CAR_Public/190507.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 7, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 91

                            Headlines

1909 W25 LLC: Bright Seeks Minimum Wages, Damages Under FLSA
99 CENT: Augustus Sues Over Missed Breaks, Missing Wage Statements
ABRAMS FENSTERMAN: Summary Judgment Bid in Kravitz Partly Granted
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hamano Hits Share Drop Over Franchise Row
AGENTRA LLC: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Calls Under TCPA

AIR EVAC EMS: Butcha Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
AMARIN CORP: Borghesi Hits Share Drop from Misleading Results
AMARIN CORP: Kuznicki Files Securities Fraud Suit
ARCHDIOCESE OF MONTREAL: Faces Sexual Assault Class Action
ARKANSAS TOTAL: Court Certifies Class of Care Coordinators

ART'S PERFORMING: Hinton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Collins Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Boston Retirement Fund Sues Over Bond Price-fixing
BIMBO BAKERIES: Cox Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BIOGEN INC: Appeal in Massachusetts Class Suit Still Pending

BLACKFIELD OFFICE: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Settlement Class
BWELL HEALTHCARE: Home Care Aides Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
C.H. ROBINSON: Class Certification Bid Dismissed without Prejudice
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOC: Sued By Members Over Illegal Deductions

CALIFORNIA: Court OKs $1.1MM Attorney's Fees in McKibben Suit
CANADA: Town of Collingwood Faces Class Action Over Coyotes
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Order of Dismissal in Maine Suit Under Appeal
CELGENE CORP: Shortchanged on Bristol-Myers Merger Deal, Mager Says
CENTURYLINK INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Suit

CHG MEDICAL: Court Certifies J. Carlino Class
CHINSKY RESTAURANT: Burrus Hits Discrimination, Illegal Termination
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Continues to Defend Kater Class Suit
COAST TO COAST: Refuses to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Barrios Says
CONVERGYS CORP: Court Certifies Class of Call Center Employees

CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed
DCA SERVICES: Seeks Judgment over $4,374 Bill of Costs Award
DENSO CORP: Settles Class Action with Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
DETROIT MEDICAL: Kim Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Kirby Mcinerney Files Securities Class Suit

ELEGANT NAIL: Idrovo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING: Seefeldt Seeks Class Certification
ERIEVIEW METAL: Davis Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ESKOM: Faces Class Action Over Load Shedding
FIRST CHOICE: May 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Busch Sues Over Unfair Fees
H&R BLOCK: Hoagland Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Text Messages
HEALTH E SYSTEMS: Quintana Seeks Pay for Off-The-Clock Work
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
HERTZ CORP: Certification of Collective Action Sought

HOMEFIX CUSTOM: Baylor Hits Discrimination, Unpaid Wages
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Odyssey/Pilot Infotainment Systems
HUDSON GROUP: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 22 Hearing on $1.15MM Settlement
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Fraud Suits

INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Suit Transferred From Arkansas to Ohio
JONES DAY: Faces Class Action Over Fraternity Culture
JUDITH HELLMAN: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JUVENEX LTD: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LANDRY'S REST: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Court Ruling

LL-T SHOW BAR: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Bennett Suit Alleges
LOANCARE LLC: Fox Sues Over Illegal Autodialed Calls
LOS ANGELES, CA: Gonzalez-Tzita Seeks to Certify Class
MARYLAND: Dismissal of Piggyback Tax Class Action Upheld
MDL 2785: Court Compels Segal Group to Comply with Subpoena

MERCHCO SERVICES: Bresko Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cellphone Class Suit Dismissed
MICROSOFT CORP: Oral Arguments in Moussouris Suit Early Next Year
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in Adkins Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lance Seeks to Certify Class

MONARCH INVESTMENT: King Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Does not Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Says Suit
MSC MERCHANT: Faces Cooley Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
NATIONAL CASH: Morris Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
NATURES WAY: Gomez Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Berger Seeks to Stay Arbitration Demand
NOBLE HOUSE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in K. Holt's Suit
NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Haack FLSA & IMWL Classes Certification Denied
OUTFIELD BREW: Beal Seeks to Certify Two Classes
PENN LLC: Cunningham Sues Over Illegal Automated Text Messages

PINDUODUO INC: Still Defends Class Suits in NY & Cal. Over IPO
PITTSBURGH, PA: Class Action Mulled Over Gun Legislation
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies L. Gomes Class Certification Bid
PRINCE TELECOM: Colosimo Suit Removed to Nevada District Court
RAZER INC: Burkhardt Brings Action Over Deceptive Product Ads

RENO CAFE: Angle Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
RIPPLE LABS: Court Denies Remand of Zakinov Securities Suit
ROBERT BROGDEN'S: Foster Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
S.F. EXPRESS: Tanielu Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
SAVAGE SERVICES: De Luna Lara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

SCHURMAN RETAIL: Frenzel Suit Asserts FLSA, Ca. Labor Code Breach
SIRIUS XM: Flo & Eddie Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
SIRIUS XM: Memorandum of Understanding Reached in Buchanan Suit
SIRIUS XM: Ponderosa Twins Plus One Suit v. Pandora Still Stayed
SIRIUS XM: Sheridan Class Action Remains Stayed

STERLING JEWELERS: Sued Over Unlawful Credit-financing Practices
SYNEOS HEALTH: Kuznicki Files Securities Class Suit
TOP-NOTCH LOGISTIC: Sand Coordinators Don't Get Overtime Pay
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Tarara's Bid to Certify Class under Advisement
ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action

UNION CITY: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Wages and Reimbursement
UNIQUE HOME: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED PARCEL: Coates Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
UNITED PARCEL: Coates Seeks to Certify Classes
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Millman et al. Seek to Certify Class

USCB INC: Campbell Hits Illegal Collection Calls
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Kuznicki Files Securities Class Suit
WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Conditional Cert. Bid Denied without Prejudice
WORLD BUSINESS: Crockett Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40/Week
ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah et al. Seek Class Certification

[*] 401(k) Class Action Payouts Reach $6.2 Bil., Records Show
[*] Lindsey Graham Calls for Reform of Class Action System

                            *********

1909 W25 LLC: Bright Seeks Minimum Wages, Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Bright, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1909 W25, LLC and Robert George,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00543, (N.D. Ohio, February March 12,
2019), seeks compensation for unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
disbursements of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Ohio labor laws.

Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant in Cleveland,
"TownHall." Bright worked at Townhall as a tipped employee. He
claims to be compensated at a rate of less than the applicable Ohio
and federal minimum wage on account of receiving tips in a given
workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

             - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


99 CENT: Augustus Sues Over Missed Breaks, Missing Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Augustus, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 99 Cent Only Stores, LLC and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08141 (Cal. Super., March 11,
2019), seeks compensation resulting from Defendant's failure to
accurately pay overtime wages and minimum wages, payment of vested
vacation time, failure to adequately indemnify employees for
employment-related losses/expenditures, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks, 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.

Augustus worked on an hourly basis as a non-exempt employee at 99
Cent Only Store in a Los Angeles County location as a Front Store
Manager. She claims to have worked eight to ten hour shifts and was
required to clock out for rest breaks but usually worked through
them. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan Selik, Esq.
      MCCATHERN LLP
      523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830
      Los Angeles, CA 90014
      Tel: (213) 225-6150
      Fax: (213) 225-6151
      Email: eselik@mcccathernlaw.com


ABRAMS FENSTERMAN: Summary Judgment Bid in Kravitz Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC KRAVITZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN,
EISMAN, FORMATO, FERRERA & WOLD, LLP, and MELANIE I. WEINER,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-7031 (DRH)(AYS)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Denis R. Hurley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

Kravitz brought the putative class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),
New York General Business Law ("N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law") Section 349,
and New York Judiciary Law ("N.Y. Jud. Law") Section 487.  The
Defendants are attorneys who are admitted to practice before the
courts of the state of New York.  

On June 4, 2014, the Defendants commenced a collection lawsuit
("State Lawsuit") against the Plaintiff in Nassau County Supreme
Court on behalf of their client, the nursing facility Wedgewood
Care Center, Inc.  The sole cause of action in the State Lawsuit
was a breach of contract claim alleging that Kravitz failed to
perform obligations he undertook in a November 2011 admission
agreement for his mother, Beatrice Kravitz, a resident of a
Wedgewood nursing facility.

On Aug. 4, 2014, Mr. Kravitz filed his verified answer to the
complaint in the State Lawsuit, asserting a counterclaim for
violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law ("State Counterclaim").  On Dec.
2, 2014, he filed his complaint in the action (the "Federal
Lawsuit")).  The State Counterclaim against Wedgewood and Count II
of the Federal Lawsuit for violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section
349 are based upon substantially the same factual allegations.

On May 9, 2017, Wedgewood moved for summary judgment in the State
Action, seeking a monetary judgment of $49,061.11 plus interest.
The following week, the Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment
in the State Action.  On Nov. 9, 2017, the Nassau Supreme Court
granted Wedgewood's motion and denied the Plaintiff's motion.  On
Nov. 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
decision in the State Action.  On Dec. 20, 2017, the Nassau Supreme
Court entered judgment in favor or Wedgewood and against the
Plaintiff in the amount of $49,061.11, plus interest and costs
("State Judgment").  The Plaintiff's appeal of the State Lawsuit
has not yet been decided.

The Plaintiff sets forth three causes of action in the complaint.
First, Plaintiff asserts violations of the FDCPA against the
Defendants for engaging in deceptive business practices by
attempting to turn questionable and unverified consumer debt or
collection accounts into enforceable court judgments, regardless of
whether the consumer actually owes the alleged underlying debt, in
whole or in part.  Second, he asserts violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus.
Law Section 349 for engaging in deceptive acts and practices.
Finally, the Plaintiff asserts violations of N.Y. Jud. Law Section
487 against the Defendants for engaging in deceipt or collusion, or
consenting to deceit or collusion, with the intention to deceive
the courts and opposing party consumers, including the Plaintiff,
by inter alia, commencing debt collection lawsuits on behalf of
Wedgewood and other clients, with no verifiable knowledge of the
alleged underlying debt.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 56 on
the basis that the Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from
asserting his claims in the action.  They argue that the
Plaintiff's three claims are all predicated on the Defendants
having commenced the State Lawsuit against him, and the State Court
already found that the allegations in the State Complaint were
meritorious by granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
in the State Lawsuit.

Judge Hurley is persuaded that Defendants were in privity with
Wedgewood in the State Lawsuit.  The attorneys claim they were in
privity with the client, Wedgewood, in the State Lawsuit.
Moreover, there is no prejudice to the Plaintiff because he was a
party to both actions and, even finding privity, the Court must
still consider whether the issues at bar were actually and
necessarily decided in the State Lawsuit and whether the Plaintiff
had a full and fair opportunity to be heard.

Next, he finds that the question of the Defendants' intent had no
bearing on the State Lawsuit because the Defendants were not a
party to that action.  While it is unlikely that the Defendants
intended to deceive the state court or the Plaintiff in the State
Lawsuit in light of the fact that their client succeeded on the
merits of the action, this is not the question before the Court on
a motion for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel.  The
essential element of the Plaintiff's N.Y. Jud. Law Section 487
claim was not decided in the State Lawsuit.  Accordingly, the Judge
need not proceed to determining whether the parties had a full and
fair opportunity to litigate such claim, and the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment is denied as to the Plaintiff's third cause of
action.

The Judge granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to
the Plaintiff's first two causes of action as they are collaterally
estopped.  He finds that the Plaintiff employed the same counsel in
both lawsuits and had an opportunity to brief these issues in his
cross-motion for summary judgment and in his opposition to
Wedgewood's motion for summary judgment in the State Lawsuit.  In
fact, the Plaintiff specifically briefed the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law
Section 349 claim because he asserted the same as a counterclaim in
the State Lawsuit.  That the state court ruled against the
Plaintiff does not mean that he was not afforded a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issues at hand.

The Plaintiff's request to substitute a new representative
plaintiff is denied with leave to renew as the Plaintiff has failed
to identify such other plaintiff or the grounds for granting his
request.  Any renewed request should be addressed to the Magistrate
Judge within 30 days of the date of the Order, and should include
the proposed amended complaint.

The Defendants' request for leave to make an application for an
award of costs and fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3)
on the basis that the Plaintiff brought the action in bad faith is
denied in its entirety.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff
commenced the action shortly after the State Lawsuit was initiated,
and long before the state court decided that the Plaintiff was
liable for the debt.  Moreover, the Plaintiff moved for summary
judgment in the State Lawsuit, which suggests that he believed he
would prevail.  Accordingly, there is no evidence before the Court
that the Plaintiff brought the instant action in bad faith.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hurley granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.  He granted
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to the
Plaintiff's first two causes of action for violations of the FDCPA
and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349.  The Defendants' motion for
summary judgment is denied as to tje Plaintiff's third and final
cause of action for violations of N.Y. Jud. Law Section 487.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff's request for leave to substitute is
denied without prejudice to renew within 30 days of the date of the
Order.  Finally, the Defendants' request for leave to move for an
award of costs and fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3)
is denied in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/hzsqIX from Leagle.com.

Eric Kravitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shelly A. Leonard, Blau Leonard
Law Group, LLC & Steven Bennett Blau -- sblau@blauleonardlaw.com --
Blau Leonard Law Group, LLC.

Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrera & Wolf,
LLP & Melanie I. Weiner, Defendants, represented by Keith J.
Singer, Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Flowers Greenberg & Eisman,
LLP, Steven Cohn -- scohn@scohnlaw.com -- Steven Cohn, PC & Alan
Scott Zigman -- azigman@scohnlaw.com -- Law Office of Steven Cohn,
P.C..


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hamano Hits Share Drop Over Franchise Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Hamano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Robert A.
Kotick, Spencer Neumann and Collister Johnson, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01741, (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2019), seeks to recover damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of
1933.

Activision Blizzard develops and distributes content and services
on video game consoles, personal computers and mobile devices.
Activision went into an agreement with Bungie, Inc. for exclusive
rights to publish and distribute "Destiny" franchise video games
for the next ten years. However, Defendants failed to disclose that
the termination of the said partnership gave Bungie full publishing
rights and responsibilities for the Destiny franchise and would
have significant negative impact on Activision's revenues.
Following the news, its stock price fell $4.81 per share, or 9.37%,
to close at $46.54 on January 11, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      Andrew Szot, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel. (312) 332-3400
      Fax. (312) 676-2676
      Email: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
             aszot@millerlawllc.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey S. Abraham
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Tel: (212) 279-5050
      Fax: (212) 279-3655
      Email: JAbraham@aftlaw.com


AGENTRA LLC: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Calls Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
REGAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. AGENTRA, LLC, a Texas limited liability
company, I HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE SERVICES, a California
corporation, SUNPATH LIMITED CORP., a Delaware corporation,
NORTHCOAST WARRANTY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, FREEWAY
INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a
COST-U-LESS INSURANCE CENTER, CESAR SORIANO, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00178 (D. Neb., April 24, 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.

Defendants did not obtain consent prior to placing these calls and,
therefore, are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), asserts the complaint.

By placing the calls at issue, Defendants have violated the
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.

Plaintiff REGAN SMITH is a natural person and is a citizen of the
District of Nebraska.

AGENTRA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
     Mark L. Javitch, Attorney at Law
     210 S. Ellsworth Ave #486
     San Mateo CA 94401
     Phone: 402-301-5544
     Fax: 402-396-7131


AIR EVAC EMS: Butcha Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
DARRIN BUCHTA on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC. D/B/A AIR EVAC LIFETEAM,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00976 (E.D. Mo., April 24, 2019) is a
representative action brought by Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees employed by AEL who were not properly
compensated for overtime hours worked in violation of relevant laws
including Indiana Code and West Virginia Code.

Plaintiff Buchta and other non-exempt employees, including flight
paramedics, flight nurses, pilots, and mechanics are required to
routinely work more than 40 hours per week for AEL. However, they
were not compensated at one-and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours worked over 40 in a week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Buchta is currently employed by AEL as a non-exempt
employee and has performed work in Indiana and Illinois.

AEL is a Missouri corporation duly authorized to conduct business
within the State of Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Robert Cowan, Esq.
     COWAN LAW OFFICE, PLC
     2401 Regency Road; Suite 300
     Lexington, KY 40503
     Phone: 859.523.8883
     Facsimile: 859.523.8885
     Email: kylaw@cowanlawky.com

          - and -

     Charles W. Arnold, Esq.
     Christopher D. Miller, Esq.
     ARNOLD & MILLER, PLC
     401 West Main Street; Suite 303
     Lexington, KY 40507
     Phone: 859.381.9999
     Facsimile: 859.389.6666
     Email: carnold@arnoldmillerlaw.com
            cmiller@arnoldmillerlaw.com



AMARIN CORP: Borghesi Hits Share Drop from Misleading Results
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Borghesi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amarin Corporation PLC, John F.
Thero and Steven Ketchum, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-08423, (D.
N.J., March 7, 2019), alleges violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws.

Amarin is a biotechnology company that created a drug called
Vascepa intended to treat cardiovascular disease claiming 25%
relative risk reduction for patients taking Vascepa. However, full
results of a study showed that the placebo given to patients caused
cardiovascular problems in the patients taking it, thus causing
misleading results. As a result of this disclosure, the price of
Amarin's common stock dropped from $21.05 per share to $15.38 per
share in two trading days, a decrease of approximately 27%.

Borghesi purchased Amarin securities during the time when he claims
they were artificially-inflated. [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


AMARIN CORP: Kuznicki Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issued a
notice on behalf of shareholders of various publicly traded
companies, including Amarin Corporation.

Shareholders who purchased shares in these companies during the
dates listed below are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible appointment as lead plaintiff and a preliminary estimate
of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

Amarin Corporation (NASDAQGM: AMRN)
Investors Affected: September 24, 2018 - November 9, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Amarin Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) the top-line results Amarin touted about its
REDUCE-IT trial for Vascepa were not as positive as the company
represented; (2) the placebo given to patients in the control arm
of REDUCE-IT may have increased the incidence of cardiovascular
events in those patients; (3) as a result, Amarin's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. [GN]


ARCHDIOCESE OF MONTREAL: Faces Sexual Assault Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a new class
action request is seeking compensation for anyone sexually
assaulted by members of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Montreal,
arguing the religious body failed to prevent the assaults and
instead "opted for a culture of silence."

The application, filed in court on April 3, seeks compensation for
any possible victims since 1940. It will need to be authorized by a
judge to move forward.

"The respondents failed to institute any security, supervision
policies or mechanisms to prevent their subordinates from
committing sexual assault," it states.

The class action is filed on behalf of a 33-year-old victim of
Montreal-area priest Brian Boucher. Boucher was sentenced to eight
years in prison last month after being found guilty of sexually
assaulting one youth and pleading guilty to sexually abusing
another, the man in question.

The man was sexually assaulted between the ages of 10 to 13,
between 1995 and 1999, while Boucher worked at St-John-Brébeuf
parish in LaSalle. The legal action seeks $600,000 in damages for
him.

"These sexual assaults caused the applicant anxiety, trust,
intimacy issues and anger, to name a few," it says.

Holding the archdiocese directly responsible for the assaults, the
document argues it "knew or should have known that Abbot Boucher
was sexually assaulting children."

Lawyers for the law firm behind the suit, Arsenault Dufresne Wee
Avocats, say the process would look into whether the archdiocese
attempted to put an end to sexual assaults if it was made aware of
them or whether it tried to conceal them.

Given the nature of the assaults, the document argues a class
action suit is the best measure for many of the victims.

"Victims of sexual assault by members of the clergy have great
difficulty in reporting the sexual assault they suffered," it says,
"due notably to shame, fear of not being believed, and fear of
confronting idealized institutions or people."

In a statement released on April 3, the Archdiocese of Montreal
said the request "relates only to facts arising from the criminal
proceedings against Brian Boucher."

It added the archdiocese "strongly condemns all inappropriate acts
affecting both minors and adults and has been proactive in
denouncing the acts committed by Brian Boucher."

The application comes one week after the Montreal archdiocese
announced an independent audit into nearly seven decades of files
related to allegations of sexual abuse in Montreal-area parishes.

The audit is scheduled to begin in September and the retired judge
leading it has been granted full access to church files. The
archdiocese said the final report will be made public. [GN]


ARKANSAS TOTAL: Court Certifies Class of Care Coordinators
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. ARKANSAS
TOTAL CARE, INC., CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00580-JM (E.D.
Ark.), the Hon. 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 Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel 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 the Order. The Defendant shall provide the

      information in electronic format only if it is currently
      maintained in electronic format. The Court hereby authorizes

      a 90 day opt-in period from the date the notice is mailed.;

   4. authorizing Plaintiff's lawyers to issue the notice and
      consent forms by mail. They are also authorized to send a
      reminder postcard thirty days after the initial notice is
      mailed.; and

   5. denying Plaintiff's request to provide notice via electronic

      mailing or text message.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has provided enough information
to establish that she is similarly situated to the putative class
members.

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 brings the
lawsuit to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Amended Migrant Workers Act.[CC]

ART'S PERFORMING: Hinton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAHOGANY HINTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ART'S PERFORMING CENTER, LLC d/b/a DESIRE
BY: THE ART'S PERFORMING CENTER, and LYLE MESSINGER, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00585-NJ (E.D. Wis., April 23, 2019) is a
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
as amended, ("FLSA") for the purpose of obtaining relief under the
FLSA for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such other
relief the Court may deem appropriate.

Within the statutory period of three years from the filing of this
complaint, Art's Performing Center has had uniform policies and
practices of failing to pay minimum wages and overtime premium
compensation to Plaintiff Hinton and the putative class members for
all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin law,
asserts the complaint.

As a result, Art's Performing Center has denied Plaintiff Hinton
and the putative class members of minimum wages and overtime
compensation in violation of the FLSA  as well as minimum wages,
overtime compensation and agreed-upon wages in violation of
Wisconsin law, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff Hinton has worked for Art's Performing Center as an
exotic dancer at times since approximately May 2017.

Art's Performing Center, LLC d/b/a Desire By: The Art's Performing
Center is a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
     Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
     Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
     Hawks Quindel, S.C.
     222 East Erie, Suite 210
     P.O. Box 442
     Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
     Phone: 414-271-8650
     Fax: 414-271-8442
     Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com
            smurshid@hq-law.com
            tmaynard@hq-law.com


AUROBINDO PHARMA: Collins Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Collins v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 37-02019-00013178-CU-BT-CTL, was removed on April 15,
2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00688-MMA-KSC to
the proceeding.

Judge Michael M. Anello and Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford are
assigned to the case.

The nature of suit is stated as tort product liability.[BN]

Plaintiff Carrie Collins, an individual; on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: gl@haffnerlawyers.com

Defendant Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., is represented by:

          Kyle Anthony Fellenz, Esq.
          CLARK HILL LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 500
          San Diego, CA 92101-3357
          Telephone: (619) 557-0404
          Facsimile: (619) 557-0460
          E-mail: kfellenz@clarkhill.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Boston Retirement Fund Sues Over Bond Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Retirement System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local
103 I.B.E.W., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA
MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY (F/K/A BANK
OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED), MERRILL LYNCH
INTERNATIONAL, NATWEST MARKETS PLC (F/K/A THE ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND PLC), NATWEST MARKETS SECURITIES INC. (F/K/A RBS
SECURITIES INC.), and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03594 (S.D. N.Y., April 23, 2019) seeks damages arising
from Bank of America, RBS, and their co-conspirators' unlawful
conduct to fix, raise, maintain, stabilize, or otherwise manipulate
the prices of Eurozone Government Bonds sold to or bought from U.S.
investors throughout the United States.

The Defendants are among the world's largest dealers of Eurozone
Government Bonds. They compete for customers based on the prices
they offer for the purchase and sale of Eurozone Government Bonds.
Bond dealers typically quote bond prices to investors by providing
them with their bid and ask prices. Generally, the smaller the
"spread" (difference) between the "bid" (buy) and "ask" (sell)
prices, the better and more competitive the prices are for
customers. However, from at least as early as January 1, 2007 and
continuing through at least December 31, 2012, rather than compete
with each other, Defendants colluded to fix the prices at which
they bought and sold Eurozone Government Bonds. That is, they
agreed to widen the bid-ask spreads they quoted to customers,
thereby increasing the prices investors paid for the Eurozone
Government Bonds or decreasing the prices at which investors sold
the bonds.

The complaint alleges that Defendants' traders orchestrated and
maintained their conspiracy via regular electronic communications,
including instant messaging and chatrooms. Through such
communications, these traders discussed their respective customers'
identities and confidential information about the size and nature
of their orders before deciding the prices that they would quote to
their customers for Eurozone Government Bonds. The Defendants'
misconduct has injured U.S. investors in Eurozone Government Bonds.
Defendants have inflated the prices at which they sold Eurozone
Government Bonds to investors and reduced the prices at which they
purchased these products from investors, including Plaintiffs and
members of the Class. Thousands of U.S.-based investors have
transacted billions of dollars' worth of Eurozone Government Bonds
in the United States directly with Defendants.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, therefore, seek damages as a result of the unlawful
conduct, trebled, as provided by law.

Plaintiff Boston Retirement System is a government defined benefit
plan located in Boston, Massachusetts.

Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA") is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon
Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     GREGORY S. ASCIOLLA, ESQ.
     JAY L. HIMES, ESQ.
     CHRISTOPHER J. MCDONALD, ESQ.
     KARIN E. GARVEY, ESQ.
     ROBIN A. VAN DER MEULEN, ESQ.
     MATTHEW J. PEREZ, ESQ.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            jhimes@labaton.com
            cmcdonald@labaton.com
            kgarvey@labaton.com
            rvandermeulen@labaton.com
            mperez@labaton.com

          - and -

     DEBORAH H. RENNER, ESQ.
     CLAIBORNE R. HANE, ESQ.
     THOMAS POPEJOY
     ABBYE KLAMANN OGNIBENE, ESQ.
     PIERCE BAINBRIDGE, ESQ.
     BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
     277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 484-9866
     Email: drenner@piercebainbridge.com
            chane@piercebainbridge.com
            tlpopejoy@piercebainbridge.com
            aognibene@piercebainbridge.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: Cox Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH COX, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., and BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00577-HNJ (N.D. Ala., April 15,
2019), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and other statutory penalties under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and other Independent
Operators.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., is the American corporate arm of the
Mexican multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo
Bimbo, the largest producer of baked goods in the world, and is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Horsham, Pennsylvania.

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, is a subsidiary of Bimbo
Bakeries USA, Inc., and is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Horsham, Pennsylvania.  Bimbo Foods Bakeries
Distribution, LLC is the distribution arm of Grupo Bimbo and Bimbo
Bakeries USA, Inc.'s United States operations and is the
contracting entity in the Plaintiff and Class Members' Distribution
Agreements.

Bimbo is in the business of producing and distributing baked goods,
and is the largest bakery company in the United States.  Bimbo owns
such recognizable brands as Sara Lee, Orowheat, Entenmann's, and
Boboli, among others.  The retail sales of Bimbo's baked goods to
customers occur through third party retail outlets, such as
supermarkets, food stores, warehouse stores and convenience
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly E. Linville, Esq.
          Larry B. Moore, Esq.
          Ian Michael Berry, Esq.
          MOORE, BERRY & LINVILLE
          211 North Court Street
          Florence, AL 35630
          Telephone: (256) 718-0120
          Facsimile: (256) 718-0251
          E-mail: klinville@mblattorneys.com
                  lbmoore@mblattorneys.com
                  imberry@mblattorneys.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
          WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
          101 N. Highland Ave.
          P.O. Box 266
          Jackson, TN 38302
          Telephone: (731) 423-5565
          Facsimile: (731) 423-5372
          E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com


BIOGEN INC: Appeal in Massachusetts Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. 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 the plaintiff's appeal in the class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts remains pending.  

The company and certain of its current and former officers are
defendants in an action filed by a shareholder in October 2016 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Section 78j(b)
and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and seeking a
declaration of the action as a class action and an award of
damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In March 2018 the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The
plaintiff's appeal is pending.

Biogen said, "An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time."

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

Biogen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers
therapies for treating neurological and neurodegenerative diseases
worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BLACKFIELD OFFICE: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. BLACKFIELD OFFICE SUITES 1 LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-03332
(S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Blackfield Office Suites 1 LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability
Company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal
executive offices in New York City.

The Defendant operates multiple rental spaces, as well as its Web
site, and those affiliated or directly linked, and advertises,
markets, offers and sells its services and workspaces 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
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


BROWN UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as DIANE G. SHORT, SAMIRA PARDANANI, JUDITH
DAVIAU, and JOSEPH BARBOZA, Individually and as representatives of
a class of participants and beneficiaries in and on behalf of the
BROWN UNIVERSITY DEFERRED VESTING RETIREMENT PLAN, and the BROWN
UNIVERSITY LEGACY RETIREMENT PLAN, the Plaintiffs, vs. BROWN
UNIVERSITY in Providence in the State of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00318-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge William E. Smith
entered an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying Settlement Class for settlement
      purposes:

      "all participants and beneficiaries who had a balance in
      either the Brown University Deferred Vesting Retirement Plan

      or the Brown University Legacy Retirement Plan (the "Plans")

      during the Class Period, excluding any participant who is a
      fiduciary to either of the Plans";

   2. scheduling Fairness Hearing to be held before the Court on
      August 1, 2019, at 10 a..m. in Courtroom 3 at the U.S.
      District Court, One Exchange Terrace, Federal Building;

   3. approving form and content of the Class Notice finding that
      it fairly and adequately; and

   4. directing Parties to respond to any Objector at least seven
      calendar days prior to the Fairness Hearing, or by no later
      than July 25, 2019;

   -- Compliance with Class Action Fairness Act:

      Defendant shall, on or before 10 calendar days prior to the
      Fairness Hearing, file with the Court proof of compliance
      with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, as specified in
      28 U.S.C. section 1715 and paragraph 2 of the Stipulation.

   -- Fees and Expenses Incurred by the Independent Fiduciary and
      Settlement Administrator:

      The Court understands that the Plans' fiduciaries have  
      retained or will retain an Independent Fiduciary for the  
      purpose of evaluating the Settlement to determine whether to

      authorize the Settlement on behalf of the Plans. Defendant  
      has caused or will cause to be paid all fees and expenses  
      incurred by the Independent Fiduciary (including fees and  
      expenses incurred by consultants, attorneys, and other  
      professionals retained or employed by the Independent  
      Fiduciary) in the course of evaluating and authorizing the  
      Settlement on behalf of the Plans up to $25,000 (the  
      "Independent Fiduciary Fees Amount"). The Independent  
      Fiduciary Fees Amount is not considered part of the  
      Settlement Amount and will not be paid out of the Settlement

      Fund. However, all costs of the Independent Fiduciary in  
      excess of the $25,000 Independent Fiduciary Fees Amount shall

      be borne by and paid from the Settlement Fund. The Court  
      understands that the expenses incurred by the Settlement  
      Administrator in administering the Settlement and allocating

      the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Plan of Allocation  
      approved by the Court, including any payable expenses of  
      Retirement Clearinghouse, shall be paid out of the Settlement

      Fund.

   -- Application for Attorneys' Fees.

      Any application by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and  
      reimbursement of expenses, for a case contribution award to

      the Plaintiffs, and all papers in support thereof, shall be

      filed with the Court and served on all counsel of record at

      least twenty-eight (28) calendar days prior to the Fairness

      Hearing, or by no later than July 3, 2019.

   -- Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan of
      Allocation.

      Class Counsel shall file with the Court a motion for entry of

      the Final Approval Order and approval of the Plan of  
      Allocation at least 28 calendar days prior to the Fairness  
      Hearing, or by no later than July 3, 2019.

   -- Injunction.

      Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should

      be approved, all Members of the Settlement Class and the  
      Plans are each hereby barred and enjoined from instituting or

      prosecuting any action that asserts any Released Claim  
      against any Releasees.

   -- Termination of Settlement.

      If the Settlement is terminated in accordance with the  
      Stipulation of Settlement or does not become Final under the

      terms of the Stipulation of Settlement for any other reason,

      this Order and all Class Findings shall become null and void,

      and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties,

      all of whom shall be restored to their respective positions

      existing immediately before this Court entered this Order.

   -- Use of Order.

      In the event this Order becomes of no force or effect, no  
      part of it shall be construed or used as an admission,  
      concession, or declaration by or against Defendant of any  
      fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability, nor shall the Order

      be construed or used as an admission, concession, or  
      declaration by or against Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class

      that their claims lack merit or that the relief requested in

      the Action is inappropriate, improper, or unavailable, or as

      a waiver by any party of any defenses or claims he, she, or

      it may have.

   -- Continuance of Hearing.

      The Court reserves the right to continue the Fairness Hearing

      without further written notice.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          John Nestico, Esq.
          Schneider Wallace, Esq.
          Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
          8501 North Scottsdale
          Road, Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253

               - and -

          Todd Collins, Esq.
          Berger Montague PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Charles Dyke, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          One Embarcadero Ctr., FL 32
          San Francisco, CA94111

               - and -

          Emily Costin, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          950 F St. NW
          Washington, DC 20004

BWELL HEALTHCARE: Home Care Aides Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Holden and April Wright, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themsleves
and others similarly situated, v. BWell Healthcare, Inc., Sunlola
Kuti and Femmy Kuti, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00760 (D. Md.,
September 18, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland
Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law.

BWell provides domestic services where Holden and Wright worked as
a home care aides in their clients' homes, assisting clients with
toileting, bathing, mobility, cleaning, food preparation, and
general housekeeping, and accompanying clients to medical and other
appointments. They claim to be denied the legally required overtime
rate for hours worked beyond 40 in a given week, including but not
limited to overtime hours arising from compensable unpaid travel
time. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David Rodwin, Esq.
     Sally Dworak-Fisher, Esq.
     THE PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
     One North Charles Street, Suite 200
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Tel: (410) 625-9409
     Fax: (410) 625-9423
     Email: rodwind@publicjustice.org
            dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org


C.H. ROBINSON: Class Certification Bid Dismissed without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Taryn Dietrich, the Plaintiff, v. C. H.
Robinson Worldwide, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.1:18-cv-04871
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman entered an order
dismissing Plaintiff's motion for class certification without
prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 9, 2019,
the Plaintiff's request to go forward with the collective action
briefing is granted. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
dismissed without prejudice. Motion hearing noticed for April 11,
2019 was stricken.[CC]

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOC: Sued By Members Over Illegal Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Mendez, Linda Leigh-Dick, Audrey Stewart, Scott Carpenter
and Angela Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. California Teachers Association,
a California corporation, National Education Association, a
nonprofit corporation, Fremont Unified District Teachers
Association, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, Valley Center-Pauma
Teachers Association, Hayward Education ASSOCIATION-CTA-NEA, a
California corporation, Tustin Educators Association, a nonprofit
corporation, Associated Chino Teachers, Kim Wallace, in her
official capacity as Fremont Unified School District
Superintendent, Ron Mccowan, in his official capacity as Valley
Center-Pauma Unified School District, Matt Wayne, in his official
capacity as Hayward Unified School District Superintendent, Gregory
Franklin, in his official capacity as Tustin Unified School
District Superintendent, Norm Enfield, in his official capacity as
Chino Valley Unified School District Superintendent and Xavier
Becerra in his official capacity as Attorney General of California,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01290 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2019), seeks
compensatory, declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of
the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of
association and a refund of all deductions taken pursuant to
California's unjust enrichment law.

Class members claim to have been deducted union dues without their
clear and affirmative consent. They allege that the Unions promote
political positions and fund activities which they no longer wish
to support or never supported.

Plaintiffs are member of various teachers' unions in California.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
      Krista L. Baughman, Esq.
      Gregory R. Michael, Esq.
      DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
      177 Post Street, Suite 700
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Tel: (415) 433-1700

             - and -

      Mariah Gondeiro, Esq.
      FREEDOM FOUNDATION
      50 Woodside Plaza #710
      Redwood City, WA 98507
      Telephone: (360) 956-3482
      Email: mgondeiro@freedomfoundation.com

             - and -

      Karin Sweigart, Esq.
      FREEDOM FOUNDATION
      PO Box 552
      Olympia, WA 98507
      Telephone: (360) 956-3482
      Email: ksweigart@freedomfoundation.com


CALIFORNIA: Court OKs $1.1MM Attorney's Fees in McKibben Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Eastern Division, issued a Judgment granting Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned
Dan McKibben, et al., Plaintiff, v. John McMahon, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. EDCV 14-2171 JGB (SPx). (C.D. Cal.).

The Court:

   (1) GRANTS final approval of the Settlement Agreement and
Injunctive Terms;

   (2) APPROVES payment of the ten late claims and any claims
postmarked on or before February 11, 2019;

   (3) APPROVES Plaintiffs' request to deem Frederick Crockan, Joe
Raymond Fierro, and Andrew Afoa to have filed a timely claim;

   (4) AWARDS Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
$1,100,000;

   (5) AWARDS Class Counsel costs in the amount of $36,304.49;

   (6) AWARDS the following amounts to the Named Plaintiffs: NAME
INCENTIVE AWARD Bryan Bagwell $5,000 Frederick Crockan $5,000 Pedro
Guzman $3,000 Michael Aka Madison Hatfield $5,000 William Kennedy
$3,000 Sean Lint $2,000 Anthony Oliver $5,500 Nick Ou $3,000 Kevin
Aka Veronica Pratt $5,500 Steven Aka Lynn Price $3,000 Jonathan
Robertson $3,000 Illich Vargas $5,500 Tim Walker $5,000 Taheash
White $2,000 TOTAL $55,500.00;

   (7) ORDERS the payment of $37,500.00 to the claims
administrator;

   (8) ENJOINS the Defendants with respect to, among other things,
the operation of a PREA-GBTI Committee whose purpose is to discuss
the housing assignment, programming options, educational options,
and employment options for inmates who self-identify as a GBTI
inmate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Judgment
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y3v4fytu from Leagle.com.

Dan McKibben, individually, Pedro Guzman, individually, Nick Ou,
individually, Sean Lint, individually, Timothy Walker,
individually, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, individually, William
Kennedy, individually, Jonathan Robertson, individually, Steven
Price, individually, Bryan Bagwell, individually, Christopher
Crawford, individually, Frederick Crockan, individually, Taheash
White, individually, Michael Hatfield, individually, Kevin Pratt,
individually, Dan McKibben, as class representative, Pedro Guzman,
as class representative, Nick Ou, as class representative, Sean
Lint, as class representative, Timothy Walker, as class
representative, Ilich Ernesto Vargas Romero, as class
representative, William Kennedy, as class representative, Jonathan
Robertson, as class representative, Steve Price, as class
representative, Bryan Bagwell, as class representative, Christopher
Crawford, as class representative, Frederick Crockan, as class
representative, Taheash White, as class representative, Michael
Hatfield, as class representative & Kevin Pratt, as class
representative, Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda C. Goad, ACLU of
Southern California, Barrett S. Litt -- blitt@kmbllaw.com -- Kaye
McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP, Aditi Fruitwala, ACLU Foundation of
Southern California, Brendan M. Hamme, ACLU of Southern California,
David S. McLane, Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP, Lindsay
Battles, Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP, Melissa A. Goodman,
ACLU of Southern California, Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU of Southern
California & Ronald O. Kaye, Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP.

John McMahon, Sheriff, individually, Greg Garland, individually,
Jeff Rose, individually, James Mahan, Sargeant individually,
Armando Castillo, Corporal, Individually, County of San Bernardino,
a government entity, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, a
California public entity, John McMahon, Sheriff in his official
capacity, Greg Garland, in his official capacity, Jeff Rose, in his
official capacity, James Mahan, Sargeant in his official capacity &
Armando Castillo, Corporal in his official capacity, Defendants,
represented by Susan E. Coleman -- scoleman@bwslaw.com -- Burke
Williams and Sorensen LLP & Nathan A. Oyster -- noyster@bwslaw.com
-- Burke Williams and Sorensen LLP.


CANADA: Town of Collingwood Faces Class Action Over Coyotes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erika Engel, writing for Orillia Matters, reports that a
Collingwood resident has filed a class-action lawsuit against the
Town of Collingwood over the town's handling of coyotes.

In a Statement of Claim filed on April 3, Jeff Brown is suing for
more than $650,000 for alleged "willful blindness, bad faith,
intimidation, cruelty to animals," and more.

The lawsuit takes aim at the town's Coyote Management Plan approved
by council last April, which includes a communications plan giving
tips for co-existence with coyotes and would only support
terminating a coyote in the case of an attack on a human or
multiple confirmed reports of coyotes attacking pets on leashes
with humans nearby.

Brown's lawsuit claims the town is "harbouring coyotes . . .
knowing they have and will attack and kill pets willfully" which,
he alleges, is animal cruelty on the town's part.

He is also claiming the town has violated his and others charter
right to safety.

In another claim, Brown suggests the town's policy "requirements"
to haze coyotes is discriminatory to seniors and disabled people
under the Human Rights Code. Hazing refers to a method of deterring
a coyote from an area by using loud noises and appearing big to
intimidate the animal.

In the statement of claim, Brown states pet safety is a matter of
public safety and "attacks and killings of pets in Collingwood is
reason to be alarmed by coyotes and that these actions are
unacceptable and require action by the Town of Collingwood to
remove coyotes immediately to protect pets."

Brown has also named the Collingwood Police Services Board in the
lawsuit, making allegations of intimidation from local OPP.

According to the Statement of Claim, Brown is launching the lawsuit
and is representing a group of individuals who have joined a
Facebook group called Coyote Concerns Collingwood and/or who have
signed a petition to remove coyotes in Collingwood.

Further on in the court document, Brown asks for the indulgence of
the court to make a unique case on the "coyote problem in
Collingwood" claiming it will impact other cities across North
America "in a 'David vs. Goliath' situation."

CollingwoodToday has reached out to both Jeff Brown and the Town of
Collingwood. Neither could be reached in time for comment. [GN]


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Order of Dismissal in Maine Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 plaintiffs are
appealing the dismissal decision made in the consolidated suit
before the Federal District Court in Maine.

A class action and mass tort action on behalf of Lac-Megantic
residents and wrongful death representatives commenced in Texas in
June 2015 and wrongful death and personal injury actions commenced
in Illinois and Maine in June 2015 against the company were all
removed and subsequently transferred and consolidated in Federal
District Court in Maine (the "Maine Actions"). The Maine Actions
allege that the company negligently misclassified and mis-packaged
the petroleum crude oil being shipped. On the company's motion, the
Maine Actions were dismissed by the Court on several grounds. The
plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal decision.

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.


CELGENE CORP: Shortchanged on Bristol-Myers Merger Deal, Mager Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mager Paruas, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mark J. Alles, Richard Barker,
Hans Bishop, Michael W. Bonney, Michael D. Casey, Carrie S. Cox,
Michael A. Friedman, Julia A. Haller, Patricia Hemingway Hall,
James J. Loughlin, Ernest Mario, John H. Weiland, Celgene
Corporation and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Defendants, Case No.
2019-0195 (Del. Ch., March 11, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Celgene by Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company through its wholly owned subsidiary, Burgundy Merger
Sub, 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.

Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc. will merge with and into Celgene, with
Celgene surviving the merger and becoming its wholly-owned
subsidiary. The merger agreement on January 2, 2019 would provide
Celgene stockholders with 1.0 Bristol-Myers share and $50.00 in
cash for each share of Celgene owned. However, Bristol-Myers share
price dropped by 13% when the merger was announced and has since to
fully rebound.

At the standing acquisition price, stockholders, including the
Plaintiff, are not adequately compensated considering Celgene is
poised for growth, asserts the complaint. In 2018, Celgene acquired
Impact Biomedicines for $7 billion and Juno Therapeutics for $9
billion and recently engaged in billions of dollars of share
buybacks reportedly at prices well above the deal prices.

Celgene is a biotechnology company that specializes in the
discovery, development and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      Citizens Bank Center
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 656-4433
      Email: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

             - and -

      Lee Squitieri, Esq.
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 421-6492
      Fax: (212) 421-6553
      Email: lee@sfclasslaw.com

             - and -

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      Lindsey Grossman, Esq.
      Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Tel: (305) 357-9000


CENTURYLINK INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, alerts
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against CenturyLink, Inc. (NYSE:CTL) on behalf of purchasers
of CenturyLink publicly traded securities between May 10, 2018 and
March 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased CenturyLink securities during the Class
Period may, no later than May 6, 2019, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this litigation
please visit www.ktmc.com/centurylink-2019-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, CenturyLink provides various
communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and
governmental customers primarily in the United States.  On November
1, 2017, CenturyLink acquired Level 3 Communications, Inc., a
telecommunications and internet service provider.

The Class Period commences on May 10, 2018, when CenturyLink filed
its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 with the SEC,
which provided its first quarter financial results and position.
On February 13, 2019, CenturyLink issued a press release reporting
its fourth quarter and full year 2018 results.

The complaint alleges that, on March 4, 2019, CenturyLink announced
it would not be able to timely file its annual report for the
period ended December 31, 2018 because it had "identified material
weaknesses in internal controls over [its] revenue recording
processes and the procedures for measuring fair value of assets and
liabilities assumed in connection with the Level 3 Communications,
Inc. acquisition."

Following this news, shares of CenturyLink fell $0.82 per share, or
over 6%, to close at $12.15 per share on March 4, 2019.

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

CenturyLink investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud
class action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to
contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq.
or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or at
info@ktmc.com

CenturyLink investors may, no later than May 6, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


CHG MEDICAL: Court Certifies J. Carlino Class
---------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned JACQUELINE CARLINO, an
individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CHG MEDICAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant. No.
1:17-cv-01323-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff and the putative class and collective members are or
were employed as travelers by CHG. The Plaintiff contends that,
notwithstanding that the amount of weekly per diem benefits are
contingent on the number of hours worked by a traveler, CHG does
not include the value of the per diem in determining that
traveler's regular rate when calculating overtime wages. Based on
these allegations, the plaintiff asserts the following claims: (1)
class and collective action claims for failure to pay overtime in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194 (2) class
action claims for unfair business practices in violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; and
(3) class action claims for waiting time penalties in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201-203.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify and represent the following class:

     All non-exempt hourly healthcare professionals employed in
California through the RN Network division of CHG Medical Staffing,
Inc., who, at any time from September 29, 2013 through the date of
certification, worked overtime and had the value of their meals and
incidental stipends, housing allowance, and/or housing
accommodation excluded from their regular rate for purposes of
calculating overtime pay.

Rule 23(a) requires the moving party to demonstrate the existence
of four prerequisites in order for the court to consider whether
certification is proper: (1) numerosity (2) commonality (3)
typicality and (4) adequacy.

Numerosity

According to the pending motion, the proposed class contains well
in excess of 500 individuals. This is sufficient to satisfy Rule
23's numerosity requirement.  

Commonality

The Plaintiff contends that the overtime claim and the derivative
state law claims hinge on common questions of fact and law. The
crux of plaintiff's argument is that CHG systematically underpaid
overtime to class members pursuant to its policy of excluding the
value of Per Diem Benefits from the regular rate when calculating
overtime. Given that the proposed class in this case is composed of
travelers who worked overtime and had the value of their per diems
excluded from their regular rate, there exists a common factual
question about whether CHG intentionally adopted a policy to
exclude the value of the per diem benefits from the regular rates
when calculating overtime.

Moreover, there exists a common question of law as well: Does CHG's
policy of tying a traveler's weekly per diem to the number of hours
she worked in a week necessitate including the value of the per
diem in her regular rate when calculating overtime? The court
concludes that commonality is therefore satisfied here because the
unpaid overtime claims and the derivative state law claims of all
the proposed class members will stand or fall on whether the value
of the per diem is a part of the regular rate when calculating
overtime.  

Typicality

Named plaintiff Carlino has submitted a declaration to demonstrate
that her own claims are typical of the class she seeks to
represent. In that declaration, plaintiff Carlino avers that: (1)
she worked several assignments for CHG, both in California and
other states (2) she received a per diem consisting of a weekly
meals and incidentals stipend and a weekly housing allowance or
company-provided housing as part of her pay for these assignments
(3) the per diem was subject to proration if she did not work the
minimum required weekly hours for each assignment (4) when she
worked overtime, CHG did not include the value of her per diem in
her regular rate when calculating overtime pay  and (5) that,
because of this exclusion, she was not paid all of the wages she
was and is still owed. Because the proposed class consists of
travelers, like Carlino, who were employed in California, worked
overtime, and had the valued of their per diems excluded from their
regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime pay, the court
finds that plaintiff Carlino's claims are reasonably co-extensive
with those of absent class members.

Typicality is therefore satisfied here.

Adequacy of Representation

Class counsel and plaintiff Carlino have submitted declarations
stating that neither counsel nor plaintiff Carlino have any actual
conflicts of interest. Plaintiff's counsel's declaration
establishes that both of the attorneys working on this matter has
significant experience in similar litigation. Plaintiff Carlino's
declaration establishes that she, as the named class
representative, can adequately represent the wider class. Adequacy
of representation is therefore also satisfied here.

Predominance and Superiority

Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is permitted when the questions
of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members and a class action is
deemed to be superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The Plaintiff contends that the claims of each class member will
prevail or fail in unison because the questions that are common are
dispositive. Specifically, plaintiff argues that liability for each
claim in this case hinges entirely on the common questions of
whether CHG intentionally adopted the policy of excluding per diem
value from the overtime calculation despite tying the per diem to
hours worked, and whether this policy violates California law.
Thus, plaintiff contends that a class action is superior to
separate individual actions because it will reduce litigation costs
and promote efficiency. It therefore appears that a common nucleus
of facts and potential legal remedies dominates this litigation and
the court finds that the common questions present a significant
aspect of the case and that these questions can be resolved for all
members in a single litigation.

The court also finds that class resolution is superior to other
available methods for adjudication of the controversy as each
member's individual pursuit of the same claims would burden the
judiciary. For these reasons, the court therefore concludes that
the predominance and superiority requirements are satisfied in this
case.

Having found that each of the requirements for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 are satisfied here, the court will grant
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2eh6x37 from Leagle.com.

Angel Leon, Plaintiff, represented by Liliuokalani Haslop Martin --
lmartin@younessilaw.com -- Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi, APLC,
Ramin R. Younessi -- ryounessi@younessilaw.com -- Law Offices Of
Ramin R. Younessi, APLC & Stephen Joseph Duron, Law Offices Of
Ramin R. Younessi, APLC.

International Paper Company Inc., a New York Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Danielle Hultenius Moore --
dmoore@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP & Miranda R.
Watkins -- mwatkins@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP.

Graphic Packaging International, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Miranda R. Watkins, Fisher & Phillips LLP.


CHINSKY RESTAURANT: Burrus Hits Discrimination, Illegal Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladell K. Burrus, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Chinsky Restaurant Group, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00999 (S.D. Ind., March 12, 2019), seeks all
available damages, including all equitable relief, all available
compensatory damages, all available punitive damages, lost wages
and benefits, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses under
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Chinsky Group is a restaurant headquartered in Indianapolis, Marion
County, where Burrus worked as a crew member at one of its Penn
Station restaurants located in Speedway, Indiana. Burrus claims to
be discriminated because of his race being African American and
unlawfully terminated after being accused of being involved in a
robbery in a January 28, 2019, despite being shot and injured
during the robbery. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
      HUNT, HASSLER, KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Tel: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      Email: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Continues to Defend Kater Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated 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 the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated.

On April 17, 2015, a purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (the "District Court") alleging, among other claims,
that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the Company's
then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games violated
Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
by facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games
(namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered
through Big Fish Casino), and seeking among other things, return of
monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees, treble damages, and
injunctive relief.

On November 19, 2015, the District Court dismissed the case with
prejudice and, on December 7, 2015, Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 5, 2016 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to Aristocrat
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Purchaser"), an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an
Australian corporation, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement,
dated as of November 29, 2017, by and among the Company, Big Fish
Games and the Purchaser. Pursuant to the terms of the Stock
Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify the Purchaser
for the losses and expenses associated with the Kater litigation
for Big Fish Games, which is referred to in the Stock Purchase
Agreement as the "Primary Specified Litigation."

On February 6, 2018, oral arguments on Plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of the Kater litigation took place before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 28, 2018,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
and remanded the District Court's dismissal of the complaint
against the Company.

On June 12, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied the Company's Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed
by the Company on May 11, 2018. On July 13, 2018, the parties filed
a Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan in the District Court. On
July 20, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in
the District Court, which was denied on November 2, 2018. The
Company filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on November 16,
2018.

On February 19, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Joinder of Big
Fish Games, Inc. as a Necessary Party. However, that motion was
later voluntarily dismissed after the parties filed a Stipulated
Motion permitting Plaintiff to file a First Amended Class Action
Complaint, which was filed on March 20, 2019.

Churchill Downs said, "In accordance with the terms of the Stock
Purchase Agreement, the Company is working closely with the
Purchaser to vigorously defend this matter in both the District
Court and in any further appellate proceedings, and the Company
believes that there are meritorious legal and factual defenses
against Plaintiff’s allegations and requests for relief."

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


COAST TO COAST: Refuses to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Barrios Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD BARRIOS, NELSON NARANJO, JULIO A. CASTRO, ARMANDO MORALES
CASTELLANOS, ALEXIS MORALES, ELIO RAYDEL SUAREZ RODRIGUEZ, OSMANY
M. MARTINEZ, and all others Similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. COAST TO COAST GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., and YANIEVE
LEVI, Case No. 1:19-cv-21432 (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2019), alleges
that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiffs' overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Coast to Coast General Contractors, Inc., is a corporation that
regularly transacts business with Dade County, Monroe County, and
Palm Beach County Florida.  The Individual Defendant is a corporate
officer, owner and/or manager of the Defendant Corporation.

Coast to Coast specializes in a full range of exterior renovation
services, including concrete restoration, installation of new glass
railing and window systems, waterproofing and painting.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eduardo D. Fons, Esq.
          Travis D. Koon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TRAVIS KOON, PLLC
          2100 Coral Way, Suite 701
          Miami, FL 33145
          Telephone: (305) 365-8821
          Facsimile: (866) 497-1103
          E-mail: efons@koonlegal.com
                  traviskoon@koonlegal.com

               - and -

          Vanessa Torres, Esq.
          DJEBELLI TORRES
          2100 Coral Way, Suite 701
          Miami, FL 33145
          Telephone: (305) 661-3908
          Facsimile: (305) 647-3026
          E-mail: vanessa@dtlawfl.com


CONVERGYS CORP: Court Certifies Class of Call Center Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN ABNER, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. CONVERGYS CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00442-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black
entered an order on:

   1. denying Defendant's motion to strike collective class action
      claims;

   2. certifying a class of:

      "all hourly call-center employees who have been employed by
      Convergys Corporation / Convergys Customer Management Group,
      Inc., anywhere in the United States, at any time three years

      prior to the date of this Court’s Order through the final
      disposition of this matter";

   3. directing Defendant, within 30 days of the Court's Order, to

      identify all Putative Class Members by providing a list in
      electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses,
      and all known e-mail addresses; and

   4. authorizing Plaintiff to send the Notice to Putative Class
      Members by postal mail and e-mail to putative class members.

Convergys asked the Court to extend the period of time it has to
disclose the contact information of potentially thousands of
current and former employees from 14 days to 30 days. In light of
the large number of putative class members across the country, the
Court finds this request reasonable.

Shawn Abner brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and related state wage laws, on behalf of a putative class of
similarly situated individuals seeking to recover overtime wages
and liquidated damages.

Convergys is a world leading customer management outsourcing
business that operates call centers to provide customer support on
behalf of clients.[CC]

CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JOSEPH FOTE, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CREDIT CORP. SOLUTIONS INC. d/b/a TASMAN CREDIT CORP., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00513 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff
as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

DCA SERVICES: Seeks Judgment over $4,374 Bill of Costs Award
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit THERMO CREDIT, LLC, the Plaintiff, vs.
DCA SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02610-EAS-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the DCA requests that the Court enter a judgment in
the amount of the Court Clerk's award of $4,374.80, plus
post-judgment interest at the statutory rate until paid.

On January 16, 2019, the Clerk's Memorandum as to Bill of Costs
was entered, awarding costs in favor of DCA against Thermo Credit,
LLC in the amount of $4,374.80. Neither party filed a motion to
review the Clerk's taxation of costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d),
as required by the Clerk’s Memorandum.

However, Thermo Credit has refused to pay the award, and Defendant
will have to resort to judicial collection measures in order to
collect the amount due.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Ryan S. Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON LAW FIRM
          Post Office Box 891390
          Oklahoma City, OK 73189
          Telephone: (405) 246-0092
          Facsimile: (405) 246-9652
          E-mail: ryan@RSWilsonlaw.com

               - and -

          John W. Zeiger, Esq.
          Stuart G. Parsell, Esq.
          ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE, LLP
          41 South High Street, Suite 3500
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-9900
          Facsimile: (614) 365-7900
          E-mail: zeiger@litohio.com
                  parsell@litohio.com

DENSO CORP: Settles Class Action with Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENSO Corporation (hereafter "DENSO") and certain of its
consolidated subsidiaries have entered into Settlement Agreements
with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in putative class action
lawsuits in the United States.

1. Background of Lawsuits and Settlements
Since October 2011, putative auto parts class action lawsuits have
been brought against DENSO in the United States alleging that the
plaintiffs incurred damages as a result of alleged violations of
the United States antitrust laws. These lawsuits have been merged
as a multi-district-litigation pending in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan. After extensive negotiations, DENSO
has reached settlements with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. The
settlements that include no admission of liability are still
subject to approval by the Court.  

2. Settlement Plaintiffs
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs

3. Settlement Amount
US$2.1 million (approximately 230 million yen)

4. Effect on Financials
DENSO does not expect any significant impact on its consolidated
financial forecast as a result of this matter.

It is DENSO's policy to comply with all applicable antitrust laws.
Since its primary U.S. subsidiary was raided by the U.S. Department
of Justice in February 2010, DENSO group companies have been taking
various preventive measures, including implementing more stringent
compliance rules, more enhanced compliance training and more
meticulous compliance monitoring, in order to further ensure that
they comply with all applicable antitrust laws. DENSO believes it
is in complete compliance with all antitrust laws.

DENSO is committed to striving to restore the full confidence of
all stakeholders by complying with all applicable antitrust laws
around the world. [GN]


DETROIT MEDICAL: Kim Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KIM and JONATHAN ROLLINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DETROIT MEDICAL
INFORMATICS, LLC d/b/a DMI, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-11185-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich., April 24, 2019) is an action
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA")
and Illinois, Missouri, and Massachusetts state law, seeking
payment of unpaid overtime wages. Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, also seek liquidated
damages for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated
consultants were knowingly and improperly classified as independent
contractors, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant DMI as a consultant providing
support and training to Defendant's clients.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
     221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Phone: 734.929.4313
     Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
            hollander@bwlawonline.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

          - and -

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


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Kirby Mcinerney Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who acquired Diplomat
Pharmacy, Inc. ("Diplomat" or the "Company") (NYSE: DPLO )
securities during the period from February 26, 2018 through
February 21, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April
25, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Diplomat made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Diplomat
had downplayed its success in integrating and growing its PBM
business, which included LDI Integrated and National
Pharmaceutical, two companies Diplomat had acquired in late 2017;
(ii) consequently, Diplomat would need to record a non-cash
impairment charge upwards of approximately $630 million relating to
its PBM business and these 2017 acquisitions; and (iii) due to the
foregoing, Diplomat would withdraw its preliminary 2019 full-year
outlook issued less than seven weeks prior.

On February 22, 2019, Diplomat revealed that it would be postponing
its fourth quarter and full-year 2018 financial results since it
needed to record a non-cash impairment charge in connection with
its PBM business. Diplomat also renounced its preliminary 2019
full-year outlook from January.

On this news, Diplomat's share price fell $7.59 per share, more
than 56%, to close at $5.87 on February 22, 2019.

If you acquired Diplomat securities during the Class Period, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims please
contact:

         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Telephone: (212) 371-6600
         Website: www.kmllp.com
         Email: investigations@kmllp.com
                telrod@kmllp.com [GN]


ELEGANT NAIL: Idrovo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
GLADYS IDROVO, and PILAR BECERRA on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELEGANT NAIL SALON & SPA LLC AND
I YONG CHUNG, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00615 (D. Conn., April
24, 2019) is an action brought to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, unlawful deductions & other monies pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA"), and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act ("CMWA").

Plaintiffs were consistently required by Elegant Nail to work in
excess of forty hours per week and were paid a set daily rate of
pay that failed to satisfy the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the FLSA and CMWA. Plaintiffs were paid the same
amount each day, regardless of the number of hours they actually
worked. As a result, Plaintiffs were denied minimum wages, as well
as overtime compensation for the hours they worked in excess of
forty per workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are former nail technicians at Elegant Nail.

Elegant Nail is a nail salon and spa located at 232 Boston Post
Road, Suite 15, Milford, Connecticut 06460.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William G. Madsen, Esq.
     Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC
     402 Asylum Street
     Hartford, CT 06103
     Phone: (860) 246-2466
     Email: wmadsen@mppjustice.com

          - and -

     Catalina Cadavid, Esq.
     Pechman Law Group PLLC
     488 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 583-9500
     Email: cadavid@pechmanlaw.com


ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING: Seefeldt Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MICHAEL SEEFELDT individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL, LLC OUTFIELD BREW HOUSE,
LLC d/b/a BUDWEISER BREW HOUSE, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00188-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
Order:

   a. determining that Plaintiff's Telephone Consumer Protection
      Act action against Defendants shall be maintained as a class

      action with the proposed Plaintiff class defined as:

      Autodial Class:

      "all persons and entities within the United States to whom
      Defendants (or a third party at Defendants' direction) sent
a
      text message to their cellular or wireless telephone,
      promoting special pricing or events at Ballpark Village
      and/or Brew House, between February 7, 2015 and February 7,
      2019."

      DNC Class:

      "all persons within the United States to whom, between
      February 7, 2015 and February 7, 2019, Defendants (or a
third
      party at Defendants' direction) sent more than one text
      message promoting special pricing or events at Ballpark
      Village and/or Brew House, within any twelve-month period"

      Excluded from the above-defined classes are: Defendants, any
      entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest,
      Defendants' officers, directors, and employees, Defendants'
      counsel, any persons or entities who have previously filed a

      TCPA lawsuit against Defendants (either individually or on
      behalf of a putative class), any persons or entities who have

      previously settled a TCPA claim with Defendants, the Court
      and Court personnel, and Plaintiff's counsel.

      All persons and entities, if any, for whom Defendants possess

      a tangible document or other tangible form (or authentic copy

      thereof) stating Defendants may use an ATDS to send
      advertising and/or telemarketing text messages to a specific

      cell phone number bearing the hand-written signature of such

      person or entity.

      All persons and entities, if any, for whom Defendants possess

      an electronic document or other electronic form (or authentic

      copy thereof) stating Defendants may use an ATDS to send
      advertising and/or telemarketing text messages to a specific

      cell phone number bearing the electronic signature of such
      person or entity.

      All persons and entities, if any, for whom Defendants possess

      an agreement to arbitrate TCPA claims (or authentic copy
      thereof) bearing the hand-written or electronic signature of

      such person or entity.;

   b. appointing Plaintiff Michael Seefeldt as class
      representative;

   c. appointing Edward D. Robertson, III and Anthony L. DeWitt of

      Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader, PC and Ari N. Rodopoulos

      of the Wood Law Firm, LLC as lead class counsel; and

   d. any other relief the Court deems just and proper.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

          Anthony L. DeWitt, Esq.
          Edward D. Robertson, Esq.
          BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
          ROBERTSON RADER, PC
          109 B East High Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: 573 659 4454

               - and -

          Ari Rodopoulos, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-559-7645

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Glenn T. Graham, Esq.
          Whitney M Smith, Esq.
          Zachary T. Bowles, Esq.
          Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          E-mail: ggraham@kelleydrye.com
                  docketing@kelleydrye.com
                  lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com
                  wsmith@kelleydrye.com
                  docketing@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Jacqueline M. Sexton, Esq.
          FOLAND, WICKENS, ROPER,
             HOFER AND CRAWFORD, P.C.
          1200 Main Street, Suite 2200
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 472-7474
          Facsimile: (816) 472-6262
          E-mail: jsexton@fwpclaw.com
                  lreinier@fwpclaw.com
                  zbowles@fwpclaw.com

ERIEVIEW METAL: Davis Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryant Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Erieview Metal Treating Co., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00925 (N.D. Ohio, April 24, 2019) is a case
challenging the policies and practices of Defendant that violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him are current or former
non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant. They worked more than 40
hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation
under the FLSA. However, they were not paid all of the overtime
compensation they earned, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly employee during times
relevant to this Complaint.

Defendant is a for-profit Ohio corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     34 N. High St., Ste. 502
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 824-5770
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

          - and -

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: (330) 470-4428
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


ESKOM: Faces Class Action Over Load Shedding
--------------------------------------------
Steve Bhengu, writing for East Coast Radio, reports that if you or
your business has suffered quantifiable losses due to load shedding
-- you can join a class action lawsuit against Eskom.

A South African law firm's gearing up to take on Eskom in court.  

Elaine Bergenthuin of De Beer Attorneys says Eskom's failure to do
its job is at the heart of the matter.

She says they've been approached by companies across the country,
who say business for them came to a standstill during power cuts.

"Companies running factories had to shut down those factories --
for specific periods of time. So it's a definite a loss of profit,
damages to machinery and equipment, having internet connectivity,
phone connectivity affected as well the loss of good will and
reputation as a result of that," Bergenthuin said.

Bergenthuin says anyone can contact them. [GN]


FIRST CHOICE: May 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. on April 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
First Choice Healthcare Solutions, Inc. ("First Choice" or the
"Company") (OTC: FCHS) between April 1, 2014 and November 14, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

First Choice shareholders may, no later than May 28, 2019, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of First Choice and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants were
engaged in an undisclosed pump and dump scheme that manipulated and
artificially inflated the price of First Choice common stock, and
failed to disclose their involvement, rendering certain of their
public statements materially misleading. On November 15, 2018,
after a federal criminal indictment and an SEC enforcement action
were announced against its former Chairman, CEO, and President
Christian Romandetti, Sr. and his co-conspirators, First Choice
common stock declined $0.66 per share or nearly 65%, to close at
$0.35 per share.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 28,
2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order
to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about
class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C.
please visit our website by clicking here.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide. [GN]


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Busch Sues Over Unfair Fees
----------------------------------------------
JAMIE BUSCH f.k.a. JAMIE AGEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-09920 (D.N.J., April 15, 2019), alleges violations of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the Consumer Fraud
Act.

Ms. Busch alleges that the Defendant instructed her to submit loan
payments to an incorrect address.  As a result of the Plaintiff and
Class members sending their payments, as instructed, by Freedom to
the Payment Address, such payments were not properly and timely
received by Freedom and Freedom subsequently caused harm to
Plaintiff and Class members including but not limited to late fees
imposed on the Loans, costs to cancel payments to the Payment
Address, costs to remit new payments to the Correct Address, and
credit damages for being reported as delinquent on the Loans.

Freedom is an incorporated business under the laws of the state of
New Jersey, which does business in Massachusetts as a licensed
foreign corporation.  Freedom's headquarters and principal place of
business is located in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey.

Freedom is a mortgage "servicer."  Freedom is the current servicer
of the Plaintiff's and Class members' notes and mortgages on real
property that secure those notes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Javier L. Merino, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          1 Meadowlands Plaza, Suite 200
          East Rutherford, NJ 07073
          Telephone: (201) 355-3440
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: JMerino@DannLaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq.
          DANNLAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: msmith@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com


H&R BLOCK: Hoagland Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Hoagland, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. H&R BLOCK, INC. and AXOS BANK, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00750-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 23, 2019) brings
this action against Defendants to secure redress for their sending
numerous nonconsensual autodialed text message calls to the
cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and others, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

H&R Block and/or Axos have sent multiple text message calls to
Plaintiffs cellular telephone. The text messages consisted largely
of account-related communications, such as a customer survey,
notifications about charges to the person's H&R Block Emerald Card
debit card, H&R Block appointment reminders, and messages about the
person's tax return and a refund advance loan.

Plaintiff has no relationship with either H&R Block or Axos.
Neither H&R Block nor Axos had Plaintiffs consent to receive these
messages. Defendants knew they did not have consent to send these
messages: Plaintiff notified H&R Block that it was sending texts to
the wrong person and requested that the texts stop multiple times,
to no avail, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kenneth Hoagland is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of Kentucky.

Defendant H&R Block, Inc. is a Missouri company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
     Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
     Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
     BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
     2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
     Westlake Village, CA 91361
     Phone: (805) 270-7100
     Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
     Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
            kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
            temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
     One W. 4th St., 18th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 345-8297
     Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

          - and -

     Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
     THE LYON FIRM
     2021 Auburn Ave.
     Cincinnati, OH 45219
     Phone: (513) 381-2333
     Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

          - and -

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


HEALTH E SYSTEMS: Quintana Seeks Pay for Off-The-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Quintana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Health E Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01644 (D. Ariz., March 11, 2019), seeks compensatory damages,
including all wages and overtime pay owed, liquidated damages on
all wages and overtime compensation due, all costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim and such further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Health E Systems provides cost management and pharmacy benefit
management services in the workers' compensation industry. Quintana
worked as a telephone-dedicated employee in the position of
handling credit card customer service telephone calls at its Tempe,
Arizona call center. Plaintiff claims unpaid work during booting up
computers, initializing several software programs, reading company
issued emails and instructions at the beginning of their shifts and
completing customer service calls, securing their workstations,
locking their desk drawers, and securing any customer or
proprietary information at the end of their shifts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

             - and -

      Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
      MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C.
      15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260
      Tel: (480) 889-8951
      Email: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:HCSG) and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and indexed under
19-cv-01227, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Healthcare Services between April 11, 2017 and March
4, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff
seeks to pursue remedies against Healthcare Services and certain of
its most senior executives under Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
l0b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Healthcare Services
securities during the class period, you have until May 21, 2019, to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com  To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Healthcare Services, based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, engages in
the management, administrative, and operating services to the
housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance, and dietary
service departments to nursing homes, retirement complexes,
rehabilitation centers, and hospitals in the United States.
             
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: Defendants made false and
misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market
and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of
Healthcare Services securities and operated as a fraud or deceit on
Class Period purchasers of Healthcare Services securities by
misrepresenting the value of the Company's business and prospects
by overstating its earnings and concealing the significant defects
in its internal controls.
             
On March 4, 2019, in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), the Company disclosed that it had
received a letter in November 2017 from the SEC regarding an
inquiry that the SEC was conducting into EPS calculation practices
and requesting that the Company voluntarily provide certain
information and documents relating to its EPS rounding and
reporting practices.   The March 4, 2019 Form 8-K further disclosed
that the Company also had received a subpoena in March 2018 from
the SEC in connection with these matters and that it had been
providing information and documents to the SEC.
             
The March 4, 2019 Form 8-K also revealed to investors that, during
the fourth quarter of 2018, the Company authorized its outside
counsel to conduct an internal investigation, under the direction
of the Company's Audit Committee, into matters related to the SEC
subpoena.  The Form 8-K acknowledged that, as a result of these
circumstances, the Company was unable to file its Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 on time.

Then, on March 4, 2019, Monocle published an article entitled
‘Strategic Rounding' At Healthcare Services Group: A Subpoena
From The SEC And An Internal Investigation (the "March 2019
Article").  The March 2019 Article referred back to a prior article
published by Monocle in March 2017—the allegations of which
Healthcare Services categorically denied following its
publication—claiming, in pertinent part: "[I]t appeared that the
company had been actively engaging FOR OVER A DECADE in aggressive
accounting by fiddling with its revenues and/or expenses in order
to ensure that its earnings per share rounded up to the nearest
penny every quarter.  This helped enable the company to meet or
beat the consensus sell-side earnings expectation most quarters,
which in turn helped the company achieve premium earnings multiple
for the stock. Arguably, this allowed founder and Chairman Daniel
McCartney to personally realize millions of dollars more for the
stock that he sold to the public than he otherwise would have."

Additionally, according to the March 2019 Article, Healthcare
Services "dramatically amend[ed]" the way it managed its quarterly
EPS following Monocle's publication of the March 2017 Article, as
well as after Monocle informed the Company, the Company's sell-side
analysts, and the SEC of its findings.    The March 2019 article
also noted how Healthcare Services' EPS continued to climb
dramatically in the wake of Monocle's release of the 2017 article.
             
Following these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $4.96
per share, or 13.14%, to close at $32.78 on March 4, 2019.

Contact:

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


HERTZ CORP: Certification of Collective Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BAMIDELE AIYEKUSIBE, MISCHELE HIGGINSON
and SHANTAL BROWN-WINN, Individually And on behalf of all others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE HERTZ CORPORATION and
DTG OPERATIONS INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00816-UA-MRM
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the action as a national collective
      action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards

      Act:

      ONE SINGLE CLASS:

      "all persons employed by HERTZ Corporation, including through

      its wholly owned subsidiary, DTG OPERATIONS INC., as Function

      Managers, Functional Managers, or Location Managers, and any

      other job titles previously or currently used to describe the

      same position at any Airport locations in the United States
      and its territories, at any time within the three years
      preceding this lawsuit to the day of trial pursuant to FLSA,

      29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

      - or -

      TWO CLASSES:

      CLASS A:

      "all persons employed by HERTZ Corporation as Function
      Managers, Functional Managers, or Location Managers, and any

      other job titles previously or currently used to describe the

      same position at any Airport locations in the United States
      and its territories, at any time within the three (3) years
      preceding this lawsuit to the day of trial pursuant to FLSA,

      29 U.S.C. section  216(b).

      - and -

      CLASS B:

      "all persons employed by DTG OPERATIONS INC. as Function
      Managers, Functional Managers, or Location Managers, and any

      other job titles previously or currently used to describe the

      same position at any Airport locations in the United States
      and its territories, at any time within the three (3) years
      preceding this lawsuit to the day of trial pursuant to FLSA,

      29 U.S.C. section 216(b).;

   2. requiring the Defendants, THE HERTZ CORPORATION and DTG
      OPERATIONS INC., to produce the name, address, telephone
      number and email address of each putative class member; and

   3. authorizing Plaintiffs to send Notice of this action to each

      similarly situated person currently employed or who was
      formerly employed by Defendants within the preceding three
      years of the date of the order.

Bamidele Aiyekusibe filed the collective action complaint against
The Hertz Corporation alleging that Hertz willfully misclassified
its "Location Manager," "Functional Manager," and "Function
Manager" as exempt employees and failed to pay them overtime
compensation for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek and in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Classes:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6940 W. Linebaugh Ave., #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: 813-639-9366
          Facsimile: 813-639-9376
          E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us
                  mhockensmith@feldmanlegal.us

HOMEFIX CUSTOM: Baylor Hits Discrimination, Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
TORRAY BAYLOR, ANTONIO DORSEY, KEVON MCDONALD, KYM THORNTON on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HOMEFIX CUSTOM REMODELING CORPORATION f/k/a HOMEFIX CORPORATION,
TOPE LALA, KEITH SINNOTT, ADAM SHAMPAINE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01195-RDB (D. Md., April 24, 2019) seeks to recover any and
all available damages stemming from (a) Defendants' willful failure
to pay "lead developers" their earned wages, including minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), the D.C. Wage Payment
and Collection Law ("DCWPCL"), and the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision
Act ("DCMWRA"), (b) Defendant Homefix's breach of contract in
violation of Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia common
law; and (c) Defendant Homefix's race discrimination in their
employment contracts.

Homefix Custom Remodeling Corporation is a residential remodeling
company operating in Maryland, Washington D.C., Virginia, and other
states. Plaintiffs are non-white persons who Defendants employed as
a Lead Developers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants recruit Lead Developers
from probation offices, homeless shelters, colleges, bus stops,
Metro stations, and other locations with empty promises of making
hundreds of dollars per day. The Defendants carefully monitor and
track Lead Developers' work and monitor it via a centralized
database, but they deliberately conceal the results of leads and
routinely break their promise to pay Lead Developers per their
agreements.

Through this scheme, the Homefix Defendants deny Lead Developers
the bedrock protections guaranteed to employees, including the
right to a minimum wage for all hours worked and the right to an
overtime premium for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek,
asserts the complaint.

The Defendants also discriminate against Lead Developers according
to their race. In assigning Lead Developers to a particular
canvassing turf, Defendants segregate white Lead Developers from
non-white Lead Developers, directing each group, respectively, to a
similarly segregated white or non-white neighborhood. This practice
allows white Lead Developers to earn more money than non-white Lead
Developers because it provides them access to higher income
homeowners who have higher home values and credit scores, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Monisha Cherayil, Esq.
     Sally Dworak-Fisher, Esq.
     PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
     One North Charles Street, Suite 200
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 625-9409
     Fax: (410) 625-9423
     Email: cherayilm@publicjustice.org
            dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org

          - and -

     Mark Hanna, Esq.
     Roseann R. Romano, Esq.
     MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
     1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 223-2620
     Fax: (202) 296-9600
     Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com
            rromano@murphypllc.com

          - and -

     Daniel A. Katz, Esq.
     Hannah E. M. Lieberman, Esq.
     WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
     CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
     11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 400
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 319-1000 ext. 135
     Fax: (202) 319-1010
     Email: Daniel_Katz@washlaw.org
            Hannah_Lieberman@washlaw.org


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Odyssey/Pilot Infotainment Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honda is facing a new class-action lawsuit alleging the automaker
knowingly sold its 2018-2019 Honda Odyssey and 2019 Honda Pilot
vehicles with defective infotainment systems which it refuses to
fix, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.

If you purchased or leased a fifth generation, 2018-2019 Honda
Odyssey vehicle or 2019 Honda Pilot, find out more about the
lawsuit and your rights.

According to the lawsuit filed Mar. 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, owners of the
affected vehicles report that the infotainment system – an
integrated in-vehicle communication, navigation and entertainment
system – behaves erratically, malfunctioning, freezing, and
creating a safety hazard and distraction.

The defect can cause safety-related systems (including backup
camera functions) to fail, and can create distracting random audio
or video. The defect can also cause the entire center console to go
black or blue while the vehicle is in motion, and cause navigation
and other dashboard features to shut down completely while in use.

"Both NHTSA and many online forums are filled with consumer
complaints about Honda's defective infotainment system in the
Odyssey and Pilot, with malfunctions beginning as soon as owners
drive their car off the dealership lot," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney representing Honda
owners in the class action. "Our client's vehicle has been serviced
by Honda's technicians eight times, and yet its infotainment system
continues to malfunction. It's clear to us that Honda is failing to
admit this problem exists and failing to uphold its promises to
consumers."

The lawsuit alleges Honda breached its own warranty, stating,
"Under the Vehicles' New Vehicle Limited Warranty, Honda is
required to ‘repair or replace any part that is defective in
material or workmanship under normal use.' But Honda has not found
a solution to the infotainment system defect. Instead, Honda simply
replaces defective parts with equally defective parts, thereby
leaving consumers caught in a cycle of use, malfunction, and
replacement."

Reports to NHTSA call the affected model "obviously flawed," and
cite instances of the entire dash turning off while driving,
including the speedometer. "As soon as I drove off the lot, the car
gave me an error," another report to NHTSA reads. Owners say Honda
has offered no solutions.

Hagens Berman also represents Ford owners in a similar suit against
Ford for its MyFord Touch infotainment system. That case has
reached a preliminarily approved settlement, giving owners several
payout options.

The lawsuit against Honda seeks both monetary reimbursement for
those who purchased or leased an affected Honda Odyssey or Pilot,
and also seeks action from the court barring Honda from continuing
to sell vehicles with the defective infotainment system.

The suit highlights that Consumer Reports downgraded its rating on
the 2018 Honda Odyssey to "No Longer Recommended" due to
"much-worse-than-average reliability, with problems including the
infotainment display freezing and losing all functionality."

"The only action Honda is taking is to conceal this widespread
defect, which we find inexcusable given the risk of safety to Honda
owners, and incurred expenses from numerous attempted repairs,"
Berman said. "We believe it's time for Honda to come clean."

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Honda.

         Contact:
         Ashley Klann
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Telephone: 206-268-9363
         Email: ashleyk@hbsslaw.com [GN]


HUDSON GROUP: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. HUDSON GROUP (HG) RETAIL, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03580-RA (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. 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 retail locations as well as its website, and
those affiliated or directly linked, and advertises, markets,
offers and sells its services and retail locations 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


IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 22 Hearing on $1.15MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP informed persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. ("IMUC") common stock on
the open market between May 1, 2012 and May 30, 2014, inclusive,
and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class") that a hearing
will be held at 10:00 a.m. on August 22, 2019, before the Honorable
Fernando M. Olguin at the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, 350 W. 1st
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012,

At the hearing, Judge Olguin will determine whether (1) the
proposed Settlement of the action titled Kaye v. ImmunoCellular
Therapeutics, Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03250-FMO-SK (the
"Action"), for the sum of $1,150,000 should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Court should
approve the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) Co-Lead Counsel should be awarded up
to $287,500 in attorneys' fees (25% of the $1,150,000 settlement
amount) and reimbursed for up to $80,000 of litigation expenses,
and Plaintiffs should be awarded their reasonable costs incurred in
the representation of the Class, including lost wages, not to
exceed $2,500 per Plaintiff; and (4) the Court should enter the
Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice. The Court may change
the hearing date without further notice to the Class.

If you purchased IMUC common stock between May 1, 2012 and May 30,
2014, inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement.
You may obtain, free of charge, a detailed Notice of Proposed Class
Action Settlement (the "Notice"), a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form, and a copy of the Exclusion Form at the Claims
Administrator's website, www.imucsecuritieslitigation.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator by toll free phone at
800-391-9724 or by mail at ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. Sec.
Litig., c/o A.B. DATA, LTD. – CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATION, P.O.
Box 173054, Milwaukee, WI 53217.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to share in the
Settlement proceeds, you must complete and submit a Proof of Claim
and Release form to the Claims Administrator, mailed and postmarked
no later than July 24, 2019, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. If you fail to submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release
by this deadline in accordance with the instructions in the form,
you will not recover from the Net Settlement Fund, but you will
nevertheless be bound by the Settlement and releases provided for
therein and by the Court's Judgment dismissing the Action with
prejudice.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to object to any
aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, you must submit your written
objection in the manner set forth in the Notice so that it is
received no later than June 4, 2019. Only Settlement Class Members
who have submitted valid and timely written objections and provided
notice of their intent to appear in accordance with the
instructions in the Notice will be entitled to be heard at the
hearing on August 22, 2019.

Notwithstanding any objection you may submit, you will be bound by
the Settlement and releases provided for therein and by the Court's
Judgment dismissing the Action unless you request to be excluded
from the Settlement Class.  To request exclusion, you must submit
an Exclusion Form or written request in the manner set forth in the
Notice mailed and postmarked no later than June 4, 2019. If you
submit a timely and valid request to be excluded from the
Settlement Class, you will not be required to waive or release any
claims against Defendants, you will not receive any payment or
other benefit in the Settlement, and you will not be bound by the
Settlement or any other order or Judgment that may be entered by
the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Co-Lead Counsel for the Class at Robert C. Finkel, Esq., Wolf
Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10022,
Tel.: (212) 759-4600 [GN]


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs' Motions for
Consolidation of the cases captioned ALDE-BINET TCHATCHOU,
Plaintiff, v. INDIA GLOBALIZATION CAPITAL, INC., et at.,
Defendants, and GABE HARRIS-CARR, Plaintiff, v. INDIA GLOBALIZATION
CAPITAL, INC., et at. Defendants, Case Nos. 8:18-cv-03396-PWG,
8:18-cv-03408-GJH (D. Md.).

The suits were filed on the same day and have two defendants in
common: India Globalization Capital, Inc. (India Globalization) and
its president and chief executive officer, Ram Mukunda. Both suits
accuse the company, Mukunda, and other company officials of
misleading investors in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.

The principles governing the consolidation of securities fraud
suits are found not in the PSLRA, but in Rule 42 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 42 gives a court discretion to
consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.
In exercising this discretion, the court must consider the interest
of judicial economy as well as the interest of the parties in a
fair and impartial procedure.  

Here, there is no question the two suits involve common questions
of law and fact. Both complaints center on the company's statements
in its September 25, 2018 press release, alleging these statements
were part of a scheme to artificially inflate the stock price and
defraud investors. On the basis of these allegations, the
complaints assert identical legal claims.

To be sure, the suits are not without their differences. While both
name India Globalization and Mr. Mukunda as defendants, each names
at least one other defendant the other does not.2 The suits also
propose different (but overlapping) class periods. Both suits would
close the class period on October 29, 2018, when the NYSE American
suspended all trading of the company's stock. Tchatchou, though,
would have the class period start on September 26, 2018, the day
after the company issued the press release announcing the deal to
market the Nitro G energy drink.  

These distinctions are by no means fatal to the motions for
consolidation. As this Court has previously explained: Differences
in class periods, parties, or damages among the suits do not
necessarily defeat consolidation, so long as the essential claims
and facts alleged in each case are similar. Consolidation is often
appropriate, regardless, where the securities fraud actions are
based on the same public statements and reports. That is the case
here. And seeing as no putative class members have raised any
concerns that consolidation might prejudice them.

The Court sees no reason to keep the suits separate. It is the
Court's decision, accordingly, that these two suits are now
consolidated.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y3zqk5fq
from Leagle.com.

Alde-Binet Tchatchou, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Katz,
Tydings and Rosenberg LLP, John Bucher Isbister, Tydings and
Rosenberg LLP, & Matthew M. Guiney, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
and Herz LLP, pro hac vice.

Gabe Harris-Carr, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stephen
Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and
Toll PLLC.

India Globalization Capital, Inc., Ram Mukunda & Richard Prins,
Defendants, represented by Matthew Edward Feinberg --
mfeinberg@pilieromazza.com -- PilieroMazza, PLLC.

India Global Investor Group, Defendant, represented by Andrew
Radding -- aradding@adelberg.com -- Adelberg Rudow Dorf and Hendler
LLC.


INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Suit Transferred From Arkansas to Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Stearns v. Inmate Services Corporation, et
al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00100, was transferred on April 15, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(Cleveland).

The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00828 to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as personal injury.[BN]

Plaintiff Danzel L. Stearns, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Mark E. Merin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
          1010 F Street, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 443-6911
          Facsimile: (916) 447-8337
          E-mail: mark@markmerin.com

               - and -

          Paul J. James, Esq.
          JAMES, CARTER & COULTER
          P.O. Box 907
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 372-1414
          E-mail: pjj@jamescarterlaw.com

Defendant Inmate Services Corporation is represented by:

          Henry Charles Gschwend, Jr., Esq.
          Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq.
          WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL PA
          P.O. Box 3077
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077
          Telephone: (870) 932-0900
          Facsimile: (870) 932-2553
          E-mail: cgschwend@wpmfirm.com
                  mmayfield@wpmfirm.com


JONES DAY: Faces Class Action Over Fraternity Culture
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that six
female former Jones Day associates have accused the firm of
widespread gender discrimination, claiming its "black box"
compensation model, leadership structure and culture serve to
systematically deny women equal pay and opportunity for
advancement.

The women detailed their allegations in a proposed $200 million
class action filed on April 3 in Washington, D.C., federal court.

Their 107-page complaint is the latest gender discrimination action
against a large law firm brought by Sanford Heisler Sharp, which
has also targeted Morrison & Foerster, Proskauer Rose and Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, among others. The firm also filed a
separate gender bias suit against Jones Day last year on behalf of
former partner Wendy Moore.

"Jones Day's fraternity culture presents female attorneys at Jones
Day with an unpalatable choice: participate in a culture that is at
best inhospitable to women and at worst openly misogynistic or
forego any hope of success at the firm," the latest complaint said.
"For a female associate to succeed at Jones Day, she must at least
tolerate the stereotyped expectations of the firm's male power
brokers. To challenge these expectations by word or deed, even in
settings ostensibly provided for 'honest' feedback, is career
suicide."

Representatives for Jones Day did not respond to requests for
comment on the allegations.

Two named plaintiffs in the proposed class action, Nilab Rahyar
Tolton and Andrea Mazingo, worked as associates in Jones Day's
Irvine, California, office until 2018. (They are now associates in
the Los Angeles area at Call & Jensen and Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe, respectively.) Two of the anonymous women also worked in
California, while the other two were based elsewhere.

Together, the six plaintiffs provide a vivid account of how
compensation and partnership decisions were allegedly tilted
against them and other women at the firm, while female associates
also allegedly endured regular incidents of harassment and
humiliation.

"The complaint chronicles how male senior partners give the best
work to male associates, who earn more and are promoted more
rapidly, and how female lawyers' work is regularly undervalued,"
Deborah Marcuse, Sanford Heisler Sharp's Baltimore managing
partner, said in a statement. She is joined in representing the
plaintiffs by Washington, D.C.-based chairman David Sanford and New
York managing partner Russell Kornblith.

The complaint begins with an account of Jones Day's management
system, under which it says Washington, D.C.-based Stephen Brogan
runs the firm with "unchecked autonomy." Brogan makes all
compensation and promotion decisions for the firm, the complaint
says, pointing to press reports and the firm's own website.

"The evaluation process can be manipulated, and upon information
and belief regularly is so manipulated, to justify pushing women
out," the complaint said. "Perhaps unsurprisingly in a firm where
pay and promotion decisions are made by a single managing partner,
these evaluations are easily marshaled to justify any given course
of action."

The "consensus statements" that allegedly underpin compensation and
partnership decisions are riddled with gender stereotypes, the
complaint alleges: "The tireless, childless female associate is
inadequately 'fun' and excessively 'intense'; the high-performing
associate mother of small children is 'deadline challenged' or
lacks 'commitment.'"

The complaint also describes a frat-house atmosphere at the firm.
At one unidentified office, male partners allegedly kick off the
firm's holiday party by encouraging drinking in the office,
followed by alcohol-fueled dancing, during which male managers
"gawk" at dancing female associates for amusement. At another
office, during a summer associate event at a partner's home, after
a female summer associate was allegedly pushed into the swimming
pool while wearing a white dress, the male summer associate who
pushed her was "applauded and high-fived" by leadership rather than
reprimanded.

The complaint also called the firm's efforts to provide support for
women "window dressing" -- a women's affinity lunch group was
allegedly mocked by male attorneys as an opportunity "to talk about
women things and having kids."

Tolton said that pregnancy led to the end of her tenure at Jones
Day. She claims that while she initially excelled at the firm, she
was also assigned secretarial-type work because of her gender. She
allegedly saw her 2014 raise reduced after inquiring at a
firm-sponsored event about female advancement and the firm's
protocols for requesting a part-time schedule and providing notice
of pregnancy. The firm then allegedly froze her salary when she
took leave for her first pregnancy, and forced her out of the firm
days after she returned from her second maternity leave.

Mazingo, the other named plaintiff, alleged that she was routinely
treated as a sex object by her supervising partners, who at the
same time denied her mentorship and professional attention.  She
said in the complaint that the heightened expectations placed on
female associates, when combined with the lack of support,
ultimately prompted her to seek medical leave.

After one weekend of leave and a panic attack upon being berated by
a partner for how she communicated the leave request, Mazingo
ultimately left the firm and was subsequently hospitalized for
three days after a relapse of fibromyalgia, a chronic pain disease,
she alleges.

Mazingo is now managing associate for Orrick's LA office, according
to her bio on the firm's website.

The complaint seeks to represent a class of all female associates
who are, have been or will be employed by Jones Day in the United
States. The class claims fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, the
latter of which applies to allegedly discriminatory decisions made
by Brogan.

"Jones Day proudly touts that it is not like its peer firms,
because it does not pay its associates in lockstep. However,
plaintiffs allege that this 'black box' compensation system masks
gender discrimination in pay. It is time for Jones Day to open the
black box and implement full pay transparency," Kornblith said in a
statement. [GN]


JUDITH HELLMAN: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. JUDITH HELLMAN, M.D. PLLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03579 (S.D. N.Y., April 23, 2019) brought 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.  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 medical office location as well as its
website, and those affiliated or directly linked, and advertises,
markets, offers and sells its services and medical office 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


JUVENEX LTD: Duncan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. JUVENEX, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03584-RA (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


LANDRY'S REST: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Oncidi, Esq. -- aoncidi@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that Jorge Fierro filed
a class action against Landry's Rest. Inc., claiming that he and
the other members of the putative class were misclassified as
exempt employees and that, in fact, they were non-exempt,
non-managerial employees who are owed unpaid overtime wages and
penalties. Landry's responded by filing a demurrer, asserting that
the claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
Although Landry's conceded that the filing of an earlier class
action for these claims tolled the statute of limitations
applicable to Fierro's individual claims, it maintained that the
statute was not tolled for the class claims Fierro asserted.
Landry's also contended that because the earlier class action was
dismissed for failure to bring the action to trial within five
years, the class claims could not be resurrected in the new action
filed by Fierro. The trial court sustained the demurrer to the
class claims due to the earlier dismissal based upon the five-year
rule. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the action to the
trial court, holding that on the present record the Court could not
determine whether all of the class' claims are untimely. The Court
further determined that upon denial of class certification in an
action, a putative class member may not commence the same class
claim in a new action beyond the time allowed by the limitation
period applicable to the class claim, citing China Agritech, Inc.
v. Resh, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018) (successive class
action may not be filed under federal law after the original
statute of limitations period has expired).

The case is Fierro v. Landry's Rest. Inc., 2019 WL 658710 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2019) [GN]


LL-T SHOW BAR: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Bennett Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHEA BENNETT, CARLA BRANTLEY And FANTA PATTON, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. LL-T
SHOW BAR, INC. And CLUB 69, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-11088-SJM-SDD
(E.D. Mich., April 15, 2019), alleges that the Defendants
misclassified the Plaintiffs and other exotic dancers as
"independent contractors" and failed to pay them minimum wage under
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Minimum Wage
Law.

Show Bar is or was a corporation formed under the laws of the state
of Michigan that operated as a gentlemen's club under trade names
LL-T Show Bar and later Club 69, and was known to the public as a
gentlemen's club featuring female exotic dancers in Flint,
Michigan.

Club 69 is a limited liability company formed in the state of
Michigan that previously operated as LL-T Show bar and currently
operates as Club 69, a gentlemen's club featuring female exotic
dancers in Flint, Michigan.  Club 69 operates as a legal successor
and continuation of Show Bar.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford Neubauer, Jr., Esq.
          ERSKINE LAW
          342 S. Main Street
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 601-4499
          E-mail: cneubauer@erskinelaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


LOANCARE LLC: Fox Sues Over Illegal Autodialed Calls
----------------------------------------------------
Shirley Fox, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LoanCare, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00366 (W.D. Wash., March 12, 2019), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

LoanCare is a mortgage servicer and debt collector. It used
pre-recorded voice message calls to consumers in order to promote
it service without consent. In early 2018, Fox began receiving
repeated autodialed and/or prerecorded calls to her cellular phone
number from LoanCare but was unable to speak with a live agent.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric R. Draluck, Esq.
      Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
      Telephone: (206) 605-1424
      Email: edraluck@gmail.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498.8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Gonzalez-Tzita Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit LEONARDO GONZALEZ-TZITA, an individual,
ESTEBAN DIEGO ESTEBAN, an individual, SIDONIO LOMELI, and
individual and all as class representatives, the Plaintiff, vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-194
FMO (Ex) (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an
order on May 9, 2019:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all registered vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized
and
      impounded by the City of Los Angeles at any time from January

      11, 2014, through February 15, 2017, under the authority of
      Cal. Veh. Code section 21100.4"; and

   2. preliminarily approving the Class Action Settlement Agreement
and
      authorizing mailing and other forms of notice to class
      members.

The case challenges the legality of vehicle seizures undertaken
pursuant to a City of Los Angeles' "bandit taxi" program. Under
that program, City officials impounded for up to 30 days vehicles
City officials contended were being operated as an unlawful vehicle
for hire, more commonly called a "bandit taxi," in violation of
L.A.M.C. section 71.02(a) (the City's bandit taxi ordinance).

The parties have reached a settlement agreement which has been
given final City Council approval. Under the settlement the City
agrees to $1,700,000.00 in damages and attorneys' fees and costs to
resolve the matter as a class action lawsuit. The damages claims of
individual class members and individual claims of the three class
representatives (Plaintiffs Gonzalez-Tzita, Esteban and Lomeli)
would resolve in the approximate amount of $1,260,500. The
remaining $440,000 would be for payment of attorneys' fees and
costs, class administration, and the individual damages claim of
Plaintiff Lomeli.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
          E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net

MARYLAND: Dismissal of Piggyback Tax Class Action Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
Anamika Roy, writing for The Daily Record, reports that an
intermediate appellate court has upheld the dismissal of a $38
million lawsuit filed by a class of Maryland taxpayers who sued the
state comptroller after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the
state's "piggyback tax." [GN]


MDL 2785: Court Compels Segal Group to Comply with Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
a Memorandum and Order granting Mylan's Motion to Compel Compliance
with Subpoena Directed to Non-Party The Segal Group, Inc. in the
case captioned IN RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation. (This Document
Applies to the Class Cases). MDL No. 2785, Case No.
17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ. (D. Kan.).

Mylan served a document subpoena on Segal. Segal timely responded,
posing objections to each of the fourteen requests but also
agreeing to produce certain responsive documents.

Mylan argues Segal improperly refuses to identify custodians who
possess or can identify documents responsive to the subpoena. Mylan
asserts the email communications it seeks are relevant, Segal's
boilerplate objections are invalid, and Segal has failed to meet
its burden to show compliance would cause undue burden.

Segal insists the email communications Mylan seeks are irrelevant,
as Mylan admits that Segal never provided advice to or services for
the Local 282 Welfare Fund related in any way to EAI products,
including EpiPen. Segal also asserts the subpoena is unreasonable
and unduly burdensome because it seeks information Mylan has
obtained from other sources and over an extended period, and has
cost Segal time and money. Segal stands by its objections.

Relevancy

Mylan points out that Plaintiff Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund is the
only Plaintiff health plan in this case, thereby making Local 282
the sole purported representative of a putative class that includes
thousands of health plans and payors. Accordingly, to fulfill its
need to learn more about whether Local 282 suffered the harms Class
Plaintiffs allege and its fitness to serve as an appropriate class
representative, Mylan is trying to inform its understanding of the
communications between Local 282 and PBMs.  

The Court finds the relevancy of the requested information is
readily apparent. Segal does not dispute the testimony from Local
282 that identified Segal as the sole means through which Local 282
communicates, negotiates, and contracts with PBMs.

The Court finds Mylan's request that Segal identify ESI custodians
of the information requested by the subpoena is appropriate as a
means of obtaining information and documents relevant to Mylan's
defenses.

Undue burden and other objections

As with Rule 26 discovery, one objecting to a subpoena has the
burden to show compliance would cause undue burden, typically by
presenting an affidavit or other evidentiary proof of the time and
expense involved in responding to the subpoena.

Segal asserts that Mylan's request for emails is unduly burdensome
because of the time and expense it would incur in conducting a
search. Segal presents an affidavit from John Urbank, a Vice
President and the primary point of contact for Segal's work with
the Local 282 Welfare Fund, approximating he has 4,000 or more
emails with that fund dated between January 1, 2009 and the
present, and that attorney fees would cost $9,000 per 10,000 emails
reviewed and a search and review process could take months. Segal
extrapolates those numbers to encompass searches of other
custodians' emails and estimates a search would take two months or
more and cost approximately $22,000.

The Court finds Mr. Urbank's affidavit speculative and lacking in
evidentiary proof that identifying and collecting the subpoenaed
emails would result in the costs it projects or take the length of
time it estimates.

Regarding the time frame for the subpoena, the Court finds it of no
consequence that Express Scripts was subject to different
requirements in responding to a subpoena served on it in this case.
Instead, the issue is whether the proposed time is appropriate for
this subpoena, measured by relevance. Mylan is seeking information
relevant to its defenses to Class Plaintiffs' claims.  

Segal also objects to producing documents that Mylan can obtain
from elsewhere. In addition to this being an improper objection to
a subpoena, the Court rejects Segal's unsupported assertion that
every email requested by the subpoena calls for discovery Mylan can
otherwise obtain. Segal is not in a position to know what other
parties will produce, nor whether a particular document may differ
in version or have additions or omissions when coming from two
different sources.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3rgk77y
from Leagle.com.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Klevorn --
aklevorn@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest, LLP, pro hac vice,
Korey Nelson -- knelson@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest, LLP, pro
hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Geller -- PGeller@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro hac vice, Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson  --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Warren T. Burns --
wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest, LLP, pro hac vice.

Mylan N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam K. Levin --
adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US, LLP, pro hac vice,
Benjamin Frederick Holt -- benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Brian C. Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Brian R. Richichi, Hogan Lovells US, LLP, pro hac vice,
Carolyn Anne DeLone -- carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US, LLP, pro hac vice, Chad E. Blomberg --
cblomberg@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP, Christopher D.
Edelman -- christopher.edelman@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells
US, LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Thomas Graham --
dgraham@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice.


MERCHCO SERVICES: Bresko Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BRESKO, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v.
MERCHCO SERVICES, INC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00427 (W.D.
Tex., April 24, 2019) asserts violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

To provide its services, Merchco employs carpenters, merchandisers,
installers, and project leads. Until recently, Merchco paid
employees in these positions on a day-rate basis. Although they
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, Merchco did not pay
them overtime. Instead, Merchco simply paid them a flat amount for
each day worked.

The complaint asserts that Merchco's day-rate pay plan violates the
FLSA. As a result, Daniel Bresko and those workers similarly
situated to him are owed unpaid overtime wages and other damages,
says the complaint.

Bresko was a carpenter employed by Merchco from 2012 until early
2019.

Merchco Services, Inc. provides "retail installation solutions"
across "the continental United States, Puerto Rico, Alaska and
Hawaii".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cellphone Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation 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 the class action suit
pending before the Supreme Court of British Columbia has been
dismissed without prejudice.

Microsoft Mobile Oy, along with other handset manufacturers and
network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit
filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class
of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600
hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors, alleging
adverse health effects from cellular phone use. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for
the Nokia defendants. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice
on March 7, 2019.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MICROSOFT CORP: Oral Arguments in Moussouris Suit Early Next Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation 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 oral arguments in the
case, Moussouris v. Microsoft, are expected to be scheduled in
early calendar year 2020.

Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain
engineering and information technology roles brought this class
action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic
gender discrimination in pay and promotions.

The plaintiffs moved to certify the class in October 2017.
Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an expert
report showing no statistically significant disparity in pay and
promotions between similarly situated men and women. In June 2018,
the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs sought an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was granted in September 2018.


Oral arguments are expected to be scheduled in early calendar year
2020.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in Adkins Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit STEPHANIE ADKINS and DOUGLAS SHORT, the
Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-04107 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene J. Berger
entered an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons with West Virginia addresses to whom Midland sent
a
   debt collection letter on or after July 4, 2017 seeking to
   collect debt that Midland's records indicated had passed its
   statute of limitations, which letter failed to provide the
   following disclosure: 'The law limits how long you can be sued
   on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, [Midland] cannot sue

   you for it.'"

The Plaintiffs allege that MCM mailed collection letters seeking to
collect debt which was beyond the statute of limitations for filing
a legal action for collection without including disclosures
required by the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
(WVCCPA).

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements that common issues predominate and
that a class action is the superior method of adjudication. The
Plaintiffs have narrowed their claims to alleged per se violations
of Section 128(f) of the WVCCPA. The simplicity and narrowness of
their core claim does not alter its status as the central issue in
this litigation. That core issue predominates over any issues
subject to resolution on a less than class-wide basis. Given the
number of essentially identical claims, all seeking relatively low
statutory damages, class resolution is a superior -- and indeed,
ideal -- method of resolution. Few class members would be likely to
seek relief absent class resolution, and the costs to the parties
and to judicial resources involved in individual resolution would
be untenable.

MCM raised concerns about the difficulty of ascertaining who may
properly be included in the class. The Court says this concern
assumes that the alternative to class litigation is no litigation
or relief for eligible consumers, rather than individual
litigation. That may be the practical effect of a denial of class
certification for many potential class members, but it is not the
applicable standard for the Court’s consideration. Processing the
claims as a class, even with the additional administrative burden
of identifying individuals who obtained the debt in states with a
different statute of limitations or distinguishing between signed
and unsigned contracts, is certainly more efficient than individual
litigation of thousands of nearly-identical claims involving the
same core legal issues.[CC]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Lance Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB LANCE, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC.; and MIDLAND FUNDING
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04933-MAK (E.D. Pa., Filed
Nov. 14, 2018), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. determining that the case may proceed as a class action
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in order to
      pursue claims against Defendants; and

   2. certifying Plaintiff Class defined as:

      "all consumers with a Pennsylvania address that have received

      the same form letter from Defendant MCM concerning debts from

      Synchrony Bank/Care Credit used primarily for personal,
      household, or family purposes within one year prior to the
      filing of the complaint."

The action arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act in its attempt to collect a debt via a
dunning letter sent to Plaintiff.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          Nicholas Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad St. Suite 203C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com
                  nl@zemellawllc.com

MONARCH INVESTMENT: King Hits Employees' Biometrics Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Monarch Investment & Management Group, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH03208 (Ill. Cir., March 11, 2019), seeks
an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity
related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics;
and statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

King worked in Monarch's Rantoul, Illinois location where he was
required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that
scanned fingerprints. He alleges that Monarch improperly disclosed
employees' fingerprint data to a third-party company without
informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Does not Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Kennedy, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA, INC., PRIMA PIZZA, INC., LONGHORN
PIZZA, INC., SOUTHSIDE PIZZA, INC., BRENT HAMILL, JOHN DOE CORP.
1-10, and JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01199 (D.
Colo., April 24, 2019) is an action over Defendants' willful
failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA").

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and
Colorado law by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers
for their delivery-related and other work related expenses, thereby
failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage
wages for all hours worked. All delivery drivers at the Defendants'
stores, including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or
similar employment policies and practices, including policies and
practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for out-of-pocket
expenses, says the complaint.

Amanda Kennedy worked for Defendants in Denver, Colorado.

Defendants operate approximately 37 Domino's Pizza restaurants in
Colorado, Wyoming, California, and Texas (the "Mountainside
stores").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
     BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Phone: (513) 715-8711
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: akimble@billerkimble.com

          - and -

     David Lichtenstein, Esq.
     Matt Molinaro, Esq.
     Kristina Rosett, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAVID LICHTENSTEIN, LLC
     1556 Williams St., Suite 100
     Denver, CO 80218
     Phone: (303) 831-4750
     Email: dave@lichtensteinlaw.com
            matt@lichtensteinlaw.com
            kristina@lichtensteinlaw.com


MSC MERCHANT: Faces Cooley Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE COOLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MSC MERCHANT SERVICE CENTER LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00653
(D. Nev., April 15, 2019), is brought against MSC Merchant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

MSC Merchant has its principal place of business in Henderson,
Nevada.  MSC Merchant is a payment processor for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, ESQ.
          4760 S. Pecos Road, Suite 103
          Las Vegas, NV 89121
          Telephone: (702) 435-7968
          Facsimile: (702) 825-8071
          E-mail: attcbf@cox.net


NATIONAL CASH: Morris Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Morris and Jon Powell, individually and on behalf of a class
of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
National Cash Offer, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01661, (D.
Ariz., March 11, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

National Cash Offer is in the business of purchasing real estate
and relies on telemarketing to generate business, usually involving
the use of an automatic telephone dialing system. Both Plaintiff
have never dealt with National Cash yet still received messages.
Morris is on the national Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Levin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
      Northbrook, IL 60062
      Phone: (224) 218-0882
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


NATURES WAY: Gomez Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Jose Gomez, individually and on behalf of FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Nature's Way Foods Corp.
and Juan Rodriguez, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01440 (E.D. N.Y.,
March 12, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Laws.

Nature's Way is in the food service industry where Gomez worked as
a driver in their Bronx location. Gomez claims to be denied
overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 hours and worked through his
meal breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael B. Palilo, Esq.
      The Law Offices of Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 206
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 766-9870
      Fax: (212) 766-9869
      Email: fz@fzapatalaw.com


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Berger Seeks to Stay Arbitration Demand
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Berger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New York University, Defendants, Case No.
152610/2019 (N.Y. Sup., March 12, 2019), seeks to stay an
arbitration demanded by New York University with the American
Arbitration Association pursuant to Article 75 of the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Berger alleges that he never agreed to arbitrate any such matters
with New York University. He filed an action in New York State
Supreme Court, under index number 161553/2018 on December 11, 2018
demanding overtime compensation under New York Labor law.

New York University is an education corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York with a principal
place of business at 70 Washington Square South, New York, NY
10012. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Murphy, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: jmurphy@vandallp.com

New York University is represented by:

      Joseph A. Piesco, Esq.
      Garrett D. Kennedy, Esq.
      DLA PIPER US LLP (NY)
      1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 335-4537, 335-4708
      Fax: (917) 778-8629, 778-8646
      Email: joseph.piesco@dlapiper.com
             garrett.kennedy@dlapiper.com


NOBLE HOUSE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in K. Holt's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned KATHLEEN HOLT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NOBLE
HOUSE HOTELS & RESORT, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 17cv2246-MMA
(BLM). (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Kathleen Holt (Plaintiff) individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed this class action against
Defendant Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD (Noble House) alleging
causes of action for violations of California's False Advertising
Law (FAL), California Business and Professions Code sections 17500,
et seq.; California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California
Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; and
California's Consumers Legal Remedy Act (CLRA), California Business
and Professions Code sections 1750, et seq. Doc. No. 35 (FAC).

The underlying purpose of the CLRA is to protect consumers against
unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient
and economical procedures to secure such protection.

California's FAL broadly proscribes untrue and misleading
statements in advertising. The FAL prohibits any unfair, deceptive,
untrue, or misleading advertising. Any violation of the false
advertising law" necessarily violates the UCL.

California's UCL permits civil recovery for any unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue
or misleading advertising. Under the UCL, there are three varieties
of unfair competition: practices which are unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent.

The Plaintiff seeks summary judgment as to liability only and on a
class basis for Noble House's alleged violations of section
1770(a)(20) of the CLRA. The Plaintiff asserts two theories of
liability to prove that Noble House's surcharge practice is
unlawful: (1) it is a per se violation of Section 1770(a)(20) of
the CLRA; and (2) it is misleading and deceiving under the CLRA,
UCL, and FAL.  

Per Se Violation of Section 1770(a)(20) of the CLRA

The Plaintiff specifically contends that Noble House's surcharge
practice is a per se violation of Section 1770(a)(20) of the CLRA
because the advertised menu items do not indicate the total price
of the items when the 3.5% surcharge is taken into account. To get
to this conclusion, the Plaintiff argues Noble House's surcharge
practice is within the scope of Section 1770(a)(20) because menus
are advertisements and food and beverage items are products under
the CLRA.   

Noble House counters that the surcharge is outside the scope of
Section 1770(a)(20).
Section 1770(a)(20) provides that sellers cannot advertise that a
product is being offered at a specific price plus a specific
percentage of that price unless (A) the total price is set forth in
the advertisement, which may include, but is not limited to, shelf
tags, displays, and media advertising, in a size larger than any
other price in the advertisement, and (B) the specific price plus a
specific percentage of that price represents a markup from the
seller's costs or from the wholesale price of the product.

Here, the CLRA does not define advertising.  However, Section
1770(a)(20) provides some guidance, explaining that advertisements
include, but are not limited to, shelf tags, displays, and media
advertising. California Civil Code Section 1755 explains that media
advertising includes, but is not limited to, newspapers, magazines,
broadcast stations, billboards and transit ads.Restaurant menus do
not fit well within this statutory language. Menus are lists of
dishes or offerings that may be ordered at a restaurant, not tags,
displays, or ads one would find in a magazine or on billboards.

Menus also do not fit well within the plain dictionary meaning of
advertisements. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
advertising is defined as the action of calling something to the
attention of the public especially by paid announcements.

Accordingly, the Court finds as a matter of law that Noble House's
surcharge practice does not constitute a per se violation of
Section 1770(a)(20) of the CLRA because menus are not
advertisements under the plain language of the statute.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment.

Misleading and Deceiving Practice under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL

Under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, conduct is deceptive or misleading if
it is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.  

In determining whether a statement is misleading under the statute,
the primary evidence in a false advertising case is the advertising
itself. The reasonableness of consumer deception is generally a
question of fact, but in some circumstances courts may conclude
that a business practice is not likely to deceive a reasonable
consumer as a matter of law.

The Plaintiff contends that reasonable consumers would be misled by
the advertised menu pricing where Noble House did not raise prices
but rather imposes a 3.5% surcharge after failing to provide
conspicuous notice. Noble House asserts that a reasonable consumer
would not be misled by its surcharge practice because of the
surcharge disclosure, which can be found on the menus, the bill,
and on signage throughout the property.  

Here, it is undisputed that Noble House displays the surcharge
disclosure on signs, menus, and bills. With respect to the menus,
it is undisputed that the disclosure is at the bottom of some, but
not all, of the pages of the menus in the same size font as menu
pricing and in red text, and black text on Fresco's menu. It is
also undisputed that signs containing nothing but the surcharge
disclosure are located at entry host stands, in lounge and bar
areas, and around dining areas. Finally, it is undisputed that
every bill contains the surcharge disclosure, with a line item
showing the exact amount of the surcharge.  

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Noble House's
surcharge practice does not violate the CLRA, FAL, or UCL.  

The Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yybbx2tr from Leagle.com.

Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Lemieux --
kevin@lawyerkevin.com -- The Law Office of Kevin Lemieux, APC, Yana
A. Hart -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Abbas
Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Clark
Robert Conforti -- clark@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC,
Jason A. Ibey -- jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart, Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Kazerouni Law Group APC & Robert
Lyman Hyde -- bob@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart.

Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD, doing business as Noble House
Hotels & Resort, LTD, LP, Defendant, represented by Darin Murl
Sands -- sandsd@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Heidi Brooks
Bradley -- bradleyh@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC.


NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Haack FLSA & IMWL Classes Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROMAN HAACK, CODY CLAY, and RYAN BANTA, and all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHERN ILLINOIS
FENCE, COMPLETE FENCE, U.S. INSTALLERS, and RAYMOND HOHE,
Defendants, Case No. 17 CV 2854 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23; and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to decertify
the conditional FLSA collective.

The Named Plaintiffs brought the action against the Defendants
under the FLSA, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), to
recover allegedly unpaid regular and overtime wages on behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated individuals.  The Plaintiffs, who
were formerly employed by one or more of the Defendants as fence
installers, allege that Hohe is an "owner and shareholder" of the
other Defendants and moves employees around and attributes them
variously as employees of those entities.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert that they were misclassified as
piece workers and were paid by the job instead of by the hour; they
were not paid at union scale, as they were promised; after they
reported their hours to the Defendants, the Defendants altered them
downward; they were not paid for travel time, working through
lunch, or work they did prior to arriving at job sites; and they
were not paid overtime.

In November 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action consisting of all
individuals who were employed by, or who are currently employed by,
one or more of the Defendants named in the action, who have
performed work as a fence installer of either commercial or
residential fences, at any time during the five-year period of
April 2014 to the date of the notice.

The Defendants did not object to conditional certification, and the
Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion.  It appears that the
Plaintiffs sent notices of the action to approximately 39 potential
members of the class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  Nine of
those recipients opted to join the FLSA class.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of the
FLSA class under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and for certification of
their IMWL claim as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.  The Defendants oppose certification of a Rule 23
class and move to decertify the FLSA class.

Judge Guzman finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
that there are common questions of law or fact that bind all of
them together, let alone that common questions predominate over
individual issues.  He concludes that the case cannot proceed as an
FLSA collective action or as a Rule 23 class action.

He (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify an FLSA collective
action and a Rule 23 IMWL class action; and (ii) granted the
Defendants' motion to decertify the FLSA collective action.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/dt1XLJ from Leagle.com.

Roman Haack, all other employees similarly situated, known and
unknown, Cody Clay, all other employees similarly situated, known
and unknown & Ryan Banta, all other employees similarly situated,
known and unknown, Plaintiffs, represented by L. Steven Platt --
LSPlatt@rsplaw.com -- Robbins, Salomon and Patt, Ltd. & William J.
Provenzano, William J. Provenzano & Associates.

Northern Illinois Fence, doing business as, Complete Northern
Illinois Fence or "CNI" Defendant, represented by Richard James
Miller, Miller Law Firm, PC.

Complete Fence, (formerly Fox Valley Fence), doing business as CNI
Defendant, represented by Richard James Miller, Miller Law Firm,
PC.

US Installers, doing business as, Northern Illinois Fence
Defendant, represented by Richard James Miller, Miller Law Firm,
PC.

Raymond Hohe, individually, Defendant, represented by Richard James
Miller, Miller Law Firm, PC.


OUTFIELD BREW: Beal Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit COLBY L. BEAL individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
OUTFIELD BREW HOUSE, LLC d/b/a BUDWEISER BREW HOUSE, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-4028 (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).

   2. certify these classes:

      SendSmart Class:

      "all individuals who, according to Budweiser Brew House,
      provided their phone number to Budweiser Brew House on a
      paper card like the one depicted in Figures 1 or 2 in
      Plaintiff’s Suggestions in Support of Class Certification,

      and who subsequently received a text message sent using the
      SendSmart system";

      TXT Live! Class:

      "all individuals who, according to Budweiser Brew House,
      provided their phone number to Budweiser Brew House on a
      paper card like those depicted in Figures 1, 2, 3, or 4 in
      Plaintiff's Suggestions in Support of Class Certification,
      and who subsequently received a text message sent using the
      TXT Live! system between March 30, 2016, and April 4, 2018";

      Excluded from both classes are (1) any Judge or Magistrate
      presiding over this action and any members of their families;

      (2) Defendant; Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, successors,

      and predecessors.

   3. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the SendSmart Class

      and TXT Live! Class;

   4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and

   5. awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems
      reasonable and just.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

          Bill Kenney, Esq.
          William C. Kenney, Esq.
          BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 842-2455
          Facsimile: (816) 474-8899
          E-mail: bkenney@billkenneylaw.com

               - and -

          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Sydney Janzen, Esq.
          Michael Ovca, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 234-5262
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: erapp@edelson.com
                  bsilverkorn@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  sjanzen@edelson.com
                  movca@edelson.com

PENN LLC: Cunningham Sues Over Illegal Automated Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. PENN L.L.C. d/b/a PULSETV.COM, Case No. 1:19-cv-02547 (N.D.
Ill., April 15, 2019), alleges that the Defendant sent an automated
text message to the Plaintiff and other putative class members
without their prior express written consent, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Penn L.L.C., doing business as PulseTV.com, is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business located in
Tinley Park, Illinois.

PulseTV.com sells after market goods and electronics.  To generate
placements, PulseTV.com relies on telemarketing, including sending
of automated calls using SMS codes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          301 N. Broadway Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 273-8474
          Facsimile: (414) 273-8476
          E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com

               - and -

          Alan W. Nicgorski, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (414) 273-8474
          Facsimile: (414) 273-8476
          E-mail: anicgorski@hansenreynolds.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com


PINDUODUO INC: Still Defends Class Suits in NY & Cal. Over IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pinduoduo 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 company continues to
defend class action suits in New York and California in relation to
its initial public offering (IPO).

Between August and December 2018, several putative shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of
its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and the Superior Court of the State
of California.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege, in sum and substance, that
certain disclosure and statements made by the company in connection
with its initial public offering contained material misstatements
and omissions in violation of the federal securities laws.

Pinduoduo said, "These actions remain in their preliminary stages.
We intend to defend the actions vigorously."

Pinduoduo Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates an e-commerce
platform in the People's Republic of China. It operates Pinduoduo,
a mobile platform that offers a range of products, including
apparel, shoes, bags, mother and childcare products, food and
beverage, fresh produce, electronic appliances, furniture and
household goods, cosmetics and other personal care items, sports
and fitness items, and auto accessories. The company was formerly
known as Walnut Street Group Holding Limited and changed its name
to Pinduoduo Inc. in July 2018. Pinduoduo Inc. was founded in 2015
and is based in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


PITTSBURGH, PA: Class Action Mulled Over Gun Legislation
--------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Ingram, writing for WTAE, reports that Pittsburgh Mayor
Bill Peduto will sign the city's new gun legislation "early next
week," a spokesperson in the mayor's office said.

If that happens, the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, in
Bechtelsville, will likely file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
four gun rights organizations in the state: the Allegheny County
Sportsman's League, Firearms Owners Against Crime, Firearms Policy
Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation.

Here's the statement released by attorney Joshua Prince:

"Thus, if the Mayor signs these, or any other, proposals involving
firearms or ammunition, Allegheny County Sportsmen's League,
Firearm Owners Against Crime, Firearms Policy Coalition, and
Firearms Policy Foundation, as well as several individual
plaintiffs, will file suit, with a request for attorney fees and
costs, and requesting that District Attorney Zappala file criminal
charges for violations of 18 Pa.C.S. 5301, 6120."

The Pittsburgh City Council passed three bills on April 2 banning
the use of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and large capacity
magazines, which are also used in 9 mm handguns.

Members of the City Council and supporters of the city's new gun
legislation say they're prepared to take on the legal battles.
[GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies L. Gomes Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order denying Plaintiff, Leonardo Gomes's Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned LEONARDO GOMES,
Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant. Case
No. 18-21872-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman. (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff is a Florida resident who was obligated to pay a debt
(Debt) as a result of a transaction in which the money or services
that are the subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for
personal or household purposes that is, a personal credit card
account through Capital One Bank. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant
(1) violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. section 1692e, by making false,
deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the
collection of a debt (Count I); (2) violated the FDCPA, by using
unfair or unconscionable means to collect, or attempt to collect, a
debt (Count II) and (3) violated the FCCPA, Florida Statute section
559.72(9), which forbids a debt collector from asserting the
existence of a legal right when it knows the right does not exist
(Count III).

Rule 23(a)(1)-(3) Requirements

As noted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant does not contest that the
Plaintiff has satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity
and commonality. The Court finds the Plaintiff has satisfied Rules
23(a)(1) & (2).  

Rule 23(b)(3) - Predominance

Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), however, is another matter. To
determine whether predominance is satisfied, the Court must
identify the parties' claims and defenses, and their elements, as
has been done here.  

It is apparent certifying the Plaintiff's proposed class, that
includes members seeking only statutory damages and members seeking
actual damages, will not achieve economies of time, effort, and
expense or promote uniformity of decision as to persons similarly
situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about
other undesirable results.

Individual issues permeate the claims of putative class members
seeking the recovery of actual damages, both as to the nature and
content of Defendant's communications with each, as well as
liability to the extent Defendant is entitled to probe questions
addressing causation with each such member. The Plaintiff states
this Court has found that the predominance prong of Rule 23(b)(3)
is satisfied in actions like this while citing to an FDCPA class
certification decision from another judge in this District in a
case that did not involve actual damages.  

The Court, having engaged in the required qualitative assessment of
the claimed common versus individual matters, is not satisfied the
Plaintiff has established questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Rule 23(a)(4) - Adequacy

The Defendant also opposes class certification on the basis the
Plaintiff fails to satisfy adequacy, as required under Rule
23(a)(4). To satisfy the adequacy requirement, the Plaintiff and
his counsel must demonstrate they will adequately protect the
interests of the putative class. The adequacy-of-representation
analysis is comprised of two inquiries: (1) whether any substantial
conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the
class, and (2) whether the representatives will adequately
prosecute the action.

According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff cannot adequately
represent the class he proposes be certified because he does not
possess the same interests as the class nor has he suffered the
same injury as class members. Again, the criticism relates to the
Plaintiff's request for actual damages and motivation to actively
seek recovery of actual damages when he did not even make a payment
in response to the Collection Letter. The Defendant also complains
the Plaintiff lacks a basic understanding of the nature of this
suit, citing to several answers given by the Plaintiff at his
deposition, evidencing his lack of familiarity with his own case.


With regard to the Defendant's attack on the Plaintiff's ability to
represent a class whose members include consumers who suffered
actual damage, the Plaintiff insists as long as his and the class
members' injuries arose out of the same violative conduct, he may
properly represent" the proposed class. After reviewing the
Plaintiff's deposition testimony, the Court agrees with the
Defendant that the Plaintiff has minimal knowledge of his claims,
and he may not be the "best of all possible Plaintiffs." But it is
not necessary for named class representatives to be knowledgeable,
intelligent or have a firm understanding of the legal or factual
basis on which the cases rests in order to maintain a class action.


The Court therefore rejects the Defendant's attacks to class
certification based on the Plaintiff's failure to satisfy the Rule
23(a)(4) adequacy requirement.

Accordingly, Plaintiff, Leonardo Gomes's Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class
Counsel is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y4h9c3hj from Leagle.com.

Leonardo Gomes, Plaintiff, represented by David N. McDevitt --
dmcdevitt@thompsonconsumerlaw.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group,
PLLC, pro hac vice & Alexander Daniel Weisberg, Weisberg & Meyers
LLC.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Sara
F. Holladay-Tobias -- stobias@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods,
Brittney Lauren Difato -- bdifato@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP & David L. Hartsell -- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods, pro hac vice.


PRINCE TELECOM: Colosimo Suit Removed to Nevada District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled STEVEN M. COLOSIMO, an
individual; and NATHANIEL A. PORTEOUS, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PRINCE TELECOM,
LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. A-19-790228-C, was removed on April 15, 2019, from the Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00647 to the
proceeding.

This putative collective and class action originally filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, asserts eight
claims for relief, including failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Nevada Constitution, failure to compensate for all
hours worked and failure to pay overtime.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy L. Isaacson, Esq.
          Norberto J. Cisneros, Esq.
          Barbara M. McDonald, Esq.
          MADDOX ISAACSON CISNEROS LLP
          11920 Southern Highlands Parkway, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89141
          Telephone: (702) 366-1900
          Facsimile: (702) 366-1999
          E-mail: TIsaacson@mic-law.com
                  NCisneros@mic-law.com
                  bmcdonald@mic-law.com

Defendant PRINCE TELECOM, LLC, is represented by:

          Rick D. Roskelley, Esq.
          Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
          Neil C. Baker, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
          Telephone: (702) 862-8800
          Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
          E-mail: rroskelley@littler.com
                  mpaek@littler.com
                  nbaker@littler.com


RAZER INC: Burkhardt Brings Action Over Deceptive Product Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAN BURKHARDT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. RAZER INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03352 (S.D.N.Y., April 15,
2019), accuses the Defendant of violating state consumer protection
laws, including the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act with
respect to its sale of computer peripheral hardware.

Razer is a corporation organized under the laws of the Cayman
Islands with limited liability, with its American corporate
headquarters located in San Francisco, California.  Razer describes
itself as "the world's leading lifestyle brand for gamers" and
manufactures computer hardware, including high-performance gaming
peripherals.

Razer is a computer hardware manufacturer that markets and sells,
inter alia, high-end computer peripheral hardware such as keyboards
and mice ("Peripherals").  These Peripherals sync with computers
through Razer's proprietary Razer Synapse software ("Synapse"),
which is intended to allow users to connect their Peripherals to
their computers and configure the settings of their Peripherals.

Mr. Burkhardt alleges that Razer has engaged and continues to
engage in a deceptive scheme whereby it markets its Peripherals as
compatible with Apple Macintosh computers ("Macs") running Apple's
operating system for those computers ("MacOS"), despite Synapse not
operating properly on MacOS.  He contends that Razer represented
and continues to represent that its Peripherals are compatible with
Mac operating systems, including the most recent updates to MacOS,
MacOS X 10.9 through 10.14 ("MacOS X 10"), the latest of which is
the current generation of MacOS X ("Mojave").  However, he adds,
Razer knew that their Peripherals did not function properly on Macs
running MacOS X 10, and that Synapse did not function as intended
on Macs running MacOS X 10.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Seth M. Pavsner, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
          E-mail: drehns@hrsclaw.com
                  fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
                  spavsner@hrsclaw.com


RENO CAFE: Angle Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Angle, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly
Situated Individuals, Plaintiff v. Reno Cafe, LLC d/b/a Night
Trips, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00366-R (W.D. Okla., April 24,
2019) seeks relief under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA"), and Oklahoma's Protection of Labor.

According to the complaint, at no time during Plaintiff's period of
employment did Defendant ever pay Plaintiff or any other exotic
dancers any wages for hours that they worked each week.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an exotic dancer at
Defendant's "Night Trips" gentlemen's club, during the period of
about March 2018 through about February 2019.

Defendant is a limited liability company operating and holding
itself out to the public as an exotic dance club featuring nude and
semi-nude exotic dancers known as Night Trips.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey A. Taylor, Esq.
     Jeffrey A. Taylor, P.C.
     5613 North Classen Boulevard
     Oklahoma City, OK 73118
     Phone: (844) 445-2387
     Email: taylorjeff@mac.com

          - and -

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


RIPPLE LABS: Court Denies Remand of Zakinov Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in
the case captioned VLADI ZAKINOV, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RIPPLE
LABS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-06753-PJH. (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Vladi Zakinov and David Oconer moved to remand this
action to the San Mateo County Superior Court.

The Plaintiffs allege that Ripple created a digital currency called
XRP and that defendants and their affiliates have been engaged in
an ongoing scheme to sell XRP to the general public. The Plaintiffs
further allege that because XRP qualifies as a security under
either the California or federal securities laws, Ripple's past and
ongoing sales of XRP constitute the selling of unregistered
securities in violation of federal or state law.

Like Coffey and Greenwald, defendants removed the present action
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and plaintiffs now move
to remand.

Coffey, Greenwald, and In re Ripple

The action is the third Ripple-related action assigned to this
court. Along with Coffey and Greenwald, both of which this court
previously addressed on motions to remand, plaintiffs Zakinov and
Oconer filed separate state court actions on June 5, 2018, and June
27, 2018, respectively.  

Coffey

In Coffey, plaintiff was a California resident who asserted four
causes of action for violations of Sections 5 & 12(a)(1) of the
federal Securities Act and Sections 25110 & 25503 of the California
Corporation Code for the unregistered offer and sale of securities,
and for control person liability under the Securities Act and the
California Corporation Code.  

Greenwald

Greenwald was initially removed on August 8, 2018, from the San
Mateo County Superior Court.

Greenwald, a resident of Israel, asserts only Securities Act claims
for the unregistered offer and sale of securities and for control
person liability. As was the case in Coffey, Greenwald brings his
action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased XRP. Id.
On October 15, 2018, the court remanded the action to the San Mateo
County Superior Court because Luther directly applied to
Greenwald's complaint alleging only Securities Act claims.  

In re Ripple

The In re Ripple action is the result of Judge DuBois consolidating
two actions: Oconer v. Ripple Labs Inc. et al.,18-CIV-3332 (Cal.
Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty.), and Zakinov v. Ripple, 18-CIV-2845
(Cal. Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty.). In those actions, Oconer and
Zakinov, both California residents, sought to represent all
citizens of California who purchased XRP, and asserted claims under
only the California Corporation Code. In addition, those actions
named as defendants only Garlinghouse (Ripple's CEO), Ripple, and
XRP II; all of whom are also citizens of California. The Oconer and
Zakinov defendants did not remove either Zakinov or Oconer because
(presumably) those actions did not satisfy CAFA's minimal diversity
requirement and/or were exempt under CAFA's local controversy
exception.3

The Present Action

Ten days after this court remanded Greenwald, defendants filed a
Notice of Related Case (the Notice) in San Mateo County Superior
Court, indicating that, at least in defendants' view, Greenwald was
related to In re Ripple because the actions involved the same
parties, the same or similar claims, and arose from the same or
substantially identical events. Defendants filed the Notice in both
Greenwald and In re Ripple. Under Cal. R. Ct. 3.3000(g), the
parties had five days to file a response supporting or opposing the
notice. Neither Greenwald nor the In re Ripple plaintiffs filed a
response.

Thus, the thrust of the parties' remand dispute is the effect of
Judge DuBois' two consolidation orders.

Judge DuBois Had the Authority to and Did Consolidate In Re Ripple
and Greenwald For All Purposes

Judge DuBois' Authority to Consolidate the Actions

Plaintiffs first contend that consolidation may only occur through
a noticed motion or stipulation and thus a judge may not sua sponte
consolidate two actions. The court disagrees.

California Civil Procedure Code Section 1048(a), entitled
Consolidation of actions; separate trial of any cause of action, or
of any separate issues, or causes of action or issues, states: (a)
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending
before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or
all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the
actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or
delay.

In the face of that authority, the plaintiffs' citation to Sutter
Health Uninsured Pricing Cases, 171 Cal.App.4th 495, 514 (2009), is
unpersuasive. While Sutter does advise that absent a stipulation to
consolidate, consolidation requires a noticed and written motion to
consolidate, Sutter neither addressed sua sponte consolidation nor
analogous facts. On appeal, the Sutter plaintiff complained that
the trial court judge failed to exercise appropriate discretion
because the judge failed to treat his motion to intervene as a
motion to consolidate. With the above-quoted statement, the
appellate court rejected that argument and held that the trial
court properly treated the Motion to Intervene as a motion to
intervene.

Plaintiffs next argue that removal jurisdiction can only be created
by a plaintiff's voluntary act. That argument, conflating several
disparate rules, fails.

First, plaintiffs cite a series of cases that stand for the
proposition that in CAFA mass actions, the proposal to try claims
jointly must come from the plaintiffs, not from the defendants.
That rule stemmed from a concern that defendants might try to
consolidate several smaller actions consisting of less than 100
plaintiffs, into a removable mass action. That is not a concern
here because both the Greenwald putative class and the In re Ripple
putative class easily exceed CAFA's one hundred plaintiff
threshold.

Second, plaintiffs cite the so-called voluntary-involuntary rule.
The Ninth Circuit has explained that that rule, however, applies to
the diversity requirement under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and finds
its origin in a line of Supreme Court cases holding that an
originally nonremovable complaint cannot be converted into a
removable one by evidence of the defendant or by an order of the
court upon any issued tried upon the merits.

The court finds that Judge DuBois had the authority to and in fact
did consolidate Greenwald and

In re Ripple.

Judge DuBois Consolidated the Actions "For All Purposes"

Plaintiff next argues that even if Judge DuBois did consolidate the
actions, they were only consolidated for purposes of trial and,
according to plaintiffs, the pleadings therefore remained
separate.

The California Supreme Court has explained: Under the statute and
the case law, there are [] two types of consolidation: a
consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions
remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or
consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged
into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only
one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.

The court finds that the Second Consolidation Order consolidated
Greenwald and In re Ripple for all purposes. In Hamilton, the
California Supreme Court considered whether an ambiguous order
consolidated actions for trial or for all purposes.  

In addition, the Second Consolidation order consolidates Greenwald
pursuant to the First Consolidation Order. It is undisputed that
the latter order consolidated Zakinov and Oconer for all purposes.
That at least suggests that the consolidation of Greenwald was also
for all purposes.

The Second Consolidation Order Rendered the Action Removable

The Effect of Judge DuBois Consolidating Greenwald and In reRipple
for All Purposes

The parties next dispute the effect of the Second Consolidation
Order. Plaintiffs argue that, the First and Second Consolidation
Orders, read together, extinguish the Greenwald complaint because
Judge DuBois' inadvertent consolidation renders the Greenwald
complaint superseded by the Consolidated Complaint.

As relevant here, the First Consolidated Order states: The Oconer
and Zakinov plaintiffs shall either designate a complaint as
operative or file a Consolidated Complaint. If filed, the
Consolidated Complaint shall be the operative complaint and shall
supersede all complaints filed in any of the actions consolidated
herein.

Plaintiffs' argument ignores the herein, which modifies the
underlined clause. Herein means here within, in here; in this
place; in this passage, book, etc. Thus, herein refers to the
actions listed in and consolidated by the First Consolidated
Order— i.e., the Oconer and Zakinov actions. That makes sense, as
the order exclusively discusses those two actions in the paragraphs
directly preceding (and in the same section as) paragraph eight of
the First Consolidation Order. It does not apply, as plaintiffs
argue, to all actions consolidated in the future.  

Ripple III Was Removable Under CAFA and Coffey

The parties do not dispute that if this court follows its ruling in
Coffey, Ripple III satisfies CAFA's three jurisdictional
requirements. The court agrees and sees no reason to depart from
its prior decision in Coffey. In addition, the court finds that
Ripple III satisfies CAFA's jurisdictional requirements.  

Though plaintiffs do not dispute that Ripple III is removable under
the Coffey analysis, plaintiffs argue that the actions should
nevertheless be remanded based on two CAFA exceptions: (1) the
local controversy exception and (2) the securities-related
exception. Those arguments fail.

To satisfy the local controversy exception, plaintiffs must show,
inter alia, that greater than two-thirds of the proposed class
members are citizens of California. Ripple III does not satisfy
that requirement because Greenwald's putative class does not
include any geographic limitation and plaintiffs have provided no
basis to conclude that two-thirds of all XRP purchasers are
California citizens.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y4z4ymp7 from Leagle.com.

Vladi Zakinov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Robbins --
brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, Brian Edward
Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, David Conrad Walton -davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Eric M. Carrino --
ecarrino@robbinsarroyo.com --  Robbins Arroyo LLP, Shawn A.
Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Stephen J. Oddo -soddo@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Ripple Labs, Inc., XRP II, LLC, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian
Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O'Gorman, Eric van Miltenburg, Susan
Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel & Takashi
Okita, Defendants, represented by Peter Bradley Morrison  --
peter.morrison@skadden.comSkadden --  Arps Slate Meagher and Flom
LLP, John M. Neukom -- john.neukom@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Virginia Faye Milstead --
virginia.milstead@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP.


ROBERT BROGDEN'S: Foster Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part
Parties' Joint Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Proposed Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned  ASHLEY
FOSTER, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BROGDEN'S OLATHE BUICK GMC, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. 17-2095-DDC-JPO. (D. Kan.).

The Plaintiff is defendant's former accounting and human resources
employee. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on her own behalf and
all similarly situated employees, i.e., all hourly employees
subject to the Defendant's automatic pay deduction protocol that
deducted 30 minutes of time from the employees' daily pay record
even when lunch breaks were not taken. The Plaintiff alleges
defendant violated the FLSA by deducting 30 minutes from employees'
work time each day for a lunch break, regardless of whether
employees took a 30-minute break or, instead, worked through those
breaks.

A description of the nature of the dispute

In its July 31 Order, the court found the parties had satisfied
this requirement. Plaintiff claims defendant failed to pay her and
putative collective action plaintiffs fully and fairly because of
an automatic pay deduction protocol. Plaintiff alleges this pay
deduction protocol deducted 30 minutes from every hourly employee's
daily pay record, even if the employee did not take a lunch break.
Defendant denies these allegations.  

A description of the employer's business and the type of work
performed by the employees
The parties put forth the following: Defendant operates a car
dealership in Olathe, Kansas. Defendant employed plaintiff as an
accountant and human resources employee. Plaintiff worked as a
clerical hourly employee. The parties have submitted Exhibit A, a
list of putative collective action plaintiffs, which includes their
employee numbers; titles; and amounts allegedly owed from
defendant's pay deduction protocol.  

The employer's reasons for disputing the employees' right to a
minimum wage or overtime
Defendant disputes claims allegations for several reasons: (1)
defendant paid plaintiff fully (2) defendant acted in good faith,
believing the company acted in compliance with the FLSA and the
KWPA (3) plaintiff seeks wages for non-compensable time under the
FLSA (4) plaintiff's recovery should be limited or barred because
the time worked was de minimis (5) plaintiff cannot satisfy the
FLSA's requirements; and, (6) the action is time-barred.

The employees' justification for the disputed wages

Plaintiff alleges that defendant's automatic 30-minute deduction
protocol deprived employees of pay who had worked through lunch or
otherwise had not taken a lunch break. Plaintiff also alleges that
the Kansas Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division informed her
that defendant's deduction protocol was unlawful.

If the parties dispute the computation of wages owed, each party's
estimate of the number of hours worked and the applicable wage.

The Defendant contends that no wages are owed. But, the parties
provide a chart, which identifies employees' names, numbers,
titles, and alleged amounts due.

Collectively, the court finds these assertions suffice to establish
a bona fide dispute for purposes of preliminary approval.
  
Fair and Equitable

To determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and equitable,
the court considers the factors specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
  The court thus considers the following: (1) whether the proposed
settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated (2) whether serious
questions of law and fact exist which place the ultimate outcome of
the litigation in doubt (3) whether the value of an immediate
recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after
protracted and expensive litigation and (4) the judgment of the
parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable.

The court found the parties had satisfied the first and fourth
factors. The court thus considers the second and third factors,
below.

On the second factor, the court finds that serious questions of law
and fact exist. The parties identify 16 questions of law and fact
that purportedly place the ultimate outcome of the litigation in
doubt.   For example, the parties dispute the vitality of the
defenses raised, e.g., whether plaintiff's claims are barred or
limited under the FLSA. And, as a question of fact, the parties
dispute whether defendant compensated plaintiff and putative class
members for all hours worked.

On the fourth factor, the court finds that the value of an
immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief
after protracted and expensive litigation. The parties contend that
the putative collective action class is relatively small, i.e., no
more than 14 employees deserve payment. And, they assert, the
recovery for each putative plaintiff is relatively small,
i.e.,between them, the total owed is $3,042.45. Plaintiff's claim,
for example, is for $84.32. The parties contend that settling at
this stage will avoid costly litigation.

The court thus finds for the purposes of preliminary approval that
the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.  

The court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as fair
and reasonable.

Certification of The Collective Action Class

The parties ask the court to certify the collective action. It is
unclear whether the parties request conditional or final
certification of the class. The court conditionally certified the
collective action in its July 31 Order. And, final certification is
premature. The court thus denies this aspect of the parties'
motion.

Preliminary Approval of Class Representative and Incentive Award

Next, the parties ask that the court preliminarily approve Ashley
Foster, the named plaintiff, as the class representative. The court
designates Ms. Foster as class representative. The parties then ask
the court to approve again preliminarily a $1,200 incentive payment
to Ms. Foster. The court must examine any proposed service payment
to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. The parties contend
that Ms. Foster took a risk by representing the class; advocated
for the interests of the putative plaintiffs; and provided valuable
assistance to plaintiff's counsel during the mediation. According
to the parties, Ms. Foster invested about 26 hours in the case.
This showing satisfies the court. But, our court has found that $20
per hour is a reasonable incentive fee. Under these cases, the
court would reduce the incentive award to $520. And the court finds
no reason to increase the incentive fee by more than double.

Accordingly, the court preliminarily denies a $1,200 incentive fee
for Ms. Foster.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5g63a8y
from Leagle.com.

Ashley Foster, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Coopman --
acoopman@fwpclaw.com -- Foland, Wickens, Roper, Hofer & Crawford,
PC, Christopher R. Mirakian -- cmirakian@fwpclaw.com -- Foland,
Wickens, Eisfelder, Roper & Hofer, PC & David W. White --
dwhite@fwpclaw.com -- Foland, Wickens, Eisfelder, Roper & Hofer,
PC.

Robert Brogden's Olathe Buick GMC, Inc., Defendant, represented by
James Christian Morrow, Morrow Willnauer Church, LLC & Peggy A.
Wilson, Morrow Willnauer Church, LLC.


S.F. EXPRESS: Tanielu Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TANIELU, ANTONIO FACIO, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
S.F. EXPRESS CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV1429 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 24, 2019) is a class action
brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure.

The Defendants hired Plaintiffs and the other class members,
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed
to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods
and/or rest breaks, asserts the complaint. Plaintiffs and the other
class members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a
week during their employment with Defendants.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as hourly paid, non-exempt
employees.

S.F. EXPRESS CORPORATION was and is a California corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAVAGE SERVICES: De Luna Lara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL DE LUNA LARA, JOSE JESUS ANDRADE, ANCIESTO ESCOBAR and
MARTIN OVERA, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
non-exempt former and current employees, Plaintiffs, v. SAVAGE
SERVICES CORPORATION, a Utah Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV14317 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., April 24, 2019) seeks to recover, among other things,
wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due as a result of
DEFENDANTS' uniform illegal business policies including, but not
limited to, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation,
illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due
to discharged or quitting employees, failure to maintain required
records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or
losses incurred in discharging their duties, and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

The DEFENDANTS are required to compensate PLAINTIFFS and CLASS
MEMBERS 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; and for the first 8 hours
on the seventh consecutive workday, with double time for all hours
worked in excess of 12 hours in any workday and for all hours
worked in excess of 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day of work
in any workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were Defendants' former, non-exempt, employees.

SAVAGE is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     BRANDON J. SWEENEY, ESQ.
     THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM
     15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
     Phone: (323) 486-2508
     Facsimile: (747) 998-1201
     Email: bsweeney@thesweeneylawlirm.com

          - and -

     Jonathan J. Moon, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN J. MOON
     18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 700
     Cerritos, CA 90703
     Phone: (213) 867-1908
     Facsimile: (213) 402-6518
     Email: imoon@imoonlaw.com


SCHURMAN RETAIL: Frenzel Suit Asserts FLSA, Ca. Labor Code Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adria Frenzel, Carmen Noelle Lucich, Christine Nizibian, and Irene
Sung, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SCHURMAN RETAIL GROUP, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02236 (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2019) is a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") against
Defendant for violation of the FLSA, and as a class action under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violations of
the California Labor Code, California's Unfair Competition Law,
breach of contract, and for unjust enrichment.

The Defendant willfully, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to
pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for all hours worked
including, but not limited to, those hours worked in excess of
forty hours per week; and in excess of eight hours per day, says
the complaint. Defendant violated the FLSA and the California Labor
Code, and breached its own written agreement, by requiring
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to perform work and/or
remain on duty during their meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA and the California Labor
Code because of their mandate that non-exempt employees, such as
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, be paid for all hours
worked including but not limited to those hours worked in excess of
forty hours per week at one and one half their regular rate of pay
within a single week, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant Schurman Retail Group during
the statutory period covered by this Complaint.

SRG operates stationary stores called Papyrus, American Greetings,
Carlton Cards, Paper Thread, NIQUEA.D, and Paper Destiny. SRG sells
an array of products including greeting cards, stationery,
invitations, journals, gifts, gift bags, and gift wrap.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
     Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 373-1671
     Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
     Email: rrivas@zlk.com
            rmah@zlk.com


SIRIUS XM: Flo & Eddie Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. 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 Pandora Media, LLC, a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media, LLC in the federal district court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15,
1972.

On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial
of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The district court litigation is currently stayed pending
the Ninth Circuit's decision.

In March 2019, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The
California Supreme Court has accepted certification, briefing in
the case is complete, but the Court has not yet scheduled oral
argument.

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SIRIUS XM: Memorandum of Understanding Reached in Buchanan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. 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 the company has entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle the class action suit
initiated by Thomas Buchanan.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against us in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this action
alleges that we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making telephone
solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a
database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from
telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a
signed, written agreement, and making calls to consumers in
violation of the company's internal Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of five hundred dollars for each violation of the
TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen
hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA
and a permanent injunction prohibiting us from making, or having
made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the National
Do-Not-Call registry or our internal Do-Not-Call registry.

Following a mediation, on January 31, 2019, the company entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle this purported class
action suit. The settlement is expected to resolve the claims of
consumers for the period October 2013 through January 2019.

As part of the settlement, the company will agree to pay $25 into a
non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to class members,
notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees and costs will be
paid. The settlement also contemplates that the company will
provide three months of service to its All Access subscription
package for those members of the class that elect to receive it, in
lieu of cash, at no cost to those class members and who are not
active subscribers at the time of the distribution. The
availability of this three-month service option will not diminish
the $25 common fund.

As part of the settlement, the company also expects to implement
certain changes relating to its "Do-Not-Call" practices and
telemarketing programs.

Sirius XM said, "Settlement of this matter is subject to execution
of a definitive settlement agreement between the parties and, among
other things, approval by the Court."

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SIRIUS XM: Ponderosa Twins Plus One Suit v. Pandora Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. 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 the class action suit
initiated by Ponderosa Twins Plus One against Pandora Media, LLC, a
company subsidiary, is still stayed.

In September 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One and others filed a
class action suit against Pandora alleging claims similar to those
asserted in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc. The action is
currently stayed in the Northern District of California pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media,
Inc.

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SIRIUS XM: Sheridan Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. 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 the class action suit
initiated by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan against Pandora Media,
LLC, a company subsidiary, is still stayed.

In September and October 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan filed
separate class action suits against Pandora in the federal district
courts for the Northern District of California and the District of
New Jersey.

The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and
state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair
competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights
of publicity arising from allegations that Pandora owes royalties
for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to
February 15, 1972.

The actions in California and New Jersey are currently stayed
pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Pandora Media, Inc.

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


STERLING JEWELERS: Sued Over Unlawful Credit-financing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Ann Greer, Sara Swentko, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. STERLING JEWELERS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00920-JRA (N.D. Ohio, April 23, 2019)
is an action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated under federal and Ohio law in connection with
Sterling's credit-financing practices, including (1) submitting
credit applications for consumers and causing credit cards to be
issued without consumers' knowledge or consent; and (2) enrolling
consumers in Payment Protection Plan ("PPP") insurance without
their knowledge or consent.

Consumers who visit Sterling's stores are typically encouraged by
Sterling's salespeople to finance their purchases. Roughly 60% of
Sterling's total sales are financed by consumers using Sterling's
in house credit. From 2014 through 2017, Sterling had over three
million open credit accounts each year, and Sterling generated more
than $300 million in net revenue each year from such accounts.
Sterling's company culture, reflected in its training materials and
sales-performance standards, pressures employees to enroll
consumers in company credit cards and to sell its financing plans
and payment-protection insurance.

The complaint relates that store employees failed to inform
consumers that they were applying for credit and misstated the
reasons for requesting consumers' personal information. In many
instances, Sterling's sales representatives offered to "check" for
a consumer whether the consumer qualified for a line of credit. In
fact, the sales representative actually submitted a credit
application for the consumer, without the consumers' knowledge or
consent, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiffs visited at least two of Defendant's stores in 2018.

Sterling offered in-house credit financing directly to consumers to
make purchases in its stores.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert J. Dubyak, Esq.
     Christina C. Spallina, Esq.
     DUBYAK NELSON, LLC
     6105 Parkland Boulevard, Suite 230
     Cleveland, OH 44124
     Phone: (216) 364-0500
     Fax: (216) 364-0505
     Email: rdubyak@dubyaknelson.com
            cspallina@dubyaknelson.com

          - and -

     Dean Gresham, Esq.
     Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
     L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
     12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (214) 300-1765
     Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com
            krogers@stecklerlaw.com


SYNEOS HEALTH: Kuznicki Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of various publicly
traded companies, including Syneos Health, Inc.

Shareholders who purchased shares in these companies during the
dates listed below are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible appointment as lead plaintiff and a preliminary estimate
of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

Syneos Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNH)
Investors Affected: May 10, 2017 - February 27, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Syneos Health, Inc.  The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) Syneos Health's internal control over financial
reporting was inadequate; (2) concerns regarding Syneos Health's
internal control over financial reporting would result in
heightened regulatory scrutiny and an SEC investigation into the
company's revenue accounting policies, internal controls and
related matters; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Syneos Health's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

Contact:

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com [GN]


TOP-NOTCH LOGISTIC: Sand Coordinators Don't Get Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Fuentes, Jaime Fuentes, and Pedro Fuentes, on behalf of
themselves and other persons similarly situated, known and unknown,
Plaintiffs, v. TOP-NOTCH LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LLC, CHARLES CLEMENTS,
individually, and JESSE MELTON, individually, Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-00108 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2019) is an action seeking owed
overtime wages against Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiffs previously worked for Defendants as Sand Coordinators.

Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours per week. Yet, the
Defendants paid Plaintiffs straight-time hourly rates of pay for
all of their hours worked, including for overtime hours over 40 in
individual workweeks. Under the FLSA, Plaintiffs and other Sand
Coordinators of Defendants were entitled to overtime wages. The
Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA by failing
to pay Plaintiffs and other Sand Coordinators overtime pay, says
the complaint.

Top-Notch Logistic Solutions is an oilfield service provider that
coordinates sand deliveries to fracking sites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Werman Salas P.C.
     77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: zflowerree@flsalaw.com
            dwerman@flsalaw.com


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Tarara's Bid to Certify Class under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Annemarie Tarara, et al., the
Plaintiff, vs. Treehouse Foods, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-10632 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr.
entered an order taking Plaintiff's motion to certify class under
advisement.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 9, 2019,
the Defendants' agreed motion for extension of time and motion for
leave to file under seal are granted. The Plaintiff's motion to
certify class is taken under advisement.[CC]

ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, Case No. 1:19-cv-00505-CFC, on behalf of shareholders of
The Ultimate Software Group, Inc. ("Ultimate Software" or the
"Company") (NasdaqGS:ULTI) who have been harmed by Ultimate
Software's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed
merger of the Company with an investor group led by Hellman &
Friedman ("H&F").

On February 4, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which
Ultimate Software shareholders will have the right to receive
$331.50 in cash for each share of Ultimate Software they own (the
"Merger Consideration").

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the
"Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it
provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information
concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on
which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as
fair to Ultimate Software shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/ULTI.   

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 3, 2019, the date of this notice.
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


UNION CITY: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Wages and Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. UNION CITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
a New Mexico corporation, PACIFIC PEARL HOTELS LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, APMC HOTEL MANAGEMENT LLC, a New Mexico
limited liability company, and DOES I through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00021268-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Diego Cty., April 24, 2019) seeks compensation for all unpaid
wages, reimbursement of business expenses, civil and statutory
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

From March 29, 2015 to the present, Defendants have had a
consistent policy of failing to pay all minimum wages and overtime
wages to Class Members, provide legally compliant meal and rest
periods or compensation in lieu thereof to Class Members; failing
to reimburse business expenses to Class Members; failing to provide
accurately itemized wage statements to Class Members; and failing
to timely pay wages upon separation of employment to certain Class
Members, says the complaint.

Plaintiff ANDRES GARCIA was employed by one or more of Defendants
from July 2018 through November 2018.

UNION CITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION is a New Mexico
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     KENNETH S. GAINES, ESQ.
     DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ.
     ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ.
     SEPIDEH ARDESTANI, ESQ.
     GAINES & GAINES, APLC
     27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101
     Calabasas, CA 91301
     Phone: (818) 703-8985
     Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
     Email: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
            daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
            alex@gaineslawfirm.com
            sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com



UNIQUE HOME: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Guerrero Parra, Jerry Winkler, and Michelle Winkler
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UNIQUE HOME SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01638-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 23, 2019) is an action
against Defendant for failing to pay their construction workers for
all of their hours worked, and overtime pay as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants compensated Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
workers on a piece rate basis, notes the complaint. The Defendants
suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and other similarly situated home
remodelers to work more than 40 hours per workweek. However, the
Defendants had a common policy of not paying Plaintiffs and the
other similarly situated workers at a rate of one and 1.5 times
their regular rate of pay for the overtime hours they worked as
required by the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are all home remodelers.

Unique commonly provides home improvement services including
windows, siding, roofing, and bathrooms to customers in Indiana and
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher E. Clark, Esq.
     GOODIN ABERNATHY, LLP
     301 East 38th Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46205
     Phone: 317/843-2606
     Fax: 317/574-3095
     Email: cclark@goodinabernathy.com


UNITED PARCEL: Coates Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit LA TASHA COATES, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-03012-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court for an order on May 6, 2019:

   1. certifying classes:

      Security Check Class:

      "all non-exempt, non-delivery-driver employees employed by
      United Parcel Service, Inc. at a "Clean-In / Clean-Out"
      facility in California at any time from December 29, 2013
      through the date of class certification";

      Meal Break Class:

      "all non-exempt, non-delivery-driver employees employed by
      United Parcel Service, Inc. in California at any time from
      December 29, 2013 through the date of class certification";

   2. appointing La Tasha Coates as class representative for both
      the Security Check Class and Meal Break Class; and

   3. appointing Capstone Law APC as class counsel.

The case asserts violations of the California Labor Code including
non-compliant wage statements, wages not timely paid upon
termination, failure to provide meal periods, unpaid minimum wages,
and unpaid overtime.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Molly DeSario, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com


UNITED PARCEL: Coates Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit LA TASHA COATES, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-03012-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court for an order on June 10, 2019:

   1. certify classes:

      Security Check Class:

      "all non-exempt, non-delivery-driver employees employed by
      United Parcel Service, Inc. at a "Clean-In / Clean-Out"
      facility in California at any time from December 29, 2013
      through the date of class certification"; and

      Meal Break Class:

      "all non-exempt, non-delivery-driver employees employed by
      United Parcel Service, Inc. in California at any time from
      December 29, 2013 through the date of class certification";

   2. appointing La Tasha Coates as class representative for both
      the Security Check Class and Meal Break Class; and

   3. appointing Capstone Law APC as class counsel.

The Plaintiff claims Defendants' violation of the California Labor
Code including non-compliant wage statements, wages not timely paid
upon termination, failure to provide meal periods, unpaid minimum
wages, and unpaid overtime.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Molly DeSario, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Millman et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit OPAL MILLMAN, ERIC POWELL, and LAURY
POWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, LEAR
CORPORATION EEDS AND INTERIORS, as successor to United Technologies
Automotive, Inc., ANDREWS DAIRY STORE, INC., L.D. WILLIAMS, INC.,
CP PRODUCT, LLC successor to Preferred Technical Group, Inc., and
LDW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00312-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who have owned, rented, or resided at property
      within the Class Area at any time between 1983 and July 18,
      2016";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs have asserted several Indiana state law claims
(including trespass, nuisance, negligence, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and Environmental Legal Action) and a claim
under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C.
section 6972(a)(1)(B), against the Defendants.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Thomas A. Barnard, Esq.
          Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Esq.
          Tammara D. Porter, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Wolowski, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317 713-3500
          Facsimile: 317 713-3699

USCB INC: Campbell Hits Illegal Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USCB, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01801 (C.D. Cal., March 12,
2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

USCB is a dental service company. It attempted to collect an
alleged debt incurred by Campbell, who did not give his express
consent to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone, in which he incurs a charge for incoming calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, 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
             abacon@toddflaw.com


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Kuznicki Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of various publicly
traded companies, including Weight Watchers International, Inc.

Shareholders who purchased shares in these companies during the
dates listed below are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible appointment as lead plaintiff and a preliminary estimate
of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

Weight Watchers International, Inc. (NASDAQ: WTW)
Investors Affected: May 4, 2018 - February 26, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Weight Watchers International, Inc. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (a) Weight Watchers was experiencing
diminished subscriber demand attributable due to the onslaught of
new competing smartphone fitness apps, meal-delivery services, and
other tech advances was driving down Weight Watchers' new
subscriber growth and its subscriber retention rates; (b)
diminished subscriber growth, when coupled with the much larger
number of fourth quarter subscription lapses that Weight Watchers
typically experiences, made it highly unlikely that the Company
would retain four million subscribers by the end of 2018; (c)
Weight Watchers was not on track to grow its subscriber count to
five million or to drive annual revenues to more than $2 billion by
the end-of-2020; (d) a decreased subscriber count would result in
decreased revenues and profits; and (e) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Weight Watchers' business metrics and financial
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. [GN]


WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Conditional Cert. Bid Denied without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit PEDRO PALMA, Individually and on Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. WEST MEMPHIS
FENCE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:18-cv-208-DPM
(E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. entered an order
denying, without prejudice, the motion for conditional
certification, with equitable tolling to Palma, and with
instructions.

The Court directs targeted written discovery and depositions on the
employee/contractor issue, and on how defendant operates its
business. The Court prefers to consider conditional certification
on a more complete picture of defendant's operations and whether
others are similarly situated. Renewed motion is due by July 29,
2019.[CC]

WORLD BUSINESS: Crockett Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40/Week
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Crockett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. World Business Lenders, LLC and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00488 (C.D. Cal.,
March 12, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon,
redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under
California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

World Business Lenders provides business loans in Orange County and
throughout the United States where Crockett was employed as an
Associate Senior Finance Specialist from November 2015 through
March 2017. Throughout his employment, he has been paid on a day
rate basis and denied overtime pay during workweeks in which he
worked forty or more hours in a work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Jeff Geraci, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      Email: msinger@ckslaw.com
             jgeraci@ckslaw.com

             - and -

      Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
      LEBE LAW, APC
      5723 Melrose Avenue, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90038-3889
      Telephone: (310) 921-7056
      Facsimile: (310) 820-1258
      Email: jon@lebelaw.com


ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah et al. Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RAJESH M. SHAH, et. al., the
Plaintiffs, v. ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00815-PPS-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the Lead
Plaintiffs Rajesh Shah, Matt Brierley, and Eric Levy, and
Plaintiffs UFCW Local 1500 and Steven Castillo ask the Court to
grant an Order on April 4, 2019:

   1. certifying this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) as a class action;

   2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Jason L. Krajcer, Esq.
          Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
          Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
          Leanne H. Solish, Esq.
          Christopher Fallon, Esq.
          Vahe Mesropyan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  jkrajcer@glancylaw.com
                  pbinkow@glancylaw.com
                  lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  lsolish@glancylaw.com
                  cfallon@glancylaw.com
                  vmesropyan@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          David A. Bishop, Esq.
          Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
                  dbishop@kmllp.com
                  telrod@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Offer Korin, Esq.
          KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM PC
          334 North Senate Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 464-1100
          E-mail: okorin@kkclegal.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

[*] 401(k) Class Action Payouts Reach $6.2 Bil., Records Show
-------------------------------------------------------------
A new compilation of court records by Good Jobs First finds that
large corporations have paid out $6.2 billion in class-action
lawsuits in which employees claimed that companies acted improperly
in the administration of their 401(k) or defined-benefit pension or
retiree health plans. That's the total of 201 settlements and
verdicts since January 2000 involving corporations in the Fortune
1000, the Fortune Global 500 and the Forbes list of America's
Largest Private Companies.

The largest settlement, $480 million, was reached in 2014 in a
retiree health benefits suit brought against Daimler on behalf of
workers at the German company's U.S. truck manufacturing plants.

The case information was assembled by the Corporate Research
Project of Good Jobs First as part of the latest expansion of
Violation Tracker, the first wide-ranging database of corporate
misconduct (available at violationtracker.org).

"Class actions have become an essential way for workers to protect
their retirement benefits against employer abuses," said Good Jobs
First Research Director Philip Mattera, who leads the work on
Violation Tracker.

All 201 cases were brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. The lawsuits alleged various types
of misconduct by employers, including:

   * Charging excessive fees or offering overly risky investment
options in 401(k) plans;

   * Improper investment of pension plan assets in company stock,
especially during times of instability;

   * Inadequate disclosure of financial information to plan
participants; and

  * Mishandling conversions of pensions to cash-balance plans.

Some suits were brought against investment managers or plan
trustees rather than the employer. For example, Bank of New York
Mellon agreed to a $335 million settlement to resolve allegations
by multiple pension funds that it overcharged them on currency
exchange rates relating to the purchase of foreign securities.

Apart from Daimler and Bank of New York Mellon, 13 other large
corporations have had total ERISA payouts of $100 million or more.
Among them: IBM, Foot Locker, Xerox, Bank of America, AK Steel,
AT&T and JPMorgan Chase. The industry with the most ERISA payouts
is banking, with a total of $1.3 billion.

In many cases settlement costs are covered by an insurance policy,
but Violation Tracker attributes the amount to the corporation
named in the lawsuit.

Violation Tracker contains 368,000 civil and criminal entries with
total penalties of $464 billion. [GN]


[*] Lindsey Graham Calls for Reform of Class Action System
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Lindsey
Graham, the South Carolina Republican who chairs the Senate
Judiciary Committee and receives backing from trial lawyers, said
in an April 2 hearing that lawsuit abuse "is real" and reform in
the class action system should be explored.

His comments came during an event discussing clauses that require
customers and employees to arbitrate their disputes with companies
rather than sue them. The issue has drawn extra attention since the
former Democratic regime at the Consumer Financial Protection Board
unsuccessfully attempted to push through a rule banning clauses
that prevent class actions.

The April 2 hearing dealt with all pre-dispute arbitration clauses,
not just those banning class actions.

"I understand litigation abuse is real. Class action reform is
something we probably should look at; forum-shopping, I get all
that," said Graham, a former trial lawyer.

"It seems to me the remedy is not what we're talking about. We're
going from one extreme to the other. I get it from the (U.S.
Chamber of Commerce's) point of view there are certain
jurisdictions in the country… it's cooked, set up against you. I
get that.

"Class actions can be abused, I get that.

"This bothers me that if you sign up for a product -- no matter
what -- (or) a service, you know you're giving away all your rights
without really knowing what's going on…"

The comments possibly surprised plaintiffs firms that usually back
Democrats but have supported Graham. In 2017, prominent Houston
lawyer Mark Lanier hosted a fundraiser for Graham at a time when
the futures of several tort reform bills were in doubt, reported
Forbes.

From 1993-2018, Graham has received $4.3 million from lawyers and
law firms, though obviously that amount isn't strictly from
plaintiffs firms. The corporate defense firm Nelson Mullins is his
largest contributor at nearly $300,000.

His third-largest contributor has been the South Carolina personal
injury firm Harrison White. Lawyers there have given him $137,000.
Motley Rice, one of the most influential plaintiffs firms in the
country and also based in South Carolina, has given $106,000.

Also among his top donors is the Thornton Law Firm, a Boston
plaintiffs firm that generated headlines in a controversial $300
million settlement with State Street. That firm has given $66,500.

Graham voted in 2005 for the Class Action Fairness Act, which gives
federal courts jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million.

But in late 2017, the Wall Street Journal wrote that Graham
"appears to work for the trial bar on political retainer" after
preserving a pro-trial lawyer rule that allows them to claim
deductions on the costs of pursuing lawsuits on contingency fees.

Should Graham want to explore class action reform, a recent example
is the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, which passed the
House of Representatives in 2017 but not the Senate.

FICALA requires that classes consist of members with the same type
and scope of injury.

Class action attorneys would not be able to use relatives as lead
plaintiffs, and any agreement in which a third party has agreed to
finance the lawsuit in return for a portion of its proceeds would
have to be disclosed.

That provision applies to lawyers in the Ninth Circuit, which
contains California federal courts.

It was part of the package of tort reform bills referenced in the
Forbes article. There, too, was the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act,
which would make sanctions mandatory against attorneys who file
frivolous lawsuits.

Currently, judges have discretion on whether to impose sanctions.

Plaintiffs also have a 21-day safe harbor in which they can
withdraw their claims after a motion for sanctions has been filed.

Among the witnesses were Myriam Gilles, a law professor at Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law supporting pre-dispute arbitration reform,
and Ballard Spahr lawyer Alan Kaplinsky, who advocates for the use
of arbitration clauses.

Victor Schwartz, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, testified on
behalf of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. The ILR owns
Legal Newsline.

During the controversy over the ultimately failed CFPB rule,
Kaplinsky cited a study that showed the average recovery for a
consumer who prevails in arbitration is more than $5,000, while the
average class action settlement provides only $32 per class member.
Attorneys pocket an average of $424,000, the study showed. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***