaint. On August 7, 2017, plaintiff's
counsel filed a motion for class certification and incorporated
memorandum of law. The Company and defendants filed papers in
opposition to such motion, and on March 13, 2018, the Court entered
an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification, but
allowing plaintiff to attempt to file a further amended complaint
within 30 days after the order denying the request for class
certification.

Plaintiff filed his Verified Third Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint on April 12, 2018, asserting the same claims
set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, and revising the
proposed class definition. On May 2, 2018, plaintiff filed his
Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum
of Law.

On June 27, 2018, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint seeking dismissal of the claims asserted on
multiple grounds. On September 11, 2018, defendants filed their
formal memorandum in opposition to plaintiff’s renewed motion for
class certification. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
Renewed Motion for Class Certification on September 18, 2018.

After the evidentiary hearing and oral argument, on October 16,
2018, the Judge entered the formal Order Denying plaintiff's
Renewed Motion for Class Certification for multiple reasons,
including the failure of plaintiff to satisfy the various
requirements necessary for class certification and the failure of
plaintiff to establish that he has any valid individual direct
claim in light of the final class action settlement in New York and
in light of plaintiff's decision to opt-into the New York class
action. In the October 16, 2018 order, the Judge further ruled that
the court will proceed to dismiss Counts I, II, III and VI of the
Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, subject only to the
resolution of any appeal filed by plaintiff challenging the final
judgment in the New York federal court.

This case has now been formally resolved, and pursuant to the Joint
Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order of Dismissal filed by counsel
for the parties, the Court entered the Stipulated Order of
Dismissal on March 6, 2019, wherein the Court dismissed all counts
of the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice as to the plaintiff
Brian Levy.

Ability Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides interception,
geolocation, and cyber intelligence products and solutions for
security and intelligence agencies, military forces, law
enforcement agencies, and homeland security agencies worldwide.
Ability Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv,
Israel.


ABILITY INC: Settlement Negotiation in Ladragor Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Ability Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the case,
Ladragror v. Ability Inc. et al., are holding negotiations in order
to settle the case.

On May 3, 2016, the company was served with a lawsuit and a motion
for the certification of the lawsuit as class action, captioned
Ladragror v. Ability Inc. et al. C.A. 8482-05-16, in the Tel Aviv
District Court in Israel, filed, against the company, Anatoly
Hurgin, Alexander Aurovsky, and Benjamin Gordon and Mitchell
Gordon. The claim alleges, among other things, that the company
misled the public in its public filings with regard to its
financial condition and included misleading information (or omitted
to include relevant information) in its financial statements
published in connection with the January 12, 2016 listing of shares
for trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

In addition, the claim alleges that the defendant directors
breached their fiduciary duty under Israeli law towards the company
and its public shareholders. The claim alleges that the plaintiff
suffered personal damages of NIS 137.7 (approximately $36.7), and
estimates that its shareholders suffered damages of approximately
NIS 23.3 million (approximately $6.2 million).

On September 15, 2016, the company filed a motion for a stay of
proceedings, due to other pending class action lawsuits in the
United States that also relate (among other things) to the stated
causes of action and based on similar claims. The Court required
the parties to update the Court on the status of the United States
class actions by March 15, 2017.

On March 15, 2017, the plaintiff filed an update and requested that
proceedings be stayed until the completion of the internal
investigation of the audit committee. On the same day, the company
filed a separate update with respect to the United States class
actions, together with a motion for a stay of proceedings pending
resolution of the consolidated United States class actions. On
March 16, 2017, the Court held that the plaintiff must respond to
the motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the
consolidated United States class actions.

On March 26, 2017, the plaintiff filed a partial response,
requesting an extension until May 15, 2017 to file a full response,
alleging that the publication of our annual financial statements,
together with the findings of the internal investigation, would
affect its position on its motion to stay proceedings. On May 23,
2017, the Court granted the plaintiff the requested extension.

On May 15, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion asking for an
additional three-month extension to file a full response, among
other things, as we have not filed our annual financial statements
or published the findings of the internal investigation. On August
14, 2017, the company and Messrs. Hurgin and Aurovsky filed a
notice regarding their counsel substitution. In light of this, the
judge decided on August 27, 2017, to recuse herself from the case.
On August 21, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion and an updated
notice in which he claimed that the company have not yet published
the report of the internal investigation, and hence the reasons for
granting him a continuance to file his response to the motion to
stay of proceedings are still relevant.

The plaintiff also informed the Court that in the U.S. proceedings,
the parties agreed to mediation, and the mediation meeting was
scheduled in October 2017. The plaintiff asked the Court to file an
update notice in 90 days. On August 28, 2017, the Court ordered the
parties to file an update notice on September 28, 2017. On
September 28, 2017 and November 7, 2017, the plaintiff, the
company, and Messrs. Hurgin and Aurovsky updated the Court that the
mediation process in the U.S. was still pending.

On November 8, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file an
update notice in 90 days. On February 7, March 7, April 12, May 8,
June 12, July 10, August 9, October 10, October 31, November 14,
November 28, December 12, December 31, 2018 and on January 14,
January 28, February 11, February 25, March 11 and March 25, 2019,
the parties updated the Court that they are holding negotiations in
order to settle the case, and requested extensions of time for
filing the updated notice. The parties are required to file the
settlement agreement, if signed, and a motion to approve the
settlement, on April 8, 2019.

Ability said, "We intend to attempt to settle and resolve the
litigation. If the case does not settle, we intend to continue
vigorously defend against this action. Given that the proceeding is
currently suspended, the timing or outcome of this matter cannot be
predicted at this time. As referenced above in Re. Ability Inc.
Securities Litigation, the Ladragor Litigation is not subject to
the Discharge Agreement."

Ability Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides interception,
geolocation, and cyber intelligence products and solutions for
security and intelligence agencies, military forces, law
enforcement agencies, and homeland security agencies worldwide.
Ability Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv,
Israel.


AGUILAR MEAT: Gaspard Seeks Reimbursements, Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
AFRIYIE GASPARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AGUILAR MEAT & PRODUCE, INC. d/b/a KEY
FOOD MARKETPLACE, Defendant, Case No. 154072/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
New York Cty., April 19, 2019) seeks damages and other legal and
equitable relief against Defendant for violations of the New York
State Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations ("NYCRR"), The New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant never paid any uniform
maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining its
employees' uniform. Plaintiff spent time off-the clock and money to
clean and maintain her uniform consistent with the uniform
appearance standards Defendant required. Plaintiff was entitled to
reimbursement or additional pay for time spent off the clock and
money spent in laundering and maintaining Defendant's uniform.
Thus, because of Defendant's improper compensation policies,
Plaintiff was deprived of wages to which she was entitled, in
direct violation of the NYLL. This pattern of conduct was
continuous throughout Plaintiff's employment. Further, Defendant
never provided Plaintiff with accurate wage statements accompanying
each payment of wages, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a cashier from approximately
September 10, 2018 through February 23, 2019.

Defendant is a domestic corporation organized pursuant to the laws
of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Gaylord, Esq.
     Bouklas Gaylord LLP
     400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
     Jericho, NY 11753
     Phone: (516) 742-4949
     Fax:(516)742-1977



AIRPORT TERMINAL: Cisneros Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled FRANCISCO J. CISNEROS, an individual, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIRPORT
TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., a Missouri corporation; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 18STCV06289, was removed on April 11, 2019,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02798 to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff Francisco J. Cisneros filed this purported class action
complaint on November 27, 2018.  The complaint alleges causes of
action against ATS for: "(1) Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked
(California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194); (2) Failure to Pay
Wages at the Agreed Rate; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
(Welfare Commission Orders and California Labor Code Sections 510,
1194); and (4) Meal and Rest Break Violations (California Labor
Code Sections 200, 226.7, 512, and 12 CCR Section 11040), among
other violations.[BN]

Defendant AIRPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., is represented by:

          Aaron R. Lubeley, Esq.
          Simon L. Yang, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: alubeley@seyfarth.com
                  syang@seyfarth.com


ALLIANCE CAS: Claxton Files Suit Over Confusing Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAPHNE CLAXTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE CAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61002
(S.D. Fla., April 19, 2019) is a class action brought under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), for the benefit of
certain Florida consumers who have been the subject of debt
collection efforts by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt
owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor other than
Defendant.

On August 6, 2018, Defendant sent a written communication to
Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt. This August
6, 2018 communication to Plaintiff was the first communication
Plaintiff received from Defendant about the Debt. Plaintiff did not
receive any other communications from Defendant within five days of
the August 6, 2018 communication.

The complaint asserts that the manner in which Defendant conveyed
the validation notice required in its August 6, 2018 communication
was ineffective, as Defendant's demand for payment within 30 days
of receipt of the letter contradicted and overshadowed the
mandatory validation notice. In the alternative, Defendant, through
its initial communication, failed to explain an apparent, though
not actual, contradiction that its letter creates regarding
statutorily-mandated disclosures that Defendant was required to
provide to Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Defendant is a limited liability company with its principal office
in Broward County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James L. Davidson, Esq.
     Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
     Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
     7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
     Boca Raton, FL 33487
     Phone: (561) 826-5477
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
            jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


ALLURE DAY SPA: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. ALLURE DAY SPA & HAIR DESIGN INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03585-JPO (S.D. N.Y., April 23, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Because Defendant's website, WWW.ALLUREDAYSPA.COM is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant operates its spa location as well as its website, and
those affiliated or directly linked; and advertises, markets,
offers and sells its services and spa, within the State of New York
and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
     THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
     175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: brad@markslawpc.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: 212.228.9795
     Fax: 212.982.6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Glick Sues Over Autodialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------
Timothy Glick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11147-GCS-SDD (D. N.J.,
April 19, 2019) seeks to stop Defendant from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making autodialed calls to
consumers without their consent, and to obtain injunctive and
monetary relief for all persons harmed by Defendant's conduct.

Plaintiff received three autodialed calls from Ally, despite the
fact that he does not have a past due account that has ever been
referred to Ally for collection, and he has otherwise never had a
relationship with Defendant or the consumer Defendant was calling
about, notes the complaint.

In response to these calls, Plaintiff files this lawsuit seeking
injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to stop making autodialed
collection calls to consumers without their consent, as well as an
award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and costs..

Plaintiff Glick was a Cincinnati, Ohio resident.

Ally is a financial services company that engages in debt
collection by phone on behalf of various lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George Blackmore, Esq.
     BLACKMORE LAW PLC
     21411 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 845-8594
     Facimile: (855) 744-4419
     Email:george@blackmorelawplc.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

          - and -

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


AMERICAN RENAL: Giljohann Files Class Suit Over Misleading Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Giljohann, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RENAL ASSOCIATES
HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH A. CARLUCCI, JASON M. BOUCHER, and JONATHAN
L. WILCOX, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10416 (D. N.J., April 19,
2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired American Renal securities between
August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, both dates inclusive. Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 9, 2016, after the market closed, the Company filed a
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 (the "2Q 2016 10-Q")
with the SEC, which provided the Company's second quarter 2016
financial results and position. The 2Q 2016 10-Q was signed by
Defendant Wilcox. The 2Q 2016 10-Q also contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX")
by Defendants Carlucci and Wilcox attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the
disclosure of all fraud.

However, the complaint asserts that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) issues
with American Renal's accounting process for revenue recognition,
collections, and related matters would give rise to an SEC
investigation into the same, and increased regulatory scrutiny by
the SEC; (ii) American Renal's financial statements for the fiscal
years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 contained in its Annual Reports
for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and its condensed
consolidated financial statements in quarterly reports from 2016
through 2018, were false and could not be relied upon; (iii)
American Renal had material weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Plaintiff purchased American Renal securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of alleged corrective disclosures.

American Renal purports to operate as a dialysis services provider
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, 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


AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Abelar Files Labor Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Abelar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Residential Services, L.L.C., a
limited liability company; RighTime Home Services, Inc., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00726 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2019) seeks declaratory,
compensatory and other statutorily available relief Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees to compensate these workers for
the wages Defendants have stolen from them.

The complaint asserts that Defendants have attempted to maximize
profits by cutting labor costs. The Defendants cut labor costs by
understaffing, denying meal and rest breaks to their employees,
turning a blind eye to off-the-clock work, failing to pay employees
overtime, and otherwise cheating their employees out of wages and
premiums owed and due to them, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a Service Technician, a non-exempt position,
for Defendants during the statute of limitations period.

Defendants provide heating, ventilation, air conditioning,
plumbing, and electrical services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aubry Wand, Esq.
     THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
     400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
     Culver City, CA 90230
     Phone: (310) 590-4503
     Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
     Email: awand@wandlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT E. WHEELER
     250 West First Street, Suite 216
     Claremont, CA 91711
     Phone: (909) 621-4988
     Facsimile: (909) 621-4622
     Email: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com


AMERICAN TIRE: Padilla Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
Marcos Padilla, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Tire Distributors, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 86046685, filed in the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida on
March 7, 2019, seeks to recover monetary damages, injunctive
relief, and other remedies resulting from negligence and for
violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff worked for American Tire from 2006 through August 3, 2017
as a driver at their Tampa location. On January 9, 2019, Defendant
encountered a "phishing e-mail" data breach where hackers obtained
credentials from high-level employees allowing them to access
employees' highly-sensitive data. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Luis Cabassa, Esq.
      Brandon Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL, FENTON AND CABASSA PA
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             twells@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com


AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Contreras Suit Removed to Calif. District Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JOSE CONTRERAS, on behalf of himself and other
similarly-situated employees, Plaintiff, v. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1905720 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State California in and for the County of San
Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 10, 2019, and assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-00641.

The lawsuit arises out of work performed by Plaintiff Jose
Contreras for the Defendant. The Complaint asserts these claims:
(1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages; (3) Failure to Pay All Vacation Wages; (4) Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; (6) Failure to Pay Wages Timely to Terminated
Employees; and (7) Unfair Business Practices Under Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     REBECCA ARAGON, ESQ.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: 213.443-4300
     Fax: 213.443-4299
     Email: RAragon@littler.com

          - and -

     BRITNEY N. TORRES, ESQ.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Phone: 916.830.7200
     Fax: 916.561.0828
     Email: btorres@littler.com


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Edgar Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Iron Workers Benefit and Pension Fund - Iron Workers
District Counsel Philadelphia & Vicinity filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Robert Edgar v. Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:17-CV-1372, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a class of investors who purchased or acquired Anadarko
common stock between Feb. 8, 2016 and May 2, 2017, brought the
securities class action against Defendants, Anadarko and several of
its executives.  They assert that Anadarko violated Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and the Security
Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.  They assert that the executive
committee Defendants, Bradley Holly, Craig Walters, and John
Christiansen, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t(a).

Anadarko is a publicly traded oil and gas exploration and
production company headquartered in the Woodlands.  It focuses its
operations on the Gulf of Mexico, the Delaware Basin in Texas, and
the Denver-Julesburg Basin in Colorado.  Approximately one quarter
of Anadarko's employees work out of its Colorado offices.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Anadarko's disregard for safety regulations
led to the endangerment and death of Colorado residents.  They
contend that this, and Anadarko's failure to be honest, harmed
investors and violated securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Edgar v. Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-20244, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant IRON WORKERS BENEFIT AND PENSION FUND - IRON
WORKERS DISTRICT COUNSEL PHILADELPHIA & VICINITY, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Ronald Dean Gresham, Esq.
          Laura Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Road
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          E-mail: dean@stecklerlaw.com
                  krogers@stecklerlaw.com
                  bruce@stecklerlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10116
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Marlon E. Kimpson, Esq.
          Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, L.L.C.
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: mkimpson@motleyrice.com
                  jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com

Defendants-Appellees ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, R. A. WALKER,
DAVID J. MCBRIDE and JOHN M. CHRISTIANSEN are represented by:

          Thomas Ray Guy, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, L.L.P.
          200 Crescent Court
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 746-7700
          E-mail: ray.guy@weil.com

               - and -

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Susan Saltzstein, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, L.L.P.
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Telephone: (212) 735-2628
          E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com
                  susan.saltzstein@skadden.com

               - and -

          Noelle M. Reed, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 655-5122
          E-mail: noelle.reed@skadden.com


APEX SYSTEMS: Denied Workers Overtime Wages, Dietrick Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY DIETRICK, STEVEN CONNELL, BROCK DEEL, MONICA JONES, TYLER
SUITE Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Employees, Plaintiffs, v. APEX SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00299-JAG (D. Md., April 19, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

Apex Systems, LLC is a staffing agency that centers on finding
potential job candidates for its clients.
Plaintiffs all worked as recruiters for Apex.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other Recruiters had to
consistently work more than 40 hours each week. Working overtime
was integral to their employment as there were production demands
they had to meet each day. These demands resulted in them having to
consistently work 50 to 60 hours a week. There were times that they
worked even more. The requirements of their position left no other
choice.

The Defendant was well aware of the overtime hours worked by
Plaintiffs and other Recruiters. However, Defendant did not pay its
Recruiters for all of their hours worked. This was because
Defendant misclassified its Recruiters as "exempt" salaried
employees, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com

ARES SECURITY: Deecki Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Deecki, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ares Security & Investigation LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01747-ER (E.D. Pa., April 22, 2019)
seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief relating to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, as well as the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Plaintiff routinely worked for more than 40 hours in a workweek but
was not paid an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 because
Defendant misclassified them as exempt employees, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an Armed School Police
Officer from approximately August 2018 through March 2019.

Defendant operates in interstate commerce by providing security
services to communities, such as gated communities, retailers,
schools and universities, and health facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARKANSAS TOTAL: Court Certifies Class of Care Coordinators
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. ARKANSAS TOTAL CARE, INC.,
CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMET COMPANY, LLC, the
DEFENDANTS, Case 4:18-cv-00580-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge James
M. Moody Jr. entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

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

   2. approving the form of notice proposed by the Plaintiff;

   3. directing the Defendant to provide to counsel for the
      Plaintiff the names and addresses of all persons who were
      employed by them as Care Coordinators during the specific
      time within 14 days from the entry of this Order;

   4. directing the Defendant to provide information in electronic

      format only if it is currently maintained in electronic
      format;

   5. authorizing 90-day opt-in period from the date the notice is

      mailed;

   6. authorizing lawyers for the Plaintiff to issue notice and
      consent forms by mail;

   7. authorizing lawyers for the Plaintiff to send a reminder
      postcard 30 days after the initial notice is mailed; and

   8. denying the Plaintiff's request to provide notice via
      electronic mailing or text message.

The Plaintiff claims that she and all putative class members
performed the same or similar job duties which inevitably required
more than 40 hours of work per week. The Plaintiff claims that the
duties performed by her and all of the members of the putative
class included providing various services, to include traveling to
meet clients, assisting clients with day-to-day tasks, scheduling
and accompanying clients to their appointments and related tasks.
Much of the work took place at the Defendants' clients’
locations, although some work was performed at Defendants' office
location.

The Plaintiff also claims that they were required to write
extensive client notes each evening prior to the beginning of the
next work day. The Plaintiff contends that all care coordinators,
including Plaintiff and opt-in Plaintiffs, regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week due to the mandatory client note-taking. The
Plaintiff claims that all Care Coordinators were paid by the hour
by the Defendants but were not paid any wages for hours spent
writing the mandatory client notes each evening.

After carefully considering these factors, the Court finds that the
Plaintiff has provided enough information to establish that she is
similarly situated to the putative class members at this stage of
the litigation. Accordingly, the Court finds that conditional
certification is proper under the FLSA for purposes of notice and
discovery, and accordingly, certifies the class requested by the
Plaintiff.[BN]

ASCENSION DATA: Prioleaus Sue over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Ascension Data &
Analytics, LLC for negligence, violation of state data breach acts,
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and intrusion upon
seclusion. The case is captioned BERNARD PRIOLEAU and KATHY
PRIOLEAU, individually and on behalf others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ASCENSION DATA & ANALYTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01116-RMG (D.S.C., April 16, 2019). Plaintiffs Bernard and
Kathy Prioleau bring this suit on behalf of themselves and a Class
of similarly situated individuals against Ascension for its failure
to secure and protect their personal and financial information. As
a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions and inactions,
Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered anxiety, emotional
distress, and loss of privacy, and are at an increased risk of
future harm.

Ascension is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its
principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. It is a data and
analytics company for the financial industry. Part of the company's
services include converting paper documents and hand-written notes
to computer-readable files through a process known as optical
character recognition. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     P.O. Box 1483
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
     Telephone (919) 600-5000
     E-mail: harper@wbmllp.com

             - and -

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Telephone: (312) 283-3814
     Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
     E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

             - and –

     Gary E. Mason, Esq.
     Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW
     Washington, DC 20016
     Telephone: (202) 640-1160
     E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
             dperry@wbmllp.com


BASS & MOGLOWSKY: Shoemaker Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bass & Moglowsky,
S.C. The case is styled as Archie J. Shoemaker, On behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bass &
Moglowsky, S.C., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00316 (W.D. Wis.,
April 22, 2019).

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

Bass & Moglowsky, S.C. is a law firm providing legal services to
lenders, mortgage servicers, insurance companies and others
throughout the State of Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Davidson, Esq.
     Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
     7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
     Boca Raton, FL 33487
     Phone: (561) 826-5477
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq.
     Lein Law Offices
     P.O. Box 761
     Hayward, WI 54843
     Phone: (715) 634-4273
     Fax: (715) 634-5051
     Email: mlein@leinlawoffices.com


BEHR PROCESS: Gurkov Seeks Damages Over Paint Product 's False Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi Gurkov and Wendy Kates, individually on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Behr Process
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01383, (E.D. N.Y., March 11,
2019), seeks treble damages and/or any other form of monetary
relief provided by law for violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.  The Plaintiff further seeks restitution,
disgorgement or other equitable relief, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
suit, including expert witness fees and such other and further
relief under various state consumer protection statutes.

Behr released a product, a new "Paint & Primer in One," branded as
Behr Premium Plus, a supposedly durable coating that did not need
priming the surface prior to painting and that it could cover the
surface in one coat. However, the Plaintiffs complain that the
product does not adequately cover and adhere to the surface without
first separately applying primer, and therefore, do not cover the
surface in one coat. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Telephone: (854) 705-9460
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

             - and -

      David Pastor, Esq.
      PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
      63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 742-9700
      Facsimile: (617) 742-9701


BRAMAN HYUNDAI: Schaevitz Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MARC SCHAEVITZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRAMAN
HYUNDAI, INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-23890-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all persons in the United States (including its territories
and
   the District of Columbia) who were sent an RVM on his or her
   cellular telephone by or on behalf of Braman using the Stratics

   platform from January 16, 2017, through October 24, 2017".

The case concerns Braman Hyundai, Inc.'s blatant disregard for the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the use of automated
technology to bombard individuals with unwanted, prerecorded
marketing calls to drive its profits. From January 16, 2017,
through October 24, 2017, Braman, through its marketing vendor,
Major Advertising LLC, sent 62,757 unsolicited "ringless"
voicemails ("RVMs") to consumers' cellular telephone numbers in
violation of the TCPA.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561/750-3000
          Facsimile: 561/750-3364
          E-mail: jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954/400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE First Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305 479-2299
          Facsimile: 786 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305/975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit to Begin 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a trial to
determine liability issues in the class action suit related to the
train derailment in Lac-Megantic is scheduled to commence
mid-September 2020, and subsequently, if necessary, a trial to
determine damages issues.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The derailment
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group. The previous day, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) had
interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and after the interchange,
the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train.

In the wake of the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in
Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C.,
1985, c. C-36 and MMAR filed for bankruptcy in the United States.
Plans of arrangement have been approved in both Canada and the U.S.
(the "Plans"). These Plans provide for the distribution of a fund
of approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment
damages.

A number of legal proceedings, set out below, were commenced after
the derailment in Canada and/or in the U.S. against CP and others:

Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife
and Parks (the "Minister") ordered various parties, including CP,
to clean up the derailment site (the "Cleanup Order"). CP appealed
the Cleanup Order to the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec (the
"TAQ"). The Minister subsequently served a Notice of Claim seeking
$95 million for compensation spent on cleanup. CP filed a
contestation of the Notice of Claim with the TAQ (the "TAQ
Proceeding"). CP and the Minister agreed to stay the TAQ
Proceedings pending the outcome of the Province of Quebec's action,
described below.

Quebec's Attorney General sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court
initially claiming $409 million in damages, which claim was amended
and reduced to $315 million (the "Province's Action"). The
Province's Action alleges that CP exercised custody or control over
the petroleum crude oil until its delivery to Irving Oil and was
negligent in that custody and control. The province alleges that CP
is jointly and severally liable with third parties responsible for
the derailment and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of
MMAC.

A class action in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of persons
and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in, operating
a business in or physically present in Lac-Megantic at the time of
the derailment (the "Class Action") was certified against CP, MMAC
and the train conductor, Mr. Thomas Harding ("Harding").

The Class Action seeks unquantified damages, including for wrongful
death, personal injury, and property damage arising from the
derailment. All known wrongful death claimants in the Class Action
have opted out and, by court order, cannot re-join the Class
Action.

Eight subrogated insurers sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court
initially claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which
claim was amended and reduced to $14 million (the "Promutuel
Action") and two additional subrogated insurers sued CP in the
Québec Superior Court claiming approximately $3 million in damages
(the "Royal Action").

Both Actions contain essentially the same allegations as the
Province’s Action. The lawsuits do not identify the parties to
which the insurers are subrogated, and therefore the extent to
which these claims overlap with the proof of claims process under
the Plans is difficult to determine at this stage. The Royal Action
has been stayed pending the determination of the consolidated
proceedings.

The Province's Action, the Class Action and the Promutuel Action
have been consolidated and will proceed together through the
litigation process in the Quebec Superior Court. While each Action
will remain a separate legal proceeding, there will be a trial to
determine liability issues commencing mid-September 2020, and
subsequently, if necessary, a trial to determine damages issues.

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States. Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in
1881 and is headquartered in Calgary, Canada.


CHAFFEY FEDERAL: Reingrover Hits Unauthorized Account Debiting
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Reingrover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chaffey Federal Credit Union, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00422, (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2019), seeks damages,
restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment
and for violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Sometime in April 2018, Reingrover obtained a loan from the
Defendant and provided his debit account information for the
purposes of automatically debiting his account to make payments
upon signing up for the loan.

After a month, Reingrover then requested to stop the automatic
debit facility, thereby revoking consent for such withdrawals.
However, despite his clear revocation of authorization, Chaffey
continued to deduct funds from his account, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Negrete Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
and Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Moises Negrete, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00631-FMO-AJW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, ConAgra Foods
is a party to a number of matters challenging its wage and hour
practices.  These matters include a number of putative class
actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc., et al, pending in the District Court, in which the Plaintiffs
allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at
several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across
the State of California.

The appellate case is captioned as Moises Negrete, et al. v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-80047, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents MOISES NEGRETE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; VALENTIN VILLAR; JORDYN NJOROGE,
on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the
general public; STEPHEN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; FELICIA AVILA; RUBEN MALDONADO; FELIX
VILLELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; FRANK PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; HECTOR MENDEZ; RICHARD CRUSE; ARTURO VERDUZCO;
JESSE ALVAREZ; ABRAHAM IBARRA; ANITA DEL ROSARIO PATRIZ; VICTOR
CRUSE and JUSTIN SOTO are represented by:

          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          KHORRAMI BOUCHER SUMNER SANGUINETTI, LLP
          444 South Flower Street, 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 596-6000

               - and -

          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (213) 291-3333

Defendants-Petitioners CONAGRA FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
RALCORP HOLDINGS, INC., a Missouri corporation, Treehouse Private
Brands, Inc., Successor; and CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, are represented by:

          Mark G. Arnold, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1802
          E-mail: mark.arnold@huschblackwell.com


CRAIN FORD: Does not Pay Correct Min., Overtime Wages, Barnett Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery Barnett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Crain Ford Jacksonville, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00288-KGB (E.D. Ark., April 23, 2019) is an action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act ("AMWA"), and the Arkansas "last paycheck" law, for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Defendant routinely scheduled Plaintiff and other mechanics to
work more than 40 hours in a single workweek, notes the complaint.
However, it was Defendant's commonly applied practice to not pay
Plaintiff and other mechanics for all of the hours during which
they were performing labor for Defendant. Defendant only paid
Plaintiff and all mechanics for time billed to clients, not for
time actually spent working on the premises. As a direct result of
the above policy and also not being paid for all time spent
working, Defendant had a practice of not paying Plaintiff and other
mechanics a lawful minimum wage, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a mechanic.

Defendant owns and operates a full-service car dealership "for new
& used Ford cars, trucks, SUV, parts, service and more in the
Jacksonville area".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris Burks, Esq.
     Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
     WH LAW,PLLC
     1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
     North Little Rock, AR 72114
     Phone: (501) 891-6000
     Email: chris@whlawoffices.com
            brandon@whlawoffices.com


DENSO CORP: Faces Irving Antitrust Suit Over Radiator Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
IRVING LEVINE AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., individually and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. DENSO
CORPORATION; DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC.; DENSO PRODUCTS &
SERVICES AMERICAS, INC.; and DENSO AUTOMOTIVE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
Case No. 2:19-cv-10971-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 2, 2019), accuses
the Defendants of violating antitrust laws.

Beginning at least as early as January 1, 1998, and continuing
through at least as late as August 14, 2018, the Defendants and
their co-conspirators--United States and global manufacturers and
suppliers of Radiators--violated the antitrust laws by entering
into a continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize prices of Radiators sold in the United States and
elsewhere at supra-competitive levels, according to the complaint.
As a result of this unlawful conduct, it paid artificially inflated
prices for Radiators and has suffered antitrust injury to its
business or property, the Plaintiff contends.

DENSO Corporation, DENSO International America, Inc., DENSO
Products & Services Americas, Inc., and DENSO Automotive
Deutschland GmbH manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Radiators that
were purchased throughout the United States, including in this
District, during the Class Period.  The Defendants' co-conspirators
include Calsonic Kansei Corporation and Calsonic Kansei North
America, Inc.; T.RAD Co., Ltd. and T.RAD North America, Inc.; and
Mitsuba Corporation and American Mitsuba Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
                  dbressack@finkbressack.com
                  nfink@finkbressack.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4510
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whose@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Carl E. Person, Esq.
          225 E. 36th Street, Suite 3A
          New York, NY 10016-3664
          Telephone: (212) 307-4444
          E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com


DMD PIZZA: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
DAN MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DMD PIZZA LLC; PATALANO PIZZA LLC; DOUGLAS M. DELISLE;
ANTHONY PATALANO, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-30047 (D. Mass.,
April 10, 2019) alleges unlawful retention of service charges
(designated by Defendants as "delivery charges"); failure to pay
the minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); and failure to provide paid sick leave.

The Complaint notes that the Defendants did not comply with any of
the three requirements under Massachusetts and federal law for
paying a tipped minimum wage. Defendants did not provide written
notice about the tipped minimum wage to delivery drivers. Moreover,
on numerous occasions, the tipped minimum wage received by
Plaintiff and other drivers, when combined with their tips, was
less than the regular minimum wage, the Complaint states.

The Defendants had a practice of inflating a driver's reported tips
in order to create the appearance of compliance with minimum wage
requirements. Plaintiff directly observed this alteration of
records, and he was directly told by Defendants' managers that they
had been instructed to make these alterations as a matter of
company policy and practice, says the Complaint.

Mr. Martin worked for the Defendants as a Domino's delivery driver
from February 2017 through January 2019.

DMD Pizza LLC does business as a Domino's franchisee in
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
     Brant Casavant, Esq.
     FAIR WORK, P.C.
     192 South Street, Suite 450
     Boston, MA 02111
     Phone: (617) 607-6230
     Email: steve@fairworklaw.com
            brant@fairworklaw.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Freeman Says Facility Not Wheelchair-Friendly
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT FREEMAN on behalf of himself and for the benefit of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC 1017
JERICHO TPKF, LLC and TPCSR, LTD, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02366-SJF-SIL (E.D. N.Y., April 23, 2019) seeks
declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief as well as monetary
damages and attorney's fees, costs and expenses to redress
Defendants unlawful disability discrimination against plaintiff in
violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and its implementing regulation, the New York State
Executive Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York.

The Defendants have and are continuing to discriminate against
plaintiff and other similarly situated disabled individuals by
failing to provide accessible facilities in violation of the ADA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff visited the Defendant's facility which forms the basis of
this lawsuit but encountered architectural barriers at the subject
property precluding them from reasonably accessing the goods and
services provided to non-disabled individuals. The barriers to
access at the Premises has deterred plaintiff from availing himself
of and are denying him the opportunity to participate and benefit
from the goods, services, privileges, advantages, facilities and
accommodations at Defendants' property equal to that afforded to
other individuals.

Plaintiff SCOTT FREEMAN is an adult male confined to a wheelchair.

DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC, is a foreign limited liability company duly
licensed to conduct business in New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Jonathan Bell, Esq.
     BELL LAW GROUP. PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd. Suite 208
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 280-3008
     Email: DS@BellLG.com
            JW@BellLG.com

DUPLIN COUNTY: Court Grants FLSA Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RY AN LANG, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, the DUPLIN COUNTY,
the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00077-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Terrence W. Bo entered an order:

     1. granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional
certification of a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act;

     2. directing the Defendant to provide within fifteen days to
Plaintiffs counsel an updated listing of the names, last known
mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses,
work locations, and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs
who worked for Defendant at any time during the period from May 11,
2015 to present, consistent with Plaintiffs proposed class notice
definition; and

     3. directing the Plaintiff to mail to each listed putative
plaintiff a copy of Plaintiffs Notice and Opt-In Form, including a
45-day reminder.[CC]

EBY MANAGEMENT: Watson Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Eby Management Inc.
and David Lee Eby for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The case is captioned ALBERT WATSON, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs.
EBY MANAGEMENT INC., d/b/a JUNK KING TAMPA and DAVID LEE EBY, JR,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00901-JSM-JSS (M.D.
Fla., April 16, 2019). Plaintiff Albert Watson accuses the
Defendant of failing to pay complete overtime wages for every hour
worked over 40. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff
was not paid time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of forty within a work week during one or
more weeks of employment. Accordingly, Plaintiff demands that
similarly situated employees have judgment entered against
Defendants for the payment of all overtime hours at one and
one-half the regular rate of pay for the hours worked over forty
for which Defendants did not properly compensate them, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this
action, and all further relief that the court deems to be just and
appropriate.

EBY Management, Inc., trading as Junk King Tampa, is a Florida
profit corporation that operates and conducts business in
Hillsborough County, Florida. It operates a junk hauling business
within the state of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Fraley, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Street, #600
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Telephone (813) 393-5457
     Facsimile: (813) 393-5481
     E-mail: Mfraley@forthepeople.com


EL JACAL: Pineda Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
-------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against El Jacal Corp, El
Jacal 2, LLC, Ana Martinez, and Juan Martinez for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. The
case is captioned FLORITA PINEDA on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EL JACAL CORP d/b/a EL
JACAL MEXICAN GRILL, EL JACAL 2, LLC, ANA MARTINEZ, and JUAN
MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01110 (D. Colo., April 16,
2019).  Plaintiff and those similarly situated are currently, or
were formerly, employed as hourly employees by Defendants to work
long hours for low wages in Defendants' restaurants in Fort Morgan
and Brush, Colorado. However, the Defendants refused to pay their
hourly employees overtime premiums for overtime hours worked.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks compensation for Defendants' wage law
violations on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated hourly employees of Defendants.

El Jacal Corp is doing business as El Jacal Mexican Grill, a
registered Colorado corporation with a principal street address of
105 8th Avenue, Fort Morgan, Colorado. Defendant El Jacal 2, LLC is
a registered Colorado limited liability company with a principal
street address of 301 Edison Street, Brush, Colorado. Ana and Juan
Martinez own and manage El Jacal enterprise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
1123 Spruce Street, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (303) 440.8780
E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


ERIC RYAN CORP: Gorss Appeals TCPA Class Cert. Denial to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gorss Motels Inc. filed an appeal from a District Court
ruling issued on March 28, 2019, in its lawsuit styled Gorss Motels
Inc. v. Eric Ryan Corporation, Case No. 17-cv-126, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15,
2019, the Hon. Dominic J. Squatrito denied the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

Gorss has sought certification of this class:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile on or about March 1, 2013, stating: "The Eric Ryan
     Corporation," Sign Up for a Free Utility and
     Telecommunications Bill Review," and "To Find Out More, call
     (800) 837-6406, email: sales@ericryan.com, online:
     http://www.ericryan.com/wyndham-specials/."

In accordance with the Court's previous Order, dispositive motions
will be filed by April 29, 2019.

In its complaint, Gorss asserts violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.  Gorss alleges that Eric Ryan sent
unsolicited advertisements to Gorss and members of the proposed
class in violation of the TCPA, including three unsolicited
facsimiles sent during the time period between March 1, 2013, and
December 1, 2013.

The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels Inc. v. Eric Ryan
Corporation, Case No. 19-944, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut Corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, is represented by:

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com

Defendant-Respondent Eric Ryan Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation, is represented by:

          Christopher A. Cafardi, Esq.
          CAFARDI FERGUSON WYRICK WEIS & STOTLER, LLC
          2605 Nicholson Road
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Telephone: (412) 515-8900
          E-mail: ccafardi@cfwws.com


ERNST & YOUNG: Sullivan Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 154110/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cty., April 22, 2019)
is a civil rights lawsuit against Defendant for failing to design,
construct, and/or own or operate a website that is fully accessible
to, and independently usable by, deaf and hard-of-hearing people.

The Defendant provides a wide array of goods and services to the
public through its Website. However, the Website contains access
barriers that make it difficult for Plaintiff to use the Website.
In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for Plaintiff to
comprehend the audio portion of videos that are posted on the
Website. Defendant thus excludes Plaintiff from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly
a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf
individual.

Defendant operates the Website, which provides information on the
firm's services, history, industry, and careers as well as
educational videos on technological trends. It delivers information
to millions of people across the United States.[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


FAMILIES INC: Mikolajczak Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Mikolajczak, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Families, Inc. of Arkansas,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00290-SWW (E.D. Ark., April 23, 2019)
is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and
costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other Mental Health
Professionals lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were classified as
hourly employees and regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or
similarly-situated employees one and one-half times their regular
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant from March of 2019 to April of 2019
as a Therapist/Mental Health Professional.

Defendant is a domestic, for-profit corporation registered to do
business in the State of Arkansas, providing counseling services to
children, adolescents, adults, couples and group psychotherapy at
approximately eleven locations throughout Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris Burks, Esq.
     Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
     WH LAW,PLLC
     1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745
     North Little Rock, AR 72114
     Phone: (501) 891-6000
     Email: chris@whlawoffices.com
            brandon@whlawoffices.com


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Freem Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mitchell Freem, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Federal Express Corporation and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01046404
(Cal. Super., January 23, 2019), was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 6,
2019 under Case No. 19-cv-00445.

Freem seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, 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 and
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Freem worked for FedEx as a Senior Vehicle Global Technician during
his eighteen years of employment which ended on May 24, 2018. He
was involved with package handling, conducting maintenance on a
fleet of trucks and troubleshooting vehicles and equipment.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
      Andrew H. Haas, Esq.
      George A. Aloupas, Esq.
      QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
      22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
      Lake Forest, CA 92630−4961
      Tel: (949) 458−9675
      Fax: (949) 458−9679
      Email: req@quintlaw.com
             ahh@quintlaw.com
             gaa@quintlaw.com

             - and -

      Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      J. Jason Hill, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605C Street Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 921 0 I
      TEL. 619-595-300 I
      FAX 619-595-3000
      E-Mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
              msinger@ckslaw.com
              jhill@ckslaw.com

FedEx is represented by:

      Craig Edward Lindberg
      FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
      2601 Main Street Suite 340
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Tel: (949) 862-4678
      Fax: (901) 492-5641
      Email: craig.lindberg@fedex.com
             aleksandr.markelov@morganlewis.com



FERROGLOBE PLC: Jam-Wood Sues Over False, Misleading Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Jam-Wood Holdings LLC, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated, v. Ferroglobe PLC, Pedro Larrea, and Phillip
Murnane, Case No. 1:19-cv-02368 (S.D. N.Y., March 15, 2019), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Ferroglobe securities between
August 21, 2018 and November 26, 2018, inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the class period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) there was excess supply
of the Company's products; (ii) demand for the Company's products
was declining; (iii) consequently, the pricing of the Company's
products would be materially impacted; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.

The Plaintiff purchased Ferroglobe securities during the class
period.

The Defendant Ferroglobe purports to produce silicon metal,
silicon-based alloys, and manganese-based alloys and to sell
products such as aluminum, silicone compounds, automotive parts,
photovoltaic cells, electronic semiconductors, and steel.
Ferroglobe is incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with
its principal executive offices located in London, United Kingdom.

The Defendants Larrea and Murnane, are the officers of the company
and possessed the power and authority to control the contents of
the Company's reports to the SEC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com


FPI MANAGEMENT: Faces Consumer Action over Tenant Holding Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against FPI Management,
Inc. (FPI) for its multiple violations of the Washington
Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. The case is captioned BRIANNA
MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00128 (E.D. Wash., April 16, 2019).
Plaintiff Brianna Morris alleges that FPI violated the Washington
Residential Landlord-Tenant Act by charging her and other
prospective tenants a holding deposit or fee prior to approval of
tenancy and prior to offering a lease agreement. She also claims
that the FPI failed to disclose that the prospective tenants may
obtain a free copy of their consumer reports in the event of a
denial or other adverse action violates Revised Code of Washington
59.18.257(1)(a)(iii). She adds that FPI also failed to disclose to
prospective tenants their right to dispute the accuracy of
information appearing in the consumer report.

FPI is a California corporation that is primarily engaged in the
business of managing rental properties in Washington State and
elsewhere. FPI and its related, parent, and subsidiary corporations
are a provider of services to residents, property owners, and
investors in the multifamily real estate industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
     KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
     421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Telephone: (509) 413-1494
     Facsimile: (509) 413-1724
     E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com

           - and -

     Shayne Sutherland, Esq.
     CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC
     421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Telephone: (509) 315-4507
     Facsimile: (509) 315-4585
     E-mail: ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Harrell RESPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rodney W. Harrell filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
his lawsuit entitled Rodney Harrell v. Freedom Mortgage
Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00275-AJT-TCB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks redress for alleged violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act of 1974.

Mr. Harrell owns a single-family, residential property at 981
Powhatan St., Alexandria VA 22314 with Freedom Mortgage Corporation
as the mortgage lender and servicer of the loan.  He claims that
Freedom Mortgage did not remit the property tax to Alexandria City
despite being complete with his mortgage payments.

The appellate case is captioned as Rodney Harrell v. Freedom
Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 19-1379, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RODNEY W. HARRELL, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John J. Beins, Esq.
          BEINS GOLDBERG & HENNESSEY, LLP
          2 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 700
          Chevy Chase, MD 20815
          Telephone: (240) 235-5040
          E-mail: jbeins@beinsgoldberg.com

               - and -

          Justin Patrick Keating, Esq.
          BEINS, AXELROD, P.C.
          1030 15th St., NW, Suite 700 East
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 328-7222
          E-mail: info@beinsaxelrod.com

Defendant-Appellee FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A New Jersey
Corporation, is represented by:

          Nicholas Vincent Albu, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          7900 Tysons One Place
          McLean, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 641-4253
          E-mail: nalbu@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Travis Aaron Sabalewski, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          Riverfront Plaza, West Tower
          901 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-4069
          Telephone: (804) 344-3442
          E-mail: tsabalewski@reedsmith.com


FRIDAY KNIGHTS: Terranova Action Seeks Unpaid Wages, Pay Stubs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annmarie Terranova, and Zeenath Rashid, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated, v. Friday Knights, LLC, and TGI
Fridays NY, LLC, Case No. 152768/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty., March 15, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code Rules
and Regulations and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate
hourly employees for all work performed during their shift and were
not able to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Terranova is a resident of Brooklyn, New York and was
employed by Defendants as a server and supervisor from
approximately 2008 through present.

The Plaintiff Rashid is a resident of Brooklyn, New York and was
employed by Defendants as a server and bartender from approximately
July 2012 through October 2012 and again from approximately
September 2013 through July 2015.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Brooklyn, New York,
and Valley Stream, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mark Gaylord, Esq.
      BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
      400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Tel: (516) 742-4949
      Fax: (516) 742-1977


FUELCO ENERGY: Court Approves Distribution of Notice
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JUAN SEGOVIA and VICTOR FLORES, Each
Individually and on behalf of All Others Simialrly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. FUELCO ENERGY LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-01246-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Henry Bemporad
entered an order granting in part Plaintiff's motion for approval
and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact
information:

-- The Defendant were directed provide, on or before April 11,
    2019, to Plaintiffs any potential class member's contact
    information that is in Defendant's possesion. Unless
    otherwise ordered by the Court, such information must be
    provided in readily accessible electronic format.

-- Within 14 days of receiving the information, the Plaintiff must

    send notice by regular mail to all potential class members.
    Notice shall be made in the form agreed to by the parties at
    the status conference, as amended to reflect the Court's
    rulings as to any disputed issues.

-- Potential class members will have a 90-day period from the date

    of notice is mailed to opt in to the action.

-- The case is set for a status conference on June 19, 2019 at
    10:30 A a.m. to discuss whether additional notice is
needed.[CC]

FUSION CONNECT: Satarzadeh Sues over Misleading Financial Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal securities action has been filed by Cyrus Satarzadeh on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Defendant Fusion Connect, Inc. common stock between August 14, 2018
and April 2, 2019. The case is captioned CYRUS SATARZADEH
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FUSION CONNECT, INC., MATTHEW D. ROSEN, KEVIN M.
DOTTS, KEITH SOLDAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03391 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 16, 2019).

Plaintiff Cyrus Satarzadeh alleges that Fusion Connect, Inc., CEO
Matthew D. Rosen, and executives Kevin M. Dotts and Keith Soldan
have violated the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Plaintiff alleges that
Fusion has misled its investors by overstating its earnings or
understating its net loss, including for the quarters ending June
30, 2018 and Sept. 30, 2018. He claims that Fusion has failed to
properly account for and capitalize costs associated with the
customer on-boarding process.

Defendant Fusion Connect, Inc. was incorporated pursuant to the
laws of Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in
New York, New York. The Company’s stock trades on the NASDAQ
under the ticker symbol "FSNN". Fusion purports to be in the
business of cloud communications, cloud connectivity, cloud
infrastructure, cloud computing, and managed cloud-based
applications solutions. Fusion also purports to offer domestic and
international voice services to telecommunications carriers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP
     FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
     445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Telephone: 914-298-3281
     Facsimile: 914-824-1561
     E-mail: Gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

              - and -

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP     
     260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: (617) 398-5600
     Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
             jake@blockesq.com


GAB & AUD: Blind-Inaccessible Website Violates ADA, Duncan Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. GAB & AUD, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03583-VEC (S.D. N.Y., April 23, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), says the complaint. Because Defendant's website,
WWW.HAVENSPA.NYC, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant operates its spa boutique location as well as its
website, and those affiliated or directly linked, and advertises,
markets, offers and sells its services and boutique spa location
within the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
     THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
     175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: brad@markslawpc.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: 212.228.9795
     Fax: 212.982.6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit over Cadillac SRX Headlight Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against General Motors
Corporation for its unfair misleading, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, in failing to disclose the headlight defect
Cadillac SRX. The case is captioned ROBIN LATORRE, PATRICIA
ANDERSON, and ARKENDIA WILLIAMS individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-11100-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich., April 16, 2019). Plaintiffs
Robin LaTorre, Patricia Anderson, and Arkendia Williams bring this
action individually and on behalf of all persons in the United
States who purchased or leased a 2010 through and including 2015
Cadillac SRX designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold,
warranted, and serviced by Defendant General Motors LLC. This case
arises out of a design defect that poses a significant safety
hazard for thousands of consumers. Plaintiffs allege that GM uses
seals in the class vehicles headlights' exterior housing units wear
out prematurely, thereby allowing moisture to accumulate and
condense. The moisture causes the headlights to malfunction and/or
fail because it corrodes the lamp assembly components and/or
because it causes electrical shorts. The headlight defect can
result in very dim light output or no light at all. Such
malfunctions will necessarily result in low visibility at best,
which can contribute to injurious, or even fatal, traffic
accidents.

General Motors LLC, through its various entities, designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and
leases passenger vehicles, including the Cadillac SRX vehicles,
nationwide. General Motors LLC is the warrantor and distributor of
these vehicles in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
     William Kalas, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     950 West University Drive
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Telephone: (248) 841-2200
     Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
     E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com
             wk@millerlawpc.com

             - and -

     Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Telephone: (202) 973-0900
     Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
     E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

             - and -

     Annick M. Persinger, Esq.    
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Telephone: (510) 254-6808
     Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
     E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
  
             - and -

     Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
     Daniel Tropin, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
     WEISELBERG GILBERT
     One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 525-4100
     Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
     E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
             tropin@kolawyers.com

             - and -

     Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
     Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
     KALIEL PLLC
     1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
     Washington, D.C. 20009
     Telephone: (202) 350-4783
     E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
             sgold@kalielpllc.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Francis Sues Over 8L90/8L45 Transmission Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Richard Francis, Wesley Won, Dennis Speerly, Joseph
Sierchio, Michael Plafker, Howard Young, and Darrin Degrand,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-11044-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 10, 2019) complains of GM
vehicles equipped with defective GM 8L90 or GM 8L45 transmissions.

The Complaint states that two models of eight speed automatic
transmissions (the GM 8L90 or the 8L45) both manufactured by GM
have a common defect. Drivers attempting to accelerate or
decelerate their cars feel a hesitation, followed by a significant
shake, shudder, jerk, clunk, or "hard shift" when the vehicle's
automatic transmission changes gears. Said shudder, shake and
hesitation also occurs while the subject vehicles are accelerating
in a single gear, and not actively shifting gears. Drivers have
reported that the shift is sometimes so violent, they feel as
though they have been hit by another vehicle.

The Complaint adds that while the problem is known, the cause of
the Defect and the solution to the problem are not. None of GM's
suggested repairs have remedied the problem. Some recent repair
orders found by Plaintiffs' counsel note that "GM is aware of
concern and a release date of late January/February to correct
issue." One Plaintiff's repair order noted, "Advised customer GM is
aware of concern and a release date of late January/February to
correct issue." Another noted, "no repair available until quarter 1
in 2019." Presently, it appears GM is merely biding time until its
warranty expires, the Complaint notes.

GM has not disclosed the Transmission Defect to purchasers or
lessees like Plaintiffs at the point of purchase or through
advertisements. Such disclosures would have impacted purchase
decisions and purchase price. GM's omissions artificially inflated
the market price for the Subject Vehicles equipped with defective
transmissions. GM could have and should have warned consumers about
the Transmission Defect through advertisements, on its website, and
through communications from its authorized dealers. However, GM
failed to do so, says the Complaint.

Plaintiffs and class members purchased or leased new and used
vehicles manufactured by General Motors, LLC ("GM") between 2015
and 2019.

GM is a designer, manufacturer, marketer, and distributer of cars,
trucks, and other passenger vehicles, as well as vehicle
parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
     Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
     PITT McGEHEE PALMER AND RIVERS, P.C.
     117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Phone: (248) 398-9800
     Facsimile: (248) 398-9804
     Email: mpitt@pittlawpc.com
            brivers@pittlawpc.com

          - and -

     Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Phone: (561) 515-1400
     Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
     Email: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
     Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
     Julia A. Horwitz, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Ave. NW
     East Tower, 5th Floor
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600
     Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
     Email: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
            dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
            jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Robert Gordon, Esq.
     Steven Calamusa, Esq.
     GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
     4114 Northlake Blvd.,
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Phone: (561) 799-5070
     Facsimile: (561) 799-4050


GENESIS FS CARD: Newsom Sues over Credit Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Genesis FS Card
Services, Inc. for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA). The case is captioned KEISHA NEWSOM, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENESIS FS CARD
SERVICES, INC. f/k/a GENESIS BANKCARD SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00683 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2019). Plaintiff
Keisha Newsome alleges that the Defendant is engaged in systematic
unauthorized credit inquiries. She claims that the Defendant has
acquired Plaintiff's credit information through an unauthorized
inquiry of Plaintiff's consumer report. The Defendant has also
accessed Plaintiff's private and confidential information without
Plaintiff's consent or a permissible purpose. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages,
statutory damages, litigation costs, and reasonable attorney's fees
and any other relief the court may deem just and proper.

Genesis FS Card Services is a corporation registered in the State
of California. It offers financing solutions and direct-to-consumer
credit cards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yana A. Hart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART, APC
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3609
     Telephone: (619) 233-7770
     Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
     E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com

           - and –

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 222-7429
     Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
     E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

GLOBAL PRISONER: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hernandez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Prisoner Services, LLC
d/b/a Texas Prisoner Transportation Services, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00374 (W.D. Tex., April 10, 2019) is a collective action
that seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant.

During Ms. Hernandez's employment with Defendant, she regularly
worked in excess of forty hour per week. The Defendant knew or
reasonably should have known that Hernandez worked in excess of
forty hours per week. The Defendant did not pay Hernandez overtime
"at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at
which she was employed."

Instead, Defendant required Plaintiff and other extradition
officers to work off the-clock and/or manipulated their time
records to reflect fewer hours than they actually worked. The
Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Hernandez and
the other extradition officers were not exempt from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately October
2017 to June 2018 and again from January 2019 to February 2019 as
an Extradition Officer.

Defendant contracts with local and state governments to perform
inmate transportation services between prisons and other
facilities; it does business in the territorial jurisdiction of the
Court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     Bridget Davidson, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Centre
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


GOLD STANDARD: Zollicoffer et al. Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JAMES ZOLLICOFFER, ANTWOIN HUNT and
NORMAN GREEN, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
laborers, the Plaintiffs, v. GOLD STANDARD BAKING, INC., PERSONNEL
STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MOST VALUABLE PERSONNEL d/b/a MVP, Case
No. 1:13-cv-01524 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "African-American laborers who sought work assignments
      through MVP and were otherwise eligible to work at GSB, but
      on one or more occasions were not assigned to work at GSB
      when a position for which they were otherwise qualified was
      available during the period of four years prior to the filing

      of the Plaintiffs' Original Complaint for the section 1981
      claims up through and including December 31, 2015";

   2. appointing Norman Green, James Zollicoffer and Antwoin Hunt
      as class representatives;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to serve as counsel for the
      class; and

   4. authorizing notice to the class of the action and their right

      to opt out.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have had a joint policy or
practice of steering African-American laborers away from
assignments to GSB in violation of Section 1981.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1224
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121

               - and -

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Shaylyn Cochran, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600

HAMRA CHICAGO: Swanson Sues Over BIPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled Kris Swanson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hamra Chicago, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04554 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill.,
April 10, 2019) is a class action complaint seeks to stop the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and
personal biometric data.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA" or the
"Act") expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written
release from an individual, as a condition in of employment, order
to capture, collect, and store an individual's biometric
identifiers or biometric information, especially a fingerprint or
fingerprint geometry scan, and biometric information derived from
it.

Defendant captured, collected, received through trade, and/ or
otherwise obtained and biometric identifiers or biometric
information of their Illinois employees, like Plaintiff, without
properly obtaining the written executed release, and without making
the required disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use,
or destruction of biometric identifiers or information.

Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Cook County through on or
about February 2018.

Hamra Chicago is an operator of franchised restaurants and
bakeries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARPER'S TREE: Kennington Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Kennington, individually and on behalf of other similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Harper's Tree and Stump Removal Inc. and
Donald Randolph Harper, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00052-WLS
(M.D. Ga., April 10, 2019) seeks to recover due but unpaid overtime
wages and an additional like amount as liquidated damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA); and to enjoin
violations of the FLSA.

The Defendants paid Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
straight time per hour but never paid the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees time and a half overtime pay for the hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week as required by the
FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff and the class are or were employees of Harper's Tree
Removal.

Harper's Tree Removal is in the business of tree stump removal and
other related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     McNeill Stokes, Esq.
     5372 Whitehall Place
     Mableton, GA 30126
     Phone 404-352-2144
     Email: mcstokes@bellsouth.net


INSIGHT GLOBAL: Failed to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Dikio Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ayodeji Dikio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Insight Global, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02656 (N.D. Ill., April 19, 2019) is an action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and
Illinois state law, seeking payment of unpaid overtime wages.
Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages for the failure to pay
overtime wages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated consultants
were knowingly and improperly classified as exempt employees, and,
as a result, did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant Insight Global as a consultant
providing support and training to Defendant's clients in using a
new recordkeeping system between September 2017 and December 2017.

Insight Global is a Georgia corporation which provides information
technology educational services for the healthcare industry across
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
     221 North Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Phone: (734) 929.4313
     Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
            hollander@bwlawonline.com

          - and -

     Bradley Manewith, Esq.
     Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
     Siegel & Dolan Ltd.
     150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone (312) 878-3210
     Fax (312) 878-3211
     Email: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
            msiegel@msiegellaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
     Email: scarson@bm.net
            sschalman-bergen@bm.net
            apiazza@bm.net


ISLACEL CORP: Guerra Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Guerra, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Islacel Corporation, Case No. 0:19-cv-60694 (S.D. Fla.,
March 16, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant would often send marketing
text messages providing different types of offers and savings for
future purchases without first obtaining express written consent to
send such marketing text messages as required to do so under the
TCPA.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Florida limited liability Company with a
principal office located at 9237 Marina Blvd., Boca Raton, FL,
33428. The Defendant owns and operates a telecommunication company
that specializes in selling minutes for overseas phone calls. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC.
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 907-1136
      Fax: (855) 529-9540
      E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


J.G. WENTWORTH: Baker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Loan Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. J.G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00497 (E.D. Va., April 23, 2019) is an opt-in
collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Loan Officers were
not paid an hourly rate; they were solely paid the commission which
essentially resulted in Defendant paying them on a commission-only
basis. The hours worked by Loan Officers were not accurately
tracked or counted towards total hours worked and no overtime was
paid for these hours ("Uncounted Hours Policy"). Because Defendant
did not accurately track and pay for all hours worked, including
overtime hours, Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek, asserts the complaint.

The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to include all
required remuneration into the regular rate of pay to calculate
overtime for any overtime pay it managed to pay Plaintiff and the
Collective Members, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Loan Officer for Defendant from
approximately October 2012 until approximately April 2018.

Defendant is a national provider of home loan mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JACK SIEGEL, ESQ.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 790-4454
     Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


JS MAID CLEANING: Perez-Barrios Claims Overtime Pay for Hrs Over 40
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerzon Perez-Barrios, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JS Maid Cleaning Services, LLC
and Edevaldo Lamacchia, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00049,
(N.D. Ga., March 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a cleaning service based out of Carrollton,
Georgia, where Perez-Barrios was employed as a laborer for their
clients in the metro Atlanta area. Perez-Barrios claims he was
denied overtime wages, despite working in excess of 40 hours per
week throughout his employment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
      1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Tel: (678) 330-2909
      Fax: (678) 638-6201
      Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com


K POWER CONSTRUCTION: Appeals Ruling in Menacho Suit to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants K Power Construction, Inc., Sung Jin Koo and Myung Kwan
Koo filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Juan
Menacho, et al. v. K Power Construction, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01359-LO-IDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Alexandria.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Menacho, et al. v. K Power
Construction, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1392, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

The Defendants-Appellants appear pro se.

Plaintiffs-Appellees JUAN MENACHO, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated; HUGO REYNALDO QUEZADA-CANEDO, On Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; and MAYNOR ELISEO
XALIN-HUZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
are represented by:

          Matthew Thomas Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & TERPAK PLLC
          7540A Little River Turnpike
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Telephone: (703) 256-1800
          E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Iron Workers Plan Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Workers District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity)
Retirement and Pension Plan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Bernado
Hees, Paulo Basilio, David H. Knopf, George El-Zoghbi, Christopher
R. Skinger, Vince Garlati, and 3G Capital, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-01845 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.

The action concerns multiple statements by Defendants misleading
investors regarding the Company's value and business prospects from
July 6, 2015, the effective date of the Company's formation after
the merger of Kraft Foods Inc. and The H.J. Heinz Company, through
February 21, 2019, when the Company wrote down the value of its
Kraft and Oscar Mayer brands by $15 billion.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are liable for the
violation of the Exchange Act by employing devices, schemes, and
artifices to defraud, or omitting state material facts necessary to
make the statements not misleading and engaging in acts, practices,
and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon
the purchasers of the Company's common stock in an effort to
maintain artificially high market prices for Kraft Heinz common
stock.

The Plaintiff purchased Kraft Heinz common stock during the period
from July 6, 2015 through February 21, 2019.

The Defendants Kraft Heinz is one of the largest food and beverage
companies in the world with sales in approximately 190 countries
and territories. The Company manufactures and markets food and
beverage products, through its numerous iconic brands, including
Heinz, Kraft, Oscar Mayer, Philadelphia, Velveeta, Lunchables,
Planters, Maxwell House, Capri Sun, Ore-Ida, Kool-Aid, Jell-O, and
many others. The Individual Defendants are officers of Kraft Heinz.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan C. Bunge, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
      & SULLIVAN, LLP
      191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 705-7400
      Fax: (312) 705-7401
      E-mail: jonathanbunge@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

      Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
      Darren J. Check, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Davidson, Esq.
      Stephanie M. Grey, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
      & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706
      Fax: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com
              dcheck@ktmc.com
              jrdavidson@ktmc.com
              sgrey@ktmc.com


LANDS' END: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit GORSS MOTELS, INC., individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. LANDS' END, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00010-WWE (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an Order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or
      more faxes on or about the dates set forth stating: (1)
      "Introducing Your New Choice In Logo'd Apparel," sent January

      12, 2015; (2) "Save 20% On The Best Logo'd Look Around," sent

      on June 15, 2015; and (3) "Get With The Program!," sent May
      16, 2016";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Anderson + Wanca and Bellin &
      Associates LLC as class counsel.

The case is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005,
regarding unsolicited fax advertisements sent by or on behalf of
Defendant Lands' End, Inc., and successfully transmitted to
Plaintiff and the proposed Class on January 12, 2015, June 15,
2015, and May 16, 2016. Each of the Faxes advertises clothing
products sold by Land's End. A total of 9,780 Faxes were
successfully sent to the proposed Class, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Gorrs Motels , Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons:

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

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

LANG PHARMA: Gaminde Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Gaminde filed an appeal from the District Court's
memorandum decision and order, and judgment, both dated March 25,
2019, entered in the lawsuit entitled Gaminde v. Lang Pharma
Nutrition, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-300, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gaminde v. Lang Pharma
Nutrition, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-927, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant James Gaminde, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com


Defendants-Appellees Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc., CVS Health
Corporation and CVS Pharmacy, Inc., are represented by:

          Jalina Joy Hudson, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 261-6856
          E-mail: jhudson@perkinscoie.com


LIBERTY CAPITAL: Boehm Sues Over Unauthorized Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BOEHM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP, INC., a California
corporation, NATIONAL MONEY MAN 4 CASH ADVANCE, LLC, a Texas
corporation, JOHN F. GUILLORY, an individual, DOMAINS BY PROXY,
LLC, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a SECRET3500.COM, Defendants, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00177 (D. Neb., April 23, 2019) seeks to stop
Defendants' illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that play
prerecorded voice messages to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.

As a primary part of their marketing efforts, Defendants and their
agents place thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded
voice message to consumers' cell phones nationwide. Unfortunately,
Defendants do not obtain consent prior to placing these calls and,
therefore, are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), asserts the complaint.

The complaint relates that the TCPA targets unauthorized calls
exactly like the ones alleged in this case, based on Defendants'
use of technological equipment to spam consumers with its
advertising on a grand scale. By placing the calls at issue,
Defendants have violated the privacy and statutory rights of
Plaintiff and the Class.

Plaintiff, therefore, seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to
stop its unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and
statutory fines to the Class members, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, says the complaint.

Plaintiff ANDREW BOEHM is a natural person and is a citizen of the
District of Nebraska.

Defendant LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP, INC., is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
     210 S Ellsworth Ave #486
     San Mateo, CA 94401
     Phone: 402-301-5544
     Facsimile: 402-396-7131
     Email: javitchm@gmail.com


LIFE LINE: Harrington Disputes Vague Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Harrington, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Life Line Billing Systems, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. No. 19-cv-00357, (E.D. Wis., March 11, 2019)
seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Life Line Billing Systems operates as "LifeQuest Services," a
business that's into the collection of defaulted consumer debts on
behalf of municipalities. It attempted to collect a debt owed by
Harrington via a collection letter that failed to disclose the
amount of the debt in light of the creditor's right to accrue
interest and did not disclose that the amount of the debt may
increase due to the accrual of interest, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      Francis R. Greene, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ 07081
      Telephone (973) 379-7500
      E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
              Andrew@SternThomasson.com
              Francis@SternThomasson.com


LION ELASTOMERS: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Stuntz FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael David Stuntz filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Michael Stuntz v. Lion Elastomers, L.L.C., et
al., Case No. 1:14-CV-173, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Stuntz v. Lion
Elastomers, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 19-40336, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL DAVID STUNTZ, Individually and on
Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Mark William Frasher, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
          P.O. Box 26005
          Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000
          E-mail: mfrasher@rmqlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees LION ELASTOMERS, L.L.C., and ASHLAND
ELASTOMERS, L.L.C., are represented by:

          Charles M. Roesch, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL, L.L.P.
          255 E. 5th Street
          Chemed Center
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-0000
          Telephone: (513) 977-8178
          E-mail: chuck.roesch@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          Teresa Slowen Valderrama, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, L.L.P.
          910 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 292-0150
          E-mail: tvalderrama@fisherphillips.com

Defendant-Appellee ASHLAND ELASTOMERS, L.L.C., is represented by:

          Bruce M. Partain, Esq.
          WELLS, PEYTON, GREENBERG & HUNT, L.L.P.
          550 Fannin Street
          Beaumont, TX 77701-0000
          Telephone: (409) 838-2644
          E-mail: bpartain@wellspeyton.com


MARITIME EXPLORATIONS: Buddenhagen Owns 1,450,000 Maritime Shares
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAUL S. BUDDENHAGEN and BRENT DIBNER,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, and
derivatively on behalf of MARITIME EXPLORATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Plaintiffs v. BARRY L. CLIFFORD and ROBERT T. LAZIER,
Defendants, and MARITIME EXPLORATIONS, INC., Nominal Defendant,
Case No. 2019-0258 (Del. Chancery Ct., April 4, 2019), Paul S.
Buddenhagen disclosed that he currently owns 1,450,000 shares of
Maritime Explorations, Inc. ("MEI") Common Stock and have held
those shares at all times essential to the claims in this Verified
Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint.[BN]


MATTEL INC: Black Sues Over Dangerous and Defective Sleepers
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MATTEL, INC., and FISHER-PRICE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03209 (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2019)
asserts claims against Defendants individually and on behalf of a
class of all other similarly situated purchasers of Rock 'n Play
Sleepers for (1) fraud; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) breach of
implied warranty; and (4) breach of express warranty.

The complaint asserts that the Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently
unsafe as a sleeper and unfit for its intended use. Its use poses a
number of serious safety risks that have led to many documented
instances of infant deaths and injuries. By positioning an infant
at a 30-degree incline, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper significantly
increases the risk that the infant's head will slip into a
dangerous position, tilt to constrict the windpipe and/or cause the
infant's face to become pressed against the padded fabric in the
sleeper and block airflow, which the infant may be unable to
correct.

The Defendants knew about these risks for as long as they sold the
Rock 'n Play Sleeper, the complaint asserts. Among other things,
(1) the American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP") and major consumer
groups repeatedly issued warnings about the serious dangers of
inclined sleepers; (2) due to these known dangers, regulators in
Canada and Australia did not allow Defendants to sell the Rock 'n
Play Sleeper in their countries as a "sleeper"; (3) Defendants have
already been sued for at least one infant death in a Rock 'n Play
Sleeper; (4) at least 32 infant deaths have occurred using the Rock
'n Play Sleeper; and (5) upwards of 700 injuries have been reported
due to the use of inclined sleepers, including the Rock 'n Play
Sleeper. Ignoring documented safety concerns and in pursuit of
profit, Defendants continued to market and sell the Rock 'n Play
Sleeper in the United States as an infant sleeper that is suitable
for all night and prolonged sleep.

Had Plaintiff and other members of the putative class been aware of
the dangers and risks posed by the Sleepers, which render them
unfit for use, they would not have purchased them, says the
complaint.

Ms. Black purchased Defendants' Rock 'n Play Sleeper from a Walmart
store located in or near Palestine, Texas, in or around October
2018.

Defendants manufacture, markets, and distributes the Rock 'n Play
Sleepers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     Blair E. Reed, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
            ykrivoshey@bursor.com
            breed@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 989-9113
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     Email: scott@bursor.com


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Mantak Files Suit Over Cambria Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Mantak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Richard
Bergman, Steve Bilodeau, Jorg Buchheim, Franz J. Fink, Burkhard
Goeschel, Ilya Golubovich and John Mutch, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00451 (S.D. Cal., March 7, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed sale of Maxwell Technologies
to Cambria Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla,
Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Under the transaction, each Maxwell stockholder will receive, for
each share of Maxwell common stock validly tendered and not
withdrawn, shares of Tesla Common Stock, $0.001 par value per
share. Following the completion of the offer, Cambria will be
merged with and into Maxwell, with Maxwell surviving as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla.

Said buyout was plagued by numerous conflicts of interest,
including Maxwell management's interest in post-close arrangements,
the directors' and officers' interests in lump sum buyout-related
payments and lucrative arrangements for the company's financial
advisor, Barclays, who in the past, received compensation for other
deals involving Tesla, notes the complaint.

Maxwell develops, manufactures and markets energy storage and power
delivery products for transportation, grid energy storage,
industrial and other applications. Bilodeau, Bergman, Buchheim,
Fink, Goeschel, Golubovich and Mutch sit in its Board. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (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
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      Email: fortunato@bespc.com


MDL 2428: Aquino, et al. v. Fresenius Moved to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FRESENIUS GRANUFLO/NATURALYTE DIALYSATE
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2428, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered
an order transferring the action styled AQUINO, ET AL. v. FRESENIUS
USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-09987 from the Central District of
California to the District of Massachusetts and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to Judge Douglas P. Woodlock for inclusion
in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring
there in this docket.

Plaintiffs in the Aquino action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Aquino to the
District of Massachusetts for inclusion in MDL No. 2428.
Defendants Fresenius USA, Inc., Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc.,
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care
North America, and Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc. (collectively,
Fresenius), oppose the motion.

In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs contend that
transfer is inappropriate because Aquino was improperly removed
from California state court.  The Panel, though, has held that such
jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to
transfer.  Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the
transferee judge.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
Aquino involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2428, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of Massachusetts was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
out of allegations that plaintiffs suffered injury or death caused
by the use of GranuFlo Acid Concentrate or NaturaLyte Liquid Acid
Concentrate during hemodialysis and that such use of these products
may cause metabolic alkalosis in patients resulting in low blood
pressure, hypokalemia, hypoxemia, hypercapnia, cardiac arrhythmia,
or cardiopulmonary arrest.  Aquino involves similar allegations
that plaintiffs' decedent suffered metabolic alkalosis as a result
of the use of GranuFlo or NaturaLyte during hemodialysis.  This
action thus involves factual questions relating to whether these
products were defectively designed or manufactured, whether
Fresenius knew or should have known of these products' alleged
propensity to cause injury, and whether Fresenius provided adequate
instructions and warnings with these products.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/UoNiWi


MDL 2885: Fontenot Blames Defective Earplugs for Hearing Loss
-------------------------------------------------------------
In In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation,
MDL. No. 3:19-md-2885, MATTHEW FONTENOT, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY,
AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00935-MCR-EMT (N.D.
Fla., April 22, 2019) seeks damages from 3M and its subsidiary
entities for injuries caused by the use of 3M's defective Combat
Arms Earplugs during their military service.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training. 3M knew
that its earplugs were defective, but manipulated laboratory
testing results and falsely represented to the military as meeting
the military's specifications, including representations by 3M that
their Combat Arms Earplugs offered maximum hearing protection for
military personnel and that they were free from all defects that
could have impaired their serviceability.

As of the filing of this action, 3M has still failed to issue a
recall for the defective Combat Arms Earplugs, opting instead to
simply discontinue selling the earplugs, leading members of the
U.S. military to continue to use the defective ear plugs, believing
they were safe, only to suffer further injury, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in California. He served
in the U.S. Army as a team leader in a Ranger unit and served in
overseas deployments and in combat areas in Irag and Afghanistan.
At the time of his service, the Combat Arms Earplugs were standard
issue. Since using the Combat Arms Earplugs, Plaintiff incurred and
suffers from tinnitus and/or hearing loss, which is significant,
permanent and ongoing.  

3M is one of the largest companies in the United States and is in
the business of designing, manufacturing and selling worker safety
products which include hearing protection devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     MICHAEL W. GAINES, ESQ.
     TIM L. BOWDEN, ESQ.
     Law Offices of Tim Bowden
     306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
     Goodlettsville, TN 37072
     Phone: (615) 859-1996
     Fax: (615) 859-1921
     Email: mwgaines01@gmail.com
            bowden_law@bellsouth.net

MDL 2886: Carbonaro Suit Consolidated in Allura Fiber Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MARTHA P. CARBONARO, JAMESON D.
STORM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
ALLURA USA LLC, PLYCEM USA LLC D/B/A ALLURA, PLYCEM USA, INC.,
ELEMENTIA USA, INC., ELEMENTIA, S.A.B. DE C.V., Case No.
3:19-cv-00029, was transferred on April 11, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston).

The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01064-DCN to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
IN RE: ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2:19-mn-02886-DCN.

The lawsuit is a class action asserting unfair and deceptive trade
practices in violation of the Iowa Consumer Protection Act,
negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach
of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and
seeking damages and declaratory relief in connection with defective
fiber cement siding designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
and sold by the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com
                  harper@wbmllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ashley Kamphaus Brathwaite, Esq.
          ELLIS AND WINTERS LLP
          PO Box 33550
          Raleigh, NC 27636
          Telephone: (919) 865-7000
          E-mail: ashley.brathwaite@elliswinters.com

               - and -

          Joseph D. Hammond, Esq.
          ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
          Post Office Box 2752
          Greensboro, NC 27402
          Telephone: (336) 389-5694
          Facsimile: (336) 217-4198
          E-mail: joe.hammond@elliswinters.com


METAMORPHOSIS DAY SPA: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. METAMORPHOSIS DAY SPA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03582-DAB (S.D. N.Y., April 23, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), asserts the complaint. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant operates its spa location as well as its website, and
those affiliated or directly linked, and advertises, markets,
offers and sells its services and spa within the State of New York
and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
     THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
     175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: brad@markslawpc.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: 212.228.9795
     Fax: 212.982.6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Pokoik Hits Share Drop Over Antitrust Row
------------------------------------------------------------
Davin M. Pokoik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Micron Technology, Inc., Sanjay Mehrotra,
Ernest E. Maddock and David A. Zinsner, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02136, (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2019), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this litigation, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements
and such other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Micron Technology is in the business of innovative memory and
storage solutions. It failed to disclose to investors that it was
engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with Samsung Electronics and
SK Hynix. Following publication of this news, Micron Technology's
stock price fell drastically, from $39.44 at close on Friday,
November 16, 2018, to $36.83 at close on Monday, November 19, 2018,
a drop of more than 7%. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (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
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


MIRAND RESPONSE: Drake Sues Over TCPA and FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Drake, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Mirand Response Systems, Inc. and Woodforest National
Bank, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01458-RLY-DML (S.D. Ind., April
10, 2019) brought a class action against Defendants under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and against MRS under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In connection with the collection of the Debt alleged to be owed to
Woodforest, MRS placed calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number. The Defendants routinely violate the TCPA by using an
automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded
voice to place, or cause to be placed, non-emergency calls to
telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without
prior express consent, in that they place, or cause to be placed,
autodialed calls to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone
numbers.

Upon information and good faith belief, MRS routinely violates the
FDCPA by leaving prerecorded voice messages for consumers, in an
attempt to collect a debt that do not disclose MRS's name. Because
MRS failed to disclose its name in the voice messages it left for
Plaintiff, MRS violated the FDCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in
Fishers, Indiana.

Based in Houston, Texas, MRS a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
     7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
     Boca Raton, FL 33487
     Phone: 561.826.5477
     Fax: 561.961.5684
     Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Phone: 312.283.3814
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


MJ-MC HOME: Adolphe Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Fridane Adolphe, individually and on behalf of the other persons
similarly situated v. MJ-MC Home Health Care Agency, Case No.
1:19-cv-01510 (E.D. N.Y., March 15, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants violated NYLL and FLSA by practice and policy of
requiring the Plaintiff to regularly work in excess of 40 hours in
any given week, without providing the proper overtime hourly
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any
given week. Additionally, the Defendant has failed to provide wage
notices and statements.

The Plaintiff was a home health care attendant employed by the
Defendant to provide personal home health care and assistance to
the Defendant's clients in their homes. The Plaintiff worked for
the Defendant from October 2016 through May 2017.

The Defendant is a business corporation incorporated under the laws
of the State of New York, with its principal locations at 1575 East
19th Street, Fl. 2, Brooklyn, New York, 11230 and 2900 Ocean
Avenue, Apt. 3F, Brooklyn, New York, 11235. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Joel Goldenberg, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


MOTEL 6: Marshall Suit Asserts FACTA Violation
----------------------------------------------
GLENN MARSHALL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MOTEL 6 OPERATING L.P. (d/b/a Motel 6); and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19016094
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 23, 2019) is an action based
on Defendants' violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act ("FACTA").

The law gave merchants who accept credit and or debit cards up to
three years to comply with its requirements, requiring full
compliance with its provisions no later than December 4, 2006.
Although Defendants had years to comply, Defendants have willfully
violated this law and failed to protect Plaintiff and others
similarly situated against identity theft and credit a d debit card
fraud by printing more than the last 5 digits of the card number on
receipts provided to debit card and/or credit card cardholders
transacting business with Defendants. More specifically, Defendants
printed the first 6 digits and the last 4 digits of the card
number. This conduct is in direct violation of FACTA, says the
complaint.

In sum, Defendants have violated FACTA, and have placed the
security of Plaintiff and similarly situated Class members at risk.
As a result of Defendants' unlawful practice of violating FACTA's
provisions intended to safeguard against identity theft and credit
and debit card fraud, Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the
Class, statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney
fees.

Plaintiff was a customer of Defendants, having made a purchase or
transacted other business with Defendants within two years from the
date of filing this action, using a credit and or debit card.

MOTEL 6 owns, manages, maintains and or operates one or more
physical locations within California, through which it offers
various goods and services for sale to retail customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chant Yedalian, Esq.
     CHANT & COMPANY
     A Professional Law Corporation
     1010 N. Central Ave.
     Glendale, CA 91202
     Phone: 877.574.7100
     Fax: 877.574.9411
     Email: chant@chant.mobi


MOWI ASA: Euclid Fish Co. Files Suit Over Salmon Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Euclid Fish Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine
Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of
Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes
Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc.,
Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar
ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish
Sea Farms Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21551-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
April 23, 2019) is a lawsuit arising from unlawful coordination of
the prices charged to direct purchasers of farm-raised salmon and
salmon products derived therefrom (such as salmon fillets or smoked
salmon) which were sold directly by Defendants between July 1, 2015
and the present, asserting violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Act.

The European Commission ("EC") recently confirmed "that on 19
February 2019 its officials carried out unannounced inspections in
several Member States at the premises of several companies in the
sector of farmed Atlantic salmon". The EC commenced its
investigation by sending a letter in early February 2019 to the
world's dominant suppliers of farm-raised salmon and their
affiliates, in which it explained that it had received information
that the companies--the Defendants--are "participating in or have
participated in anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted
practices related to different ways of price coordination in order
to sustain and possibly increase the prices for Norwegian salmon".

Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class consisting of all persons and
entities in the United States and its territories who directly
purchased farm-raised salmon or products derived therefrom from one
or more Defendants and/or entities owned or controlled by them from
July 1, 2015 to the present, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Euclid Fish Company is an Ohio corporation that
specializes in the distribution of fish and seafood to restaurants,
specialty stores, country clubs, hotels, and casinos throughout the
mid-west.

Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA) ("Mowi") is a Norwegian seafood
company with operations in several countries around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
     Daniel E. Tropin, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
     2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: 305/384-7269
     Email: gilbert@kolawyers.com
            tropin@kolawyers.com

          - and -

     Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
     Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery St. #3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 633-1908
     Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
            clebsock@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Email: rgambhir@hausfeld.com


MR. CLARK 3473: Conner Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MR. CLARK 3473
OPERATING LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. MR. CLARK 3473 OPERATING LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02682 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2019).

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

MR. CLARK 3473 OPERATING LLC is in the Hotel and accommodation
services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     73 West Monroe Street
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Made Unsolicited Calls, Carlin Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Carlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Solutions, LLC f/k/a Navient
Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Sallie Mae, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00491 (E.D. Va., April 19, 2019) seeks damages, and other
legal and equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
defendant, either directly or indirectly by some other person
acting as its agent or on its behalf, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully making calls to the cellular phone numbers of
plaintiff and class and subclass members using an "automatic
telephone dialing system," and/or using "an artificial or
prerecorded voice" without their prior express consent within the
meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the
Federal Communication Commission.

The Defendant's calls to plaintiff's cell phone number for
non-emergency purposes and in the absence of plaintiff's prior
express consent violated the TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of Wisconsin.

Defendant is the largest student loan servicer in the United
States. Defendant services the loans of more than 12 million
borrowers and more than $300 billion in federal and private student
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William L. Downing, Esq.
     CONSUMER LEGAL SOLUTIONS, PC
     1071 Bay Breeze Drive
     Suffolk, VA 23435
     Phone: 757-942-2554
     Email: wdowninglaw@aol.com.com

          - and -

     Benjamin J. Miller, Esq.
     THE HIGGINS FIRM, PLLC
     525 4th Ave S
     Nashville, TN 37210
     Phone: (615) 353-0930
     Email: ben@higginsfirm.com


NBTY INC: Porter et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------
RYAN PORTER and HAARIN KWON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the  Plaintiffs, vs. NBTY, INC., UNITED
STATES NUTRITION, INC., HEALTHWATCHERS (DE), INC., and MET-RX
NUTRITION, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11459 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying these class and subclasses:

      Multi-State Consumer Protection Class:

      "all persons who purchased one or more units of Body
Fortress
      Super Advanced Whey Protein, with labels stating '52g PREMIUM

      PROTEIN' or '60g PREMIUM PROTEIN,' and which do not include
      '+9 SUPER RECOVERY BLEND:' (1) in the states of Minnesota,
      New Jersey, and Washington from December 18, 2009 through the

      date of class notice; (2) in the state Missouri from December

      18, 2010 through the date of class notice; (3) in the states

      of California, Florida, and Massachusetts from December 18,
      2011 through the date of class notice; (4) in the states of
      Illinois and Michigan from December 18, 2012 through the date

      of class notice; and (5) in the state of New York from July
      1, 2012 through the date of class notice, excluding persons
      who purchased for the purpose of resale";

      Illinois Consumer Fraud Act Subclass:

      "all persons who purchased one or more units of Body Fortress

      Super Advanced Whey Protein, with labels stating '52g PREMIUM

      PROTEIN' or '60g PREMIUM PROTEIN,' and which do not include
      '+9 SUPER RECOVERY BLEND,' in the state of Illinois from
      December 18, 2012 through the date of class notice, excluding

      persons who purchased for the purpose of resale"; and

      New York GBL sections 349 & 350 Subclass:

      "all persons who purchased one or more units of Body Fortress

      Super Advanced Whey Protein, with labels stating '52g PREMIUM

      PROTEIN' or '60g PREMIUM PROTEIN,' and which do not include
      '+9 SUPER RECOVERY BLEND,' in the state of New York from July

      1, 2012 through the date of class notice, excluding persons
      who purchased for the purpose of resale."

   2. appointing class counsel, and

   3. appointing class representatives.

Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey Protein is a whey protein powder
product. Consumers purchased it to consume whey protein. But the
Defendants admit that it did not contain as much protein as
advertised. Defendants represented on the labeling of the Product
that it contains "52g PREMIUM PROTEIN" or "60g PREMIUM PROTEIN" per
two scoops.  It does not. Defendants admit that while Formulations
1-3 were labeled as containing "52g PREMIUM PROTEIN" per two
scoops, they contained only approximately grams of protein (for
Formulation 1) and grams of protein (for Formulations 2-3) per two
scoops. Defendants also admit that while Formulation 4 was labeled
as containing "60g PREMIUM PROTEIN" per two scoops, it contained
only approximately grams of protein per two scoops. In other words,
every single consumer who purchased a tub of Body Fortress Super
Advanced Whey Protein for Formulations 1-4 was cheated by.  And
because the Protein Content Claim was made to all class members,
the veracity of the Claim is an issue common to the class, the
lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          Michael M. Chang, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 236 0000
          Facsimile: 312 878 1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  tmclawhorn@siprut.com
                  mchang@siprut.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MH 48302
          Telephone: 313 303 3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 646 837 7150
          Facsimile: 212 989 9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com

NCAA: Chipps Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Chipps, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01594-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 22,
2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Towson University ("Towson") student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Towson football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Towson football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Dale Chipps is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Maryland.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Gillus Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willie Gillus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01600-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., April 22,
2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Norfolk State University ("NSU") student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other NSU football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former NSU football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Willie Gillus is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Virginia.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Walker Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, JESSYKA WALKER, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NORRED & ASSOCIATES, INC., a
Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02944 (Filed March 1, 2019) was transferred from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. Plaintiff's complaint does not allege an
amount in controversy or other facts from which it can be
ascertained that the case is removable. Separate from failing to
state the amount of the putative class's alleged damages, the
complaint expressly -- and erroneously -- asserts that the number
of putative class members is 60, which, if taken as true, would
fail the numerosity requirement for removal under Class Action
Fairness Act. In the complaint, Plaintiff Jessyka Walker asserts
nine causes of action including Defendant's failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to provide meal
and rest periods.

Norred is a corporate security firm that provides security guards
and employment-related investigative services to companies across
multiple industries and throughout the country. Norred employs
security guards in approximately six California locations and
approximately 300 locations nationwide. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq.
     Anthony Sbardellati, Esq.
     CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 909-7775
     Facsimile: (424) 465-6630
     E-mail: skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com
             asbardellati@constangy.com

             - and -

     Kimberly T. Bernstein, Esq.
     CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
     600 Anton Boulevard, Eleventh Floor
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (949) 743-3979
     Facsimile: (949) 743-3934
     E-mail: kbernstein@constangy.com


NORTH AMERICAN CREDIT: Zevon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North American Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Randi Zevon individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. North
American Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02343
(E.D. N.Y., April 22, 2019).

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

North American Credit Services, Inc. operates as a credit
collection agency. The Company collects and processes bad debt
accounts and healthcare receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


O ORGANICS: Freedline Sues Over Misleading and False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Freedline, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. O Organics LLC and Lucerne Foods, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01945-EDL (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2019)
seeks relief for Defendants' violations of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),  False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), for breach of express and implied
warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

The action is filed on behalf of all purchasers of O Organic
Kombucha beverages.

O Organics and Lucerne have passed off their entire line of O
Organics Kombucha1 beverages as non-alcoholic, when, in fact, the
beverages contain more than three to five times the alcohol allowed
for non-alcoholic beverages. The alcoholic beverages are sold to
unsuspecting children, pregnant women, persons suffering with
alcohol dependence issues, and a host of other people for whom
alcohol consumption may pose a grave and immediate safety risk.

Further, O Organics and Lucerne greatly understate the sugar
content of O Organics Kombucha beverages on the products' labels,
making the beverages appear healthier than they really are. The
undeclared sugar content of O Organics Kombucha beverages
contributes to the continued fermentation of the beverages after
bottling. Such continued fermentation in part causes O Organics
Kombucha beverages to cross the .5 percent alcohol by volume
threshold set for non-alcoholic beverages. Plaintiff purchased
numerous bottles of O Organics Kombucha based on Defendants'
misleading and false advertising and labeling of the products, says
the complaint.

Mr. Freedline purchased O Organics Kombucha beverages from
Albertsons stores within California.

O Organics brews and bottles its O Organics Kombucha beverages in
California. O Organics manufactures, advertises, sells, and markets
O Organics Kombucha beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
     Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
            ykrivoshey@bursor.com
            fklorczyk@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 989-9112
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     Email: scott@bursor.com


OHIO MULCH: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JORDAN WOLFE, et al, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, vs. OHIO MULCH
SUPPLY, INC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01698-ALM-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marble entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying these classes pursuant to the Fair
      Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

      Flat Rate Driver Subclass:

      "all current and former drivers ofDefendants who during the
      previous three years worked over 40 hours in any work week
      who were compensated by a flat rate per delivery regardless
      of how many hours were worked"; and

      Hourly Rate Driver Subclass:

      "all current and former drivers of Defendants who during the

      previous three years worked over 40 hours in any work week
      who were compensated at their normal hourly rate (i.e.
      straight time) for all hours worked per work week."

      Collectively, the two subclasses shall be referred to as "the

      216(b) Class" or "216(b) Class Members." The Defendants
      retain the right to move for de-certification at a later
      date.

   2. approving the form and substance of the Notice;

   3. approving the form and substance of the "Consent to Join"
      form included as an exhibit to the Stipulated Motion;

   4. authorizing the Notice Packet to be sent to putative
      members of the collective action, and authorizing 60-day
      period for individuals to return the Consent Forms from
      the date the Notices are sent. This time period constitutes
      the "Notice Period."

   5. directing Defendants to provide to Plaintiffs the names,
      last known address, phone numbers, and location(s) worked
      for the putative class members, in Microsoft Excel format.
      The Defendants shall provide the information no later than
      14 days from the date of this Order. During the notice
      period, Plaintiffs' counsel shall only use this list
      to communicate with putative class members"; and

   6. directing Plaintiffs' Counsel to send to putative class
      members the Notice Packet as approved by the Court and to
      send nothing further.[BN]

PAYCRON INC: Jackson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Jackson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Paycron Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00609 (M.D. Fla., March 11, 2019), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Paycron provides credit card processing services and uses
telemarketing to promote its products. It used a pre-recorded voice
message call to consumers in order to promote it service without
consent. Jackson is registered on the National Do Not Call
registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PETE'S FRESH: Collier Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
--------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Collier, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. PETE'S FRESH
MARKET 2526 CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05125 (Circuit
Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 22, 2019) asserts that Plaintiff
experienced emotional distress over whether Defendant is currently
storing, disposed of, or will eventually dispose of, his biometric
identifiers and information securely.

Throughout his employment, Defendant required employees to use a
biometric time clock system to record their time worked. Defendant
required Plaintiff and other employees to scan their fingerprints
in Defendant's biometric time clock when they started working a
shift, stopped for lunch, returned from lunch, and finished working
a shift.

Defendant collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique
biometric fingerprint identifiers, or information derived from
those identifiers, of Plaintiff and others similarly situated
without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, says the complaint. As a result, Defendant
violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the
privacy and security of the biometric identifiers and information
of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees.

Plaintiff was employed as a cashier at Defendant's supermarket in
Chicago, Illinois from approximately September 2018 through
November 2018.

Defendant is an Illinois corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     Werman Salas, P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            msalas@flsalaw.com
            sarendt@flsalaw.com
            zf1owerree@flsalaw.com


PIONEER ENERGY: Nugent Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM NUGENT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PIONEER ENERGY SERVICES CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01492 (S.D. Tex., April 23, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and expenses,
and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff regularly worked far more than
40 hours per workweek but was not paid any overtime compensation.
Instead, Pioneer willfully misclassified Plaintiff (and other
similarly situated workers) as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Plaintiff's job duties, as well as similarly situated workers,
do not fit within any exemption to the FLSA's overtime
requirements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a Tool Pusher performing a variety of manual
labor, such as operating equipment in connection with drilling
activities.

Defendant, Pioneer Energy Services Corp. operates a drilling
business that conducts business throughout Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DAVID M. MEDEARIS, ESQ.
     H. DAN JOHNSTON, ESQ.
     SULLINS, JOHNSTON, ROHRBACH & MAGERS
     3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2200
     Houston, TX 77027
     Phone: (713) 521-0221
     Fax: (713) 521-3242
     Email: dmedearis@sjrm.com
            djohnston@sjrm.com


PIZZAROTTI LLC: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gil Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY GIL, and RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PIZZAROTTI, LLC, ATLANTIC
CONTRACTING OF YONKERS, INC., JOEL ACEVEDO, IGNAZIO CAMPOCCIA,
GIACOMO DI'NOLA a/k/a GIACOMO DI NOLA, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10,
and RICHARD ROES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03497 (S.D.
N.Y., April 19, 2019) seeks unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages
based upon Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the
supporting regulations.

Even in those weeks in which Defendants recorded Plaintiffs, the
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class Members as having worked
more than 40 hours per week, Defendants failed to pay them
overtime-premiums at the rate of one and one half times their
regular hourly rate of pay, asserts the complaint. The Defendants
did not compensate Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class Members for all of the time they worked.

Plaintiff ANDY GIL was employed by the Defendants from May, 2018
until the end of February 2019.

Defendant PIZZAROTTI, LLC. is a Delaware Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
     110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Phone: (718) 799-9111
     Fax: (718) 799-9171
     Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com


PPB INC: Conyers to Recover Unpaid Wages, Benefits
--------------------------------------------------
Eva Conyers, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PPB, INC. d/b/a PRIME PROTECTIVE
BUREAU and other affiliated entities that employed Plaintiff and
members of the putative class, Defendants, Case No. 154080/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cty., April 19, 2019) seek to recover wages
and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily entitled to receive
pursuant to New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations ("NYCRR").

Beginning in approximately April 2013 and continuing through the
present, PPB required Plaintiffs to work during their breaks,
required Plaintiffs to work more than 10 hours in a day without
paying the spread-of-hours premium set forth in NYCRR, and required
Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did not offer to launder them or to
provide the uniform maintenance pay set forth in NYCRR, says the
complaint.

Named Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately June
2018 to March 12, 2019 as a security guard.

Defendant PPB, Inc. d/b/a Prime Protective Bureau is a domestic
business Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     Jack L. Newhouse
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 212-943-9080
     Fax: 212-943-9082
     Email: lambinder@vandallp.com


PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Donaldson Files Action Over lllegal Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Donaldson and Walter and Dawn Sperl on behalf of themselves
and the entire class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01175-JKB (D. Md., April 23, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint seeking damages from Defendants.

The complaint relates that Donaldson, the Sperls, and alleged Class
Members are victims of an illegal kickback and price fixing scheme
between Primary Residential and All Star Title, Inc. ("All Star"),
a Maryland title and settlement services company. Under the scheme,
Primary Residential by and through its branch managers, loan
officers, agents and/or other employees received and accepted
illegal kickbacks in exchange for the assignment and referral of
residential mortgage loans, refinances and reverse mortgages to All
Star for title and settlement services in violation of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Primary Residential and
All Star laundered the kickbacks through third party marketing
companies to conceal the illegal kickbacks and the kickback
agreement.

Specifically, the All Star Scheme, racketeering activity, and
Kickback and Cartel Agreements, along with the resulting illegal
kickbacks and supracompetitive prices, were fraudulently concealed
by Primary Residential and All Star from Donaldson, the Sperls, and
alleged Class Members by: laundering kickbacks through third party
marketing companies, creating sham invoice and payment records,
fraudulent representations in marketing materials, false allocation
of title and settlement fees and manipulation of the APR associated
with Primary Residential loans, and false and fraudulent
representations and omissions in Primary Residential borrowers'
loan documents. These fraudulent concealments prevented borrowers,
regulators and auditors from discovering the All Star Scheme,
racketeering activity, or Kickback and Cartel Agreements, or the
injuries to Primary Residential Borrowers therefrom, and allowed
the kickbacks and supracompetitive fees to continue, says the
complaint.  

Plaintiffs and alleged Class Members are borrowers who currently
have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and/or brokered
by Defendant.

Primary Residential Mortgage Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
     Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
     Megan A. Benevento, Esq.
     Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A.
     6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
     Greenbelt, MD 20770
     Phone: (301) 220-2200
     Fax: (301) 220-1214
     Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
            vnannis@jgllaw.com
            mbenevento@jgllaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
     Melissa L. English, Esq.
     Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
     Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC
     600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
     Towson, MD 21204
     Phone: (410) 821-0070
     Fax: (410) 821-0071
     Email: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
            menglish@sgs-law.com
            szadrozny@sgs-law.com


PRINTERS ROW: Violates Disabilities Act, Conner Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Printers Row, LLC.
The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Printers Row, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02685 (N.D. Ill.,
April 22, 2019).

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

Printers Row, LLC engages in the development of hotels. The company
owns Hotel Blake in Chicago.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     73 West Monroe Street
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


QUORUM HEALTH: Appeals Cert. Class Order in Zwick Partners Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Community Health Systems, Inc., Quorum Health
Corporation, Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and
Michael J. Culotta filed an appeal from the March 29, 2019 District
Court Order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the lawsuit titled ZWICK
PARTNERS, LP AND APARNA RAO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. QUORUM HEALTH
CORPORATION, COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, W.
LARRY CASH, THOMAS D. MILLER, AND MICHAEL J. CULOTTA,
Defendants-Petitioners, Case No. 3:16-cv-02475, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2019, the
Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., granted in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: QUORUM HEALTH
CORPORATION; THOMAS D. MILLER; MICHAEL J. CULOTTA; COMMUNITY HEALTH
SYSTEMS, INC.; WAYNE T. SMITH; W. LARRY CASH, Case No. 19-505, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Defendants want the Appeals Court to determine:

   1. whether the District Court applied the wrong legal standard
      in holding that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's
      holding in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
      ("Halliburton II"), 573 U.S. 258 (2014), the court was
      constrained only to "take a peek" at evidence regarding
      price impact at the class-certification stage; and

   2. whether, as a consequence, the District Court failed to
      evaluate Defendants' evidence rebutting the
      fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance recognized in
      Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
           Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
           BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
           40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
           P.O. Box 150734
           Nashville, TN 37215
           Telephone: (615) 248-2828
           Facsimile: (866) 816-4116
           E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
                   Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

               - and -

           Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
           Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
           HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
           1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
           Atlanta, GA 30338
           Telephone: (770) 392-0090
           Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
           E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                   mdees@holzerlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mjwernke@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  mgorrie@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          James A. Holifield, Jr., Esq.
          HOLIFIELD JANICH RACHAL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201
          Knoxville, TN 37934
          Telephone: (865) 566-0115
          E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com

Movant Mitch Mongell is represented by:

          Wade B. Cowan, Esq.
          DAVIES, HUMPHREYS, HORTON & REESE, PLC
          85 White Bridge Road, Suite 300
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 256-8125
          E-mail: wcowan@dhhrplc.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Jessica Perry Corley, Esq.
          Lisa R. Bugni, Esq.
          Brandon R. Keel, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4717
          E-mail: jpcorley@kslaw.com
                  lbugni@kslaw.com
                  bkeel@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Gary A. Orseck, Esq.
          Wendy Liu, Esq.
          ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK, UNTEREINER &
          SAUBER LLP
          2000 K Street, N.W., 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 775-4500
          E-mail: gorseck@robbinsrussell.com
                  wliu@robbinsrussell.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Walker, Esq.
          Jason W. Callen, Esq.
          Lauren Patten, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          The Pinnacle at Symphony Place
          150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 651-6700
          E-mail: Bob.Walker@butlersnow.com
                  Jason.Callen@butlersnow.com
                  Lauren.Patten@butlersnow.com


ROCK SOLID: Gatlin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gatlin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Lary K. Zeno, III, Rock Solid Restoration
and Construction, LLC, and Rock Solid Staffing, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00282-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 22, 2019) is action
against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, ("AMWA").

Plaintiff spoke directly with Defendant Zeno about not receiving
lawful overtime wages of time and a half for all time worked over
40 hours in a week, but Defendants refused to pay more than
Plaintiff's straight time hourly rate for any and all hours
worked.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of Defendants'
receipt of services performed by Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiff began his employment with Defendants in March of 2017,
and he continued his employment with Defendants until July of 2018.


Defendant Zeno owns and operates three companies, including Rock
Solid Restoration and Construction, LLC; Rock Solid Staffing, LLC;
and Rock Solid Removal, LLC, with the shared website of
https://www.rocksolidar.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve Rauls, 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: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SB DIRECTIONAL: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Foutch Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton D. Foutch, Clint Stallwort, Jobin Sims, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown
Plaintiffs, v. SB DIRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, and SCOTT BURCH
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00362-HE (W.D. Okla., April 22, 2019)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages.

Plaintiffs were often scheduled for 12-hour or longer shifts, for
up to 7 days a week and/or were on call 24/7. However, Plaintiffs
never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40.
Plaintiffs worked well in excess of 40 hours each week while
employed with Defendants who improperly classified them as
independent contractors and not employees, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked exclusively for Defendants as Directional
Drillers from June 2017 until March 18, 2018.

SB Directional Services LLC ("SB") is a company organized under the
laws of Oklahoma with its headquarters in Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacque Pearsall, Esq.
     920 Majestic Ave
     Yukon, OK 73099
     Office Phone: 405.354.5536
     Facsimile: 405.673.5785
     Email: JacquePearsall@gmail.com


SCOTT BENNETT: Paz-Rivera Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Antonio Paz-Rivera, individually and on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Scott Bennett
Construction, Inc. and Scott Bennett, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00207, (M.D. Tenn., March 7, 2019) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to
pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Scott Bennett is into building and remodeling of residential homes
and commercial buildings where Paz-Rivera worked as a carpenter. He
claims to have routinely worked more than forty hours per week
without overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nina Parsley, Esq.
      PONCE LAW
      400 Professional Park Drive
      Goodlettsville, TN 37072
      nina@poncelaw.com

             - and -

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


SHAW INDUSTRIES: Appeals Dist. Ct. Ruling in Fitch Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Shaw Industries Group, Inc. and Shaw Industries, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Randolph
Fitch v. Shaw Industries, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00590-RGK-MAA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Randolph Fitch v. Shaw
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-80044, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RANDOLPH FITCH, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, is
represented by:

          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com

Defendants-Petitioners SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC., and SHAW INDUSTRIES
GROUP, INC., are represented by:

          Tracey Adano Kennedy, Esq.
          Tyler James Johnson, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com
                  tjjohnson@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Michaela Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (424) 288-5303
          E-mail: mgoldstein@sheppardmullin.com


SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Boddie Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------
MIKKI BODDIE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; BBA AVIATION USA, INC.; a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-19-575150 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 10, 2019)
seeks to recover unpaid wages and complains of unfair labor
practices of the Defendants.

The Complaint states that in violation of California law,
Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their
obligations to compensate Plaintiff and class members for all wages
earned and all hours worked for all overtime, which is calculated
at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week.

As a proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions and
omissions, Plaintiff and class members have been deprived of
compensation in an amount according to proof at the time of trial,
but in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court, and are entitled to
recovery of such amounts, plus interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to California Labor Code, says the Complaint.

Ms. Boddie is a former employee of the Defendants.

Signature Flight Support Corporation, a fixed base operator,
provides support services for business and private aviation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310) 531-1900
     Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
     Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
            mstahle@maternlawgroup.com


SIMPLE FINANCE: Crosson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
ARETHA CROSSON, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SIMPLE FINANCE
TECHNOLOGY CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02350 (E.D. N.Y.,
April 23, 2019) is a civil rights action against Simple for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA"), asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Simple's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.

Simple.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, information, price specials, employment opportunities and
other programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


SMART/OLYMPIA: Conner Files ADA Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMART/OLYMPIA
ILLINOIS LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. SMART/OLYMPIA ILLINOIS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02684 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2019).

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

SMART/OLYMPIA ILLINOIS LLC is in the Hotel and restaurant services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     73 West Monroe Street
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


SODEXO INC: Bid for Class Certification Moot, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit ESTEVAN RIVERA, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff,
vs. SODEXO, INC., a Delaware Corporation, SDH EDUCATION WEST LLC, a
Delaware LLC, and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-10086-RGK-JPR (C.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 4, 2018), the Hon.
Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order declaring as moot
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and directing Clerk to
remove the matter from the hearing calendar.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Eric S. Mintz, Esq.
          Theodore R. Tang, Esq.
          Emmanuel Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER, APC
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: eric@frontierlawcenter.com
                  theodore@frontierlawcenter.com
                  manny@frontierlawcenter.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Paul a. Holton, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  paulholton@paulhastings.com

SPECTRUM BRANDS: May 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the May 6,
2019  deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Spectrum Brands Legacy,
Inc. f/k/a Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. ("Spectrum" or the
"Company") (NYSE:  SPB ) securities between May 3, 2017 and
February 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Spectrum
investors have until  May 6, 2019  to file a lead plaintiff motion
in this class action.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com

On April 26, 2018, Spectrum announced its financial and operating
results for the fiscal quarter ended April 1, 2018. For the
quarter, Spectrum reported net income of $0.8 million, or $0.02 per
diluted share, compared to net income of $39.9 million, or $0.68
per diluted share for the comparable period in the prior year. The
same day, Spectrum also announced that Andreas R. Rouvé had
stepped down as Spectrum's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and
Director and that David M. Maura had been named CEO, effectively
immediately. On this news, shares of Spectrum fell $20.50 per
share, or nearly 22%, to close at $72.22 per share on April 26,
2018, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Spectrum
was facing operational issues with the development of its Ohio and
Kansas facilities; (2) these issues were negatively impacting
production, shipping levels, and sales; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities during
the Class Period you may move the Court no later than May 6, 2019
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. If you inquire by email please include your mailing
address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a
member of the class action you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn
more about this class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to the pending class action lawsuit please contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

SPEEDWAY LLC: DaRosa Suit to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph DaRosa, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Speedway LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10791 (D. Mass., April 22, 2019) is a class/collective
action lawsuit against Defendant seeking all available relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Massachusetts
Minimum Fair Wages Act ("MFWA").

Salaried General Managers often work over 40 hours per week. For
example, Plaintiff estimates that he worked an average of 55 hours
during a typical week. However, the Defendant does not pay salaried
General Managers any overtime compensation for hours worked over 40
per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff primarily worked for the Defendant either alone in the
store or with only one other store employee.

Defendant operates approximately 2,740 convenience stores located
in 22 states, including Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com

          - and -

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


STEVENSON UNIVERSITY: Brooks Seeks Pay for Hrs Worked More than 40
------------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELLA BROOKS Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Employees, Plaintiff, v. STEVENSON UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01159-ADC (D. Md., April 19, 2019)
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"); Maryland Wage and Hour Law
("MWHL"); and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
("MWPCL").

Plaintiff and other Administrative Student Assistants and Athletic
Student Assistants consistently worked more hours than they were
scheduled to work. They routinely worked 30 to 40 hours each week.
There were times when they worked even more. Regardless of how many
hours they worked, Defendant had a strict policy of only permitting
its Student Assistants to report working a limited number of hours
on their time sheets each week. The weekly number of hours they
were permitted to record was typically between 10 and 20. The
Defendant strictly prohibited its student employees from reporting
working beyond the capped number of weekly hours designated for
their particular position, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a receptionist for the University when
she was an undergraduate student.

Stevenson University, Inc. is a private higher-learning institution
in Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
            kaburgy@nicholllaw.com


SUMMIT RETAIL: Modeski's Class of Brand Representatives Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH MODESKI,
et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees v. SUMMIT RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-12383-FDS (D. Mass.).

Judge Saylor denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  The
Defendant shall produce to counsel for the Plaintiffs the names and
last known addresses of the conditionally certified collective
action members within 21 days of this order.

The case concerns claims by "Brand Representatives" against their
employer, Defendant Summit Retail Solutions, for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and analogous laws of Maryland, New York,
and Pennsylvania.  The Plaintiffs contend that Summit improperly
classified its Brand Representatives as overtime-exempt and, thus,
denied them overtime compensation to which they were entitled.[CC]


SUNCOKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Deficient SEC Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Blankenship, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., MICHAEL G.
RIPPEY, ALVIN BLEDSOE, MARTHA Z. CARNES, KATHERINE GATES, P.
MICHAEL HARDESTY, JOHN W. SOMERHALDER, II, FAY WEST, SUNCOKE
ENERGY, INC., SC ENERGY ACQUISITION LLC, and SUNCOKE ENERGY
PARTNERS GP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00715-UNA (D. Del.,
April 19, 2019) is a unitholder class action on behalf of Plaintiff
and all other public unitholders of SunCoke Enegy Partners, L.P.
("SXCP" or the "Partnership"), against SXCP, SunCoke Energy
Partners GP, LLC the ("GP"), GP's Board of Directors, for
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and for
breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to
sell the Partnership to SunCoke Energy, Inc. ("Parent"), SC Energy
Acquisition, LLC ("Merger Sub") as a result of an unfair process
for an unfair price, and to enjoin an upcoming untiholder vote on a
proposed all-stock transaction valued at approximately $707 million
(the "Proposed Transaction").

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
February 5, 2019, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, SXCP will become an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of SunCoke Energy, and SXCP unitholders will receive
1.40 shares of SunCoke Energy common stock for each unit of SXCP
they own, resulting in a merger consideration of approximately
$15.30 per SXCP unit based upon the closing stock price of $10.93
per share of SunCoke Energy common stock on February 4, 2019, the
last full day of trading preceding the entry into the merger
agreement. Thereafter, on March 8, 2019, SunCoke Energy filed a
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the "S-4") with the SEC in
support of the Proposed Transaction. On April 11, 2019, SunCoke
Energy filed a S-4/A with the SEC.

In violation of the Exchange Act, and in in further violation of
their fiduciary duties, Defendants caused to be filed materially
deficient S-4 on March 11, 2019 with the SEC, followed by an S-4/A
on April 11, 2019, both in an effort to solicit unitholders to vote
their SXCP units in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The S-4/A is
materially deficient, deprives SXCP unitholders of the information
they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of
whether to vote their units in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
and is thus in breach of the Defendants fiduciary duties, asserts
the complaint.

Specifically, the S-4/A omits and/or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process
and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b)
the financial projections for SXCP, provided by SXCP to the
Conflict's Committee financial advisor Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. ("Citi") for use in its financial analyses; (c) the financial
projections for SunCoke Energy, provided by SunCoke Energy to the
Parent's financial advisor Evercore Group L.L.C. ("Evercore") for
use in its financial analyses; and (d) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to support
the fairness opinions provided by the Conflict's Committee's
financial advisor, Citi; and the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness
opinions provided by SunCoke Energy's financial advisor, Citi,
notes the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of Ohio and has been a SXCP unitholder.

Defendant SXCP is a master limited partnership that produces and
sells coke used in the blast furnace production of steel in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Phone: 610.667.6200
     Email: mackerman@brodskysmith.com
            rcardona@brodskysmith.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: LR Trust Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
LR TRUST, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., WILLIAM H. ROGERS, JR., AGNES
BUNDY SCANLAN, DALLAS S. CLEMENT, PAUL R. GARCIA, M. DOUGLAS
IVESTER, DONNA S. MOREA, DAVID M. RATCLIFFE, FRANK P. SCRUGGS, JR.,
BRUCE L. TANNER, STEVEN C. VOORHEES, and THOMAS R. WATJEN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01622-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 10, 2019)
is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
itself and all other public stockholders of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
against SunTrust and the members of SunTrust's Board of Directors
for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC")  and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which SunTrust will be acquired by affiliates of BB&T
Corporation ("BB&T").

SunTrust and BB&T issued a joint press release announcing they had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 7, 2019
(the "Merger Agreement") to sell SunTrust to BB&T. Under the terms
of the Merger Agreement, each SunTrust stockholder will receive
1.295 shares of BB&T common stock for each share of SunTrust common
stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $66 billion.

On March 11, 2019, SunTrust and BB&T filed a joint proxy
statement/prospectus on Form S-4 (the "Registration Statement")
with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that
SunTrust stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) SunTrust's and BB&T's financial projections relied upon
by the Company's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
("Goldman") in its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses
prepared by Goldman in connection with the rendering of its
fairness opinion; and (iii) the background process leading to the
Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a the Exchange Act as SunTrust
stockholders need such information in order to make a fully
informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction.

In short, unless remedied, SunTrust's public stockholders will be
forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction being provided to them, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant, a continuous
stockholder of SunTrust.

SunTrust is a leading provider of financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, institutions and not-for-profit entities.
SunTrust's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under
the ticker symbol "STI".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     476 Hardendorf Ave. NE
     Atlanta, GA 30307
     Phone: (404) 692-7910
     Fax: (212) 682-3010
     Email: mrogovin@weisslawllp.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: 212/682-3025
     Facsimile: 212/682-3010


SUPERIOR CAKES: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
GLADYS ESTHER CONCEPCION GONZALEZ and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR CAKES, INC. D/B/A/ GRAN PARIS
BAKERY, SEGUNDO PLA SR., SEGUNDO PLA JR., and MERCEDES PLA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21540 (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2019) is
an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Between the period of June 6, 2014 through April 14, 2019,
Plaintiff worked an average of 49 hours a week for Defendants and
was paid an average of $9.75 per hour but was not paid the extra
time and a half rate for the hours worked over 40 hours in a week
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff, therefore,
claims the time and a half overtime rate for each hour worked above
40 in a week.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a bakery employee from June 6,
2014 through March 14, 2019.

GRAN PARIS BAKERY, is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Salas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Alfred Salas, et al. v. Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08629-FMO-E, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15,
2019, the Hon. Fernando M. Olguin granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.  The Court certified the Rule 23(b)(3)
Class defined as:

     (1) A California-only class consisting of all persons in
     California who purchased or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry
     XV 50 model vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer; (2) a
     California CLRA sub-class consisting of all members of the
     California class who are "consumers" within the meaning of
     California Civil Code Section 1761(d).

The appellate case is captioned as Alfred Salas, et al. v. Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 19-80042, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents ALFRED SALAS, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, and GLORIA ORTEGA,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:

          Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
          Cody Robert Padgett, Esq.
          Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles CA 900067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          THE OZZELLO PRACTICE, PC
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite A380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (844) 774-2020
          Facsimile: (844) 774-2020
          E-mail: mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Petitioner TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California
corporation, is represented by:

          Esther K. Ro, Esq.
          David L. Schrader, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA
          Telephone: (213) 612-7434
          E-mail: esther.ro@morganlewis.com
                  david.schrader@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Peterson, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1198
          E-mail: thomas.peterson@morganlewis.com


TREEHOUSE FOODS: MSPERS Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI (MSPERS),
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., SAM K. REED, DENNIS F. RIORDAN
and CHRISTOPHER D. SLIVA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10632
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and
      entities who purchased TreeHouse Foods, Inc. common stock
      on the open market between January 20, 2016, and November 2,
      2016, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;

   2. appointing MSPERS as the Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Wolf Popper LLP and Robinson Curley P.C. as Lead
      and Liaison Counsel for the certified Class.[CC]

Attorneys for Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi:

          C. Philip Curley, Esq.
          Alan F. Curley, Esq.
          ROBINSON CURLEY P.C.
          300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 663-3100
          Facsimile: (312) 663-0303
          E-mail: pcurley@robinsoncurley.com
                  acurley@robinsoncurley.com

               - and -

          Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12 th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: cbwaldman@wolfpopper.com
                  rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
                  minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
                  fqian@wolfpopper.com

TRIPLE S PROPERTIES: Martinez's Bid to Certify Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Roseann A. Ketchmark denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH MARTINEZ, et
al. v. TRIPLE S PROPERTIES, Case No. 6:17-03195-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.).

After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the
Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden as to
ascertainability, numerosity, injunctive relief, predominance, and
superiority.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, an
owner of residential rental properties, failed to give them certain
disclosures after it took adverse action against them based on
consumer reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The
Plaintiffs claim they were harmed without these notices because
they lost the opportunity to respond.  The Defendant admits it did
not have a practice of sending out adverse-action notices prior to
receiving notice of this lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of this class:

     All persons residing in Missouri who, within the five years
     preceding the filing of this petition who [sic],

     (a) submitted a lease application to Defendant, and

     (b) Defendant obtained a consumer credit report[,] and

     (c) Defendant took adverse action as to their lease
         application based upon typthe contents of their consumer
         credit report[,] and

     (d) who did not receive any FCRA adverse action notice from
         Defendant.

     Excluded from the above class definition are Defendants, any
     entity in which any Defendants has [sic] a controlling
     interest, any of the officers, directors, or employees of
     Defendants, the legal representatives, heirs, successors,
     and assigns of Defendants, or their immediate family and
     Plaintiffs' counsel.[CC]


TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Fodge Appeals W.D. La. Ruling to 5th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph E. Carey, Steven D. Fodge, Deborah A. Inovejas,
Lance K. Inovejas, Pamela R. Jeffcoat, Andrew J. Kaltenmark and Mr.
Jon A. Tokay filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit
titled Steven Fodge, et al. v. Trustmark National Bank, et al.,
Case No. 5:18-CV-386, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Shreveport.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages and injunctive relief for violation of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

The Plaintiffs are United States military service members who took
out real estate mortgage loans with the individual Defendants while
they were in service and accuse them of charging interest in excess
of 6%, the cap set by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

The Defendants are financial institutions that provide real estate
mortgages and services.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Fodge, et al. v.
Trustmark National Bank, et al., Case No. 19-30279, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN D. FODGE, Individually and as
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons; JOSEPH
E. CAREY, Individually and as representative on behalf of all
similarly situated persons; JON A. TOKAY, Individually and as
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons; PAMELA
R. JEFFCOAT, Individually and as representative on behalf of all
similarly situated persons; ANDREW J. KALTENMARK, Individually and
as representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons;
LANCE K. INOVEJAS, Individually and as representative on behalf of
all similarly situated persons; and DEBORAH A. INOVEJAS,
Individually and as representative on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, are represented by:

          John Scogin Odom, Jr., Esq.
          JONES, ODOM & POLITZ, L.L.P.
          2124 Fairfield Avenue
          Shreveport, LA 71104-0000
          Telephone: (318) 221-1600
          Facsimile: (318) 425-1256
          E-mail: john.odom@jodplaw.com

Defendant-Appellee TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK is represented by:

          Mark J. Neal, Esq.
          NEAL LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 14657
          Monroe, LA 71207
          Telephone: (318) 807-0926
          E-mail: mneal@neallawfirm.net

Defendant-Appellee OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C., is represented
by:

          Stephen Winthrop Rider, Esq.
          MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, P.L.L.C.
          601 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 596-2798
          E-mail: srider@mcglinchey.com

Defendant-Appellee BARKSDALE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is represented
by:

          Nancy Cundiff, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO, L.L.P.
          2315 Florida Street, Building 200
          Mandeville, LA 70448
          Telephone: (985) 377-0978
          E-mail: cundiff@litchfieldcavo.com

Defendant-Appellee PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, L.L.C., is represented
by:

          Bradley Clay Knapp, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, L.L.P.
          601 Poydras Street
          Pan American Life Center
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 558-5210
          E-mail: bknapp@lockelord.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by:

          Angelina Christina, Esq.
          MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, P.L.L.C.
          601 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 586-1200
          E-mail: achristina@mcglinchey.com


TWIN AMERICA: Ward et al. Seek to Certify Employee Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Iesha Ward, et al, the Plaintiffs, vs.
Twin America, LLC, et al, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00672-RCL (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs, with the consent of
Defendants, ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "Plaintiffs and all other CitySights DC employees (I) who
      were terminated without cause as the reasonably foreseeable
      consequence of the "CitySights DC" plant closing that
      occurred on or about December 27, 2017; (ii) who are
      "affected employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section

      2101(a)(5); and (iii) who have not filed a timely request to

      opt-out of the class";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as clasc counsel;

   3. appointing Ieasha Ward as Class representative; and

   4. postponing notice of class action until after discovery
      and dispositive motions.

Iesha Ward alleges that the Defendants together form a "business
enterprise" of over 100 employees, and that the Defendants employed
more than 50 full-time individuals in the Washington, D.C. area to
operate and facilitate its sight-seeing business. On or around
December 27, 2017, the Defendants abruptly closed CitySights DC and
ceased all operations within Washington D.C. without notice or
warning to its employees. As a result all CitySights DC employees,
which Plaintiffs allege consist of over 50 persons, had their
employment terminated.

The Defendants ran a touring company, known as CitySights DC, that
offered sight-seeing tours on its fleet of double-decker busses to
customers in Washington D.C.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 251 3752
          Facsimile: (301) 251 3753
          E-mail: hhhoffman@hohoalw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Douglas P. Hibsman, Esq.
          Keith A. Reinfeld, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP
          1030 15th Street N.W., Ste. 380 East
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 696 1479
          Facsimile: (202) 461 3102
          E-mail: dhibshman@foxrothschild.com
                  kreinfeld@foxrothschild.com

UNITED STATES: 5th Circuit Appeal Filed in People's Suit v. FEMA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Beulah Bennett, Walter E. Chapman, Sheila Flowers, Hazel
Harrell, Linda Keller, Lula London, Eugene Matthews, Pamela R.
Miller, Dora O'Connor, People's Workshop, Incorporated/Department
of Feliciana Housing Authority and Hazel Wilson filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in their lawsuit titled People's Workshop,
Inc., et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, et al., Case
No. 3:17-CV-107, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana, Baton Rouge.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in August
2016, Louisiana experienced historic flooding, causing the
President to declare a state of emergency.  The Plaintiffs allege
that, upon the declaration of emergency, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency ("FEMA") was required to provide people whose
homes were rendered uninhabitable or inaccessible with various
forms of disaster assistance on a non-discriminatory basis.

The Complaint generally claims that FEMA and its representatives,
both federal and local, have failed to provide adequate flood
relief to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege four causes of
action.  The first is for failure to provide temporary housing
assistance in violation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act.  The second is for failing to provide
temporary housing assistance in violation of the Plaintiffs' due
process rights.  The third is for denials and delays of temporary
housing assistance in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions
of the Stafford Act.  The final cause of action is for violating
the Plaintiffs' due process rights and Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.

The appellate case is captioned as People's Workshop, Inc., et al.
v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, et al., Case No. 19-30285,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Carol Denise Powell-Lexing, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CAROL D. POWELL-LEXING
          2485 Tower Drive
          Monroe, LA 71201
          Telephone: (318) 324-0700

Defendants-Appellees FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; KEVIN K.
MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
and DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, John Joseph Gaupp, are
represented by:

          John Joseph Gaupp, Esq.
          ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          777 Florida Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 389-0443
          E-mail: john.gaupp@usdoj.gov

Defendants-Appellees JODY MOREAU, Director of Homeland Security
East Feliciana Emergency Operations Center; JIM PARKER, Deputy
Emergency Manager East Feliciana Emergency Operations Center; EAST
FELICIANA POLICE JURY; GLEN KENT, Member of the Police Jury; CHRIS
HALL, Member of the Police Jury; KEITH MILLS, Member of the Police
Jury; DWIGHT HILL, Member of the Police Jury; and SEAN SMITH,
Member of the Police Jury, are represented by:

          Ben Louis Mayeaux, Esq.
          NEUNERPATE
          1001 W. Pinhook Road
          1 Petroleum Center
          Lafayette, LA 70503-2828
          Telephone: (337) 237-7000
          E-mail: bmayeaux@neunerpate.com

Defendants-Appellees LORI ANN BELL, Mayor, Town of Clinton; TOWN OF
CLINTON ALDERMAN; RUSS HICKS, Employee of the East Feliciana Police
Jury and the Town of Clinton as the Flood Plain Administrator; and
BOARD OF ALDERMAN, for the Town of Clinton, are represented by:

          Bradley Charles Myers, Esq.
          KEAN MILLER, L.L.P.
          400 Convention Street
          II City Plaza
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 387-0999
          E-mail: brad.myers@keanmiller.com


UNITED STATES: Kentucky Appeals Ruling in Stewart APA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex rel. Matthew G. Bevin,
Governor, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled
Ronnie Stewart, et al. v. Alex Azar, II, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00152-JEB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
are 16 Kentucky Medicaid enrollees, who brought the action under
the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), challenging the federal
government's approval of a new Kentucky Medicaid program, Kentucky
HEALTH.

The appellate case is captioned as Ronnie Stewart, et al. v. Alex
Azar, II, et al., Case No. 19-5097, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Ronnie Maurice Stewart, Shawna Nicole McComas,
David Roode, Sheila Marlene Penney, Hunter Malone, Sarah Martin,
Althea Humber, Melissa Spears-Lojek, Linda Keith, Kimberly
Kobersmith, Debra Wittig, Randall Yates, Rodney Lee, Teri Blanton,
Robin Ritter and Diika:Nehi Segovia, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Devi M. Rao, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001-4412
          Telephone: (202) 639-6000
          E-mail: DRao@jenner.com

Defendants-Appellees Alex Michael Azar, II, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and
Human Services; Seema Verma, in her official capacity as
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
Demetrios L. Kouzoukas, in his official capacity as Principal
Deputy Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services;
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and Paul Mango, in his
official capacity as Chief Principal Deputy Administrator, The
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, are represented by:

          Alisa B. Klein, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000
          E-mail: alisa.klein@usdoj.gov

Intervenor for Defendant-Appellant Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex
rel. Matthew G. Bevin, Governor, is represented by:

          Matthew Franklin Kuhn, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
          700 Capital Avenue, Suite 101
          Frankfort, KY 40601
          Telephone: (502) 564-2611
          E-mail: Matt.Kuhn@ky.gov


UNITED STATES: Machado-Erazo Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOB MACHADO-ERAZO; JOSE MARTINEZ-AMAYA, Petitioners, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, in the Supreme Court of the United
States under Case No. 18A781 has filed a petition for writ of
certiorari.

The Petitioners, Noe Machado-Erazo and Jose Martinez-Amaya, through
their counsel, respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari issue to
review a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.  

By superseding indictment filed on May 9, 2013, a federal grand
jury indicted Petitioners and five others individuals on various
charges based on Petitioners' alleged involvement in La Mara
Salvatrucha or MS-13 gang activities. The indictment charged
Petitioners with engaging in a RICO Conspiracy and Murder in Aid of
Racketeering. Finally, Petitioners were charged with Possession of
a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence, says the complaint.

The Petitioners are represented by:

     Thomas G. Corcoran, Jr., Esq.
     Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP
     1101 Seventeenth St., N.W
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Phone: (202) 293-5555
     Email: tgc@bcr-dc.com

          - and -

     Kira Anne West, Esq.
     Law Office of Kira Anne West
     1325 G. St., N.W., Suite 500
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Phone: (202) 236-2042
     Email: kiraannewest@gmail.com

          - and -

     Christine Pembroke, Esq.
     Law Office of Christine Pembroke
     3312 Dent Place, N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20007
     Phone: (202) 553-3118
     Email: christine.pembroke@yahoo.com


UNIVERSAL MOLDING: Garcia Action Seeks Unpaid Wages and Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jobanny Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL MOLDING COMPANY, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCVUE87 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 24, 2019)
seeks monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated in California, to recover, among
other things, unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, and penalties under the Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders.

The Defendants knew or should have known that the Labor Code and
applicable IWC Wage Orders required Defendant to pay Plaintiff and
Class Members the appropriate overtime wages for work over 8 hours
per day, over 40 hours per week, and/or 7 consecutive days in a
row. For example, Defendants failed to compensation Plaintiff and
Class Members for the time they spent working through meal periods.
In violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages, including
minimum wages and overtime wages, for all hours they worked.
Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members wages
for all hours they worked when Defendants rounded Plaintiffs and
Class Members' time punches to Defendants' advantage, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants in California as a non-exempt
employee during the relevant periods.

Defendants provide metal roll forming, fabrication, extrusion, and
finishing services throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     KASHIF HAQUE, ESQ.
     SAMUEL A. WONG, ESQ.
     JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
     SUREN N. WEERASURIYA, ESQ.
     AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 379-6250
     Facsimile: (949)379-6251


UNLIMITED CARE: Sued for not Paying Workers Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
David Soormaghen, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNLIMITED CARE INC., RONALD FISH
and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 707038/2019 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct. Queens Cty., April 22, 2019) asserts that Plaintiff and the
Class are entitled to back wages from Defendant for (a) hours
worked for which they did not receive minimum and/or regular wages,
(b) overtime hours worked for which they did not receive time and
one half the minimum wage or time and one half their actual wages,
including Wage Parity Act minimum wages, and (c) spread of hours
worked for which they did not receive an extra hour of pay, as
required by the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the supporting New
York State Department of Labor regulations.

Plaintiffs worked numerous 24 hour shifts for which they were
illegally paid for only 13 of the 24 hours worked, as they did not
get meal breaks and did not get 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep and
a full 8 hours of sleep during the 24-hour shifts, asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff was a home health aide/maid employed by Defendants from
about from about May 1, 2013 until about July 31, 2014.

UNLIMITED CARE INC. is a New York corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William C. Rand, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
     501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 286-1425
     Fax: (646) 688-3078


UTILITY SOLUTIONS: Price Files Labor Suit to Recoup Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph E. Price III, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Utility Solutions Midwest Division, LLC and
Mark Moles, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00832 (S.D. Ohio, March 7,
2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation as well liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Ohio Labor Laws.

Utility Solutions is in the cable laying construction business and
provides other services, including drilling for fiber optic cables,
to customers at various locations throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Indiana. Price has worked for Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, as a laborer/driller, from approximately September 2016
to the present. Throughout his employment, he has been paid on a
day rate basis, and thereby denied overtime pay during workweeks in
which he worked forty or more hours in a work week, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Caxton Building
      812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel. (216) 912-2221
      Fax: (216) 350-6313
      Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
             kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Haggar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03116 (C.D. Cal.,
April 22, 2019) seeks to secure redress against Defendants for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiffs and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiffs' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("UCRA"), asserts
the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiffs are visually-impaired and legally blind people who
require screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant's website provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services including accessories, swimwear, loungewear,
sport apparel, streetwear, sleepwear, footwear, under garments,
intimates, lingerie, store locator, store offers and events, sale
items, bags, backpacks, wallets, wristlets, sunglasses, beauty
bags, lip gloss, fragrance, bath and body products available online
and in retail stores for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


VIEGA LLC: Al's Discount Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Al's Discount Plumbing LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Viega LLC, Case No. 19-cv-384 (E.D.
Wis., March 15, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

This is an antitrust action directed at Viega's anticompetitive
conduct in the markets for copper press fittings and carbon steel
press fittings.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant engaged in an unlawful
tying scheme in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce by
tying the sale of its carbon steel press fittings to the purchase
of it copper press fittings. By withholding its carbon steel press
fittings altogether unless the wholesale distributor agrees to
purchase the Defendant's copper press fittings, or requiring
wholesale distributors to pay higher prices for carbon steel press
fittings if they purchase copper press fittings from its
competitors, a tied purchase is the only viable option, asserts the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has made purchases of the Defendant's copper press
fittings from one or more of the Defendant's wholesale
distributors.

The Defendant manufactures and distributes plumbing, heating, and
pipe joining systems for industrial, commercial, and residential
projects. The Defendant is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware with its U.S. headquarters
located at 12303 Airport Way, Suite 395, Broomfield, Colorado
80021. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
      Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
              meldridge@ademilaw.com
              jfruchter@ademilaw.com
              bslatky@ademilaw.com


WABCO HOLDINGS: Collier Says ZF Merger Deal Docs Lack Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Collier, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WABCO HOLDINGS INC., JACQUES H. G.
ESCULIER, JEAN-PAUL L. MONTUPET, G. PETER D'ALOIA, MICHAEL T.
SMITH, DAVID NICHOLAS REILLY, HENRY R. KEIZER, DR. JUERGEN W.
GROMER, and THOMAS STEPHEN GROSS, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00729-UNA (D. Del., April 23, 2019) is a class action by
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the
common stock of WABCO Holdings Inc. against the Company and the
members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), in
connection with the proposed merger (the "Proposed Merger") between
WABCO and ZF Friedrichshafen AG ("ZF").

On March 28, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $136.50 in cash
for each share of WABCO stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). On April 18, 2019, in order to convince WABCO
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
Form PREM14A (the "Proxy") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), in the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete
and misleading Proxy violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9,
each of which constitutes a violation the Exchange Act, says the
complaint.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering
certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading, the complaint adds.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial projections for the
Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that WABCO shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Merger. The financial projections were also utilized
by WABCO's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs International ("Goldman
Sachs"), in conducting certain valuation analyses in support of its
fairness opinion, the complaint relates.

Plaintiff is a holder of WABCO common stock.

WABCO is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND: Keim Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Keim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Watches of Switzerland Group USA, Inc. dba Watches of
Switzerland and Mayors Jewelers, Case No. 9:19-cv-80370 (S.D. Fla.,
March 17, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant knowingly or recklessly
failed to comply with FCRA by printing the 10 digits of its
customers' credit card and debit card numbers on their transaction
receipts.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida and is a
resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Defendant is one of the largest prestige and luxury jewelers in
the world. The group includes Goldsmiths, Mappin & Webb, Watches of
Switzerland and WatchShop in the UK, and Watches of Switzerland and
Mayors Jewelers in the US within its portfolio. The Defendant
operates from its headquarters located at 3340 NW 53rd St, Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33309. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954) 589-0588
      Fax: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


WHITEHALL HOTEL: Conner Brings Class Action Under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WHITEHALL HOTEL GROUP
LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. WHITEHALL HOTEL GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02689
(N.D. Ill., April 22, 2019).

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

The Whitehall Hotel is a boutique Chicago hotel featuring luxury
accommodations and amenities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     73 West Monroe Street
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


WISCONSIN: Mccaa's Bid to Appeal Without Prepayment Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. P. Stadtmueller grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to appeal without prepayment of the filing fee in the lawsuit
entitled RANDY MCCAA v. DR. TODD HAMILTON, DR. KIMBERLY MCKOWAN,
DR. AMY ZIRBEL, CAPTAIN RYAN BAUMANN, LT. MICHAEL HELMEID, C.O.
JOHN DIEDRICK, SGT. BENJAMIN WERNER, C.O. MICHAEL FUGATE, C.O.
SAMANTHA WILLIAMS, C.O. SARAH HAUSCHULTZ, C.O. JARED FRANKE, and
C.O. RALPH MAKI, Case No. 2:16-cv-00175-JPS (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff's motion for a certification that the appeal is not
frivolous and for transcripts be and the same is denied.  The Court
ruled that by May 16, 2019, the Plaintiff shall forward to the
Clerk of Court the sum of $14.58 as the initial partial filing fee
in this appeal.  The Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order
may result in dismissal of his appeal.  The payment shall be
clearly identified by the case name and number assigned to this
action.

According to the Order, after the initial filing fee has been paid,
the agency having custody of the prisoner shall collect from his
institution trust account the balance of the filing fee by
collecting monthly payments from the Plaintiff's prison trust
account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income
credited to the prisoner's trust account and forwarding payments to
the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds
$10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(2).  The
payments shall be clearly identified by the case name and number
assigned to this action.

If the Plaintiff is transferred to another institution, county,
state, or federal, the transferring institution shall forward a
copy of this Order along with the Plaintiff's remaining balance to
the receiving institution.  A copy of this order will be sent to
the officer in charge of the agency where the inmate is confined.
A copy of this order will be electronically provided to PLRA
Attorney, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
through the court's electronic case filing system.[CC]


WKS FROSTY: Tapia Sues Over Inaccurate Wages, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Tapia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WKS Frosty Corporation and Does 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV078912 (Cal. Super., March 7, 2019),
seeks compensation resulting from Defendant's failure to accurately
pay overtime wages and minimum wages and vested vacation time,
failure to adequately indemnify employees for employment-related
losses/expenditures, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law under the
California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

WKS operates a fast food service in Los Angeles where Tapia worked.
She claims that she was not provided full thirty-minute meal
periods for work in excess of five hours and were not compensated
one hour's wages in lieu thereof. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd, Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      Email: david@yeremianlaw.com
             natalie@yeremianlaw.com

             - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      Email: sahagii@aol.com



WOODLAND FOODS: Gomez Sues Over BIPA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Kevin Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Woodland Foods, Ltd., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH04552 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 10, 2019) is a
class action complaint which seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and the
proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") 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 or
biometric information, especially a fingerprint or hand geometry
scan, and biometric information derived from it.

As an employee, Plaintiff was required to scan his hand multiple
times so Defendant could create, collect, capture, construct,
store, use, and/ or obtain a biometric template for Plaintiff.
Defendant subsequently stored Plaintiff's biometric data in a
biometric database. Defendant then used Plaintiff's biometrics as
an identification method to track his time, potentially with the
help of a third-party vendor.

The Defendant captured, collected, and/ or otherwise obtained
biometric information or identifiers of its Illinois employees,
like Plaintiff, without properly obtaining written executed
releases, and without making required disclosures concerning the
collection,  storage, use, or destruction of biometric identifiers
or information, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Illinois.

Woodland Foods Ltd. offers wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YOU MAKE ME FEEL: Sued for Failure to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR BRAVO and JUAN CARLOS PADILLA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. YOU MAKE ME
FEEL LLC, d/b/a SEXY TACO/DIRTY CASH, COUNTER CULTURE HOSPITALITY
GROUP LLC, d/b/a RUBY'S VINTAGE, and BRIAN K. WASHINGTON PALMER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03607 (S.D. N.Y., April 23, 2019) is
an action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), asserting that Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime premium, unpaid spread of hours
premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class members regularly
worked hours in excess of 40, but Defendants unlawfully failed to
pay them either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) or
the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half) for hours
worked in excess of 40, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants to work as cooks at Defendant's
restaurant, in or around August 2016.

Defendants collectively own and operate two restaurants located in
Harlem, NY: (a) "Sexy Taco/Dirty Cash", and (b) "Ruby's Vintage"
(together, the "Restaurants").[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


ZESTY INC: Pfeifer Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Amie Pfeifer, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
and aggrieved employees v. Zesty Inc. and Does 1 through 100
inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-574570 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., March 15, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified its
employees, including the Plaintiff, as independent contractors
resulting in the failure to provide compliant rest and meal periods
or pay compensation in lieu thereof; failure to pay all wages due
including overtime and double-time wages; and failure to reimburse
for necessarily-incurred business-related expenses.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of San Francisco, State
of California and was employed by the Defendants.

The Defendant maintains and transacts business as a food technology
company that operates in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marta Manus, Esq.
      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 "C" St., Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 595-3001
      Fax: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: mmanus@ckslaw.com
              msinger@ckslaw.com

          - and -

      Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
      LEBE LAW, APLC
      777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90021
      Tel: (213) 358-7046
      Fax: (310) 820-1258
      E-mail: jon@lebelaw.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 ***