CAR_Public/190509.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 9, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 93

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Mendez Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Wright Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ABBVIE: Several Organizations Join Antitrust Class Action
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Barnhart Granted
AMAZING HOME: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Rivas Suit

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE: Romo Sues over Debt Collection Calls
AMERICAN SECURITY: Chatfield Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
APYX MEDICAL: Pritchard Sues over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
ARS NATIONAL: Vitanza-Stephens Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ASCENDA USA: Charlot FLSA Suit Transferred From Arizona to Colorado

ASUS COMPUTER: Brekhus Suit Moved to N.D. California Court
AT&T MOBILITY: Morrison Sues over Collection of Geolocation Data
ATONOMI LLC: Hunichen Seeks Return of $25MM Under Wash. Sec. Act
AVENTURA CJ: Fente Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Lopez et al. Seek to Certify Class of Employees

BARTELLHOTELS MANAGEMENT: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Says
BCC FOOD: Castillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Managers
BLUE CROSS: Wun-Ling Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
BP EXPLORATION: Claims Admin to Show Settlement Acct. Justification
BROOKLYN HISTORICAL: Cartagena Seeks Overtime Pay

CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Still in Discussions Over Concussion Case
CARE.COM INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Wallace Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CCC INFO: Denial of Bids to Compel Appraisal in Milligan Affirmed
CENTRAL MAINE POWER: Customers' Class Suit on Hold Until October

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Mendieta to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHOICE HOTELS: Bid to Dismiss Amended DiFlavis FLSA Suit Denied
CIGNA CORP: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses 2nd Cir. Ruling
CINETOPIA LLC: Viers Files ADA Suit in W.D. Washington
COLONIAL PARKING: Court Grants Bid to Amend Abraha ERISA Suit

COLUMBUS VILLAGE: Almazo Vidal, et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
COMPLIANCE ENVIROSYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of Lewis Class Action
CONNECTICUT: Court Grants Bid for Leave to File Amended FAPE Suit
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Approval of Notice Plan Sought
COTTON PATCH: Norred Files Action Over Subminimum Hourly Wages

CUSTOM AUTO: Doss Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Butler Appeals E.D. La. Judgment to 5th Cir.
ELY'S TIRE: Violates FLSA, Fish Suit Asserts
EVERGREEN ADULT: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Lee Suit Says
EVERYDAY BEAUTY: Lin et al. Seek to Certify Class Action

EXTREME NETWORK: June 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EXXON MOBIL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss LeBlanc and Beasley Claims
EXXON MOBIL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Goldstein Class Suit
EXXON: Victoria, BC Mayors Reconsidering Class Action Plan
FACEBOOK INC: Ex-Post Moderator Files Class Action

FIRST ADVANTAGE: Cherry FCRA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
FIRST CHOICE: May 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FITBIT: Settles Class Action Over Defective Sleep Tracker Devices
FORSTER & GARBUS: Bid for Responses in Safont Suit Partly Granted
FORSTER & GARBUS: Stessel FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York

FOX RUN: Hawk Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, Damages
GEORGIA: Court Denies Bid for Joinder in Wright Suit
GPB CARS 12: Page Files Consumer Credit Suit in New Jersey
GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Hochhauser Files FDCPA Class Action
HCSG WEST: Barrientos Brings Suit Under Calif. Wage & Hour Laws

HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit
HERBERT P. SEARS: Thompson Brings Suit Under FDCPA
HIRERIGHT LLC: Bid to Transfer Gray FCRA Suit to M.D. Tenn. Denied
HUNTER WARFIELD: Vazquez Suit Transferred From E.D. to M.D. Pa.
IDAHO: High Court Might Weigh Public Defender Class Suit

INOGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
ISLE OF CAPRI: Wage Class Action Scheduled for Trial Next Year
JIFFY LUBE: Faces Migyanko Suit over Handicapped Accessibility
KARL E. THOMAS: Tenants Sue Landlord Over Unlawful Lease Terms
KIA MOTORS: Casas Files Suit Over Vehicles' Engine Defect

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Judge Refuses to Kick Avenatti Off Case
KIND LLC: Years-Long Stay of False Marketing Suit Lifted
KRAFT HEINZ: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action Over False Statements
LAOS: Hmong Exiles Petition Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari
LAZZONI USA: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LENDLEASE: Faces Investor Class Action Over Share Price Plunge
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action in U.S. Over Fridge Compressor
LIBERATO RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage for Drivers
LIFEGUARD AMBULANCE: Loper Class Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
LL BEAN: California Judge Dismisses Return Policy Lawsuit

LOUISVILLE METRO: Healey et al. Seek to Certify Class
M.K. MORSE: Benton Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE: Discounted Stock Repurchase Unfair, Says Glynn
MALCOLM S. GERALD: 11 Cir. Flips FDCPA Claim Dismissal in Holzma
MATT MARTORELLO: Weddle v. Williams Moved From Colo. to Virginia

MCKINLEY HOMEBUILDERS: Jackson Hits Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
MDL 2672: Bid to Remand Cook to Alabama State Court Denied
MDL 2672: Brooks Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court
MDL 2672: McGowan Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court
MDL 2848: Hedlund Suit vs. Merck over Zostavax Consolidated

MDL 2885: Amaro et al. Suit over Defective Earplugs Consolidated
MDL 2885: Britton vs 3M over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
MDL 2885: Coyaso Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Dufresne-Yidi Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Garcia Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation

MDL 2885: Gould et al. Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
MDL 2885: Lynch Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: McDonagh Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Smith Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
MDL 2885: Stokes Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation

MDL 2885: Torres Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Wimberley Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
MENDAKOTA CASUALTY: Graves Sues Over Insurance Policy Breach
MERCHANT INDUSTRY: Fabricant Sues Over TCPA Violation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Class in Knight FDCPA Suit Has Prelim Approval

MIDLAND CREDIT: Dipisa Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Woos Investors for Class Suit
MONSANTO CO: Oleyar Seeks to Recover Damages for Roundup Injuries
MOPHIE INC: Hid Juice Pack's Low Capacity, Dolar Suit Says

MOWI ASA: Bagels & Baguettes Sues Over Salmon Price-fixing
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Dicristo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE: Onley Alleges Breach of Insurance Deal
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Class Action Lower Court Rulings Reversed
NORTHBOUND INVESTMENTS: Does not Pay Proper OT Wages, Says Suit

NPS PROPERTY: Discrimination Victims' Suit Enlarged as Class Action
NUTANIX INC: Pomerantz Investigating Securities Fraud Claims
OHIO MULCH: Carter Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under Ohio Wage Act
ORACLE CORP: Workers Seek Jury Trial in 401(k) Class Action
ORLANS PC: Garland Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses

PARADISE OAKS: Young Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PETER THOMAS: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Miller Suit
PLS FINANCIAL: Seeks Fifth Circuit Review of Vine Suit Ruling
PNC BANK: Minor et al. Seek to Certify Collective FLSA Class
POSCO: Massive Class Action Expected to Demand Payment From State

PRATT LLC: Chavez Suit Remanded to State Court
PRATT ROBERT: Chavez Appeals N.D. California Decision to 9th Cir.
PREMIERE CENTER: Bush Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
RACK ROOM: Goldschmidt Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
RIPPLE LABS: Token Purchasers File Class Action Suit

RIPPLE: Class Suit Still at Federal Court; May 21 Deadline Set
RIUTEL FLORIDA: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
ROTHMANS BENSON: Class Suit Ruling Forces PM Unit to Bankruptcy
ROUND ONE: Wilson Seeks Penalties for Missed Meal, Rest Breaks
SHARP GROSSMONT: Admits Recording of Gynecological Procedures

SINEMIA: Faces Class Action Following Customer Complaints
SITO MOBILE: Kahn Swick Probing Executives
SNAP: Kessler Topaz to Remain in Charge of Class Action
SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Exclusion of Moores Testimony in Ulibarri Denied
SPORTS RESEARCH: Capaci Sues Over Product's Misleading Claims

STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Student Linked to Bribery Scandal Expelled
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Thompson TCPA Suit
SWEPI LP: Walney Appeals Class Decertification Order to 3rd Cir.
TIDAL BASIN HOLDING: Nelson Seeks OT Premium Pay
TRAILER BRIDGE: Diaz Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

TURTLE CREEK: Ochoa Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
UBS FINANCIAL: Hsu Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
UCLA HEALTH: Terms of $7.5MM Cyber Attack Class Action Settlement
UNITED HEALTHCARE: 10th Circuit Appeal Filed in Fedor FLSA Suit
UNITED STATES: Ct. Addresses Discovery Dispute in Veterans APA Suit

UNITED STATES: Identification of Separated Families to Take 2 Yrs
UNITED STATES: Prelim Injunction in Immigrant Rights Suit Issued
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Watts Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
VIRGINIA TAN: Judge Certifies $30MM Ponzi Scheme Class Action
VITAL PHARMA: Imran & Madison Suits Over False Ad Consolidated

WARREN COUNTY, OH: Ct. Certifies Class in Adoption Assistance Suit
WASHINGTON: Settles CRT Antitrust Class Action for $39MM
WATKINS AND SHEPARD: Watkins Stayed Pending Sampson, IBT Resolution
WAYFAIR LLC: Hamilton Suit Removed to N.D. California
WEBB & GERRITSEN: Violates Wisconsin Wage Laws, Klahn Suit Says

WELLS FARGO: Rogers Sues over Credit Background Checks
WESTJET: Unions Slow to Address Sexual Assault Case
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Ct. Junks Objections to Discovery Master's Report
WHITE DOVE: Cooper Seeks Correct Overtime Wages
WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE: Bid to Certify Class in Walker Suit Denied

YALAHA BAKERY: Berrios Seeks Regular and Overtime Wages, Damages
ZESTFINANCE INC: Faces Turner et al. Suit over Usurious Loans

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Mendez Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTONIO MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01175-MCR-GRJ (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2019), seeks to
hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage they allegedly suffered
while serving variously in the U.S. military, including during
foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM
Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were
defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing
protection. 3M denies these allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          Lazaro Fields, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476.7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476.7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com
                  laz@colson.com

3M COMPANY: Wright Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTONIO J. WRIGHT, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01908-WMR (N.D. Ga., April 29, 2019),
seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage they allegedly
suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including
during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms
TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo
were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing
protection. 3M denies these allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          J. Parker Miller, Esq.
          Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
          William R. Sutton, Esq.
          Andrew F. Banks, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
             PORTIS, & MILES, P.C.
          4200 Northside Parkway NW
          Building One, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 751-1162
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Parker.Miller@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Rhon.Jones@BeasleyAllen.com
                  William.Sutton@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Andrew.Banks@BeasleyAllen.com

ABBVIE: Several Organizations Join Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sagonowsky, writing for FiercePharma, reports that AbbVie's
Humira protection strategy has made headlines almost daily as
critics multiply -- and so do legal threats. More plaintiffs are
piling into court claiming the company illegally quashed
competition with a "patent thicket" and a "pay-for-delay" deal.

Since a grocery workers' union in New York filed its lawsuit March
18, several other organizations have joined the fight. Police
officers in Miami, the mayor and city council in Baltimore, plus
groups representing pipefitters and electrical workers in Minnesota
have filed class actions with similar complaints, according to
court filings. A union representing heavy machine operators in New
York also sued.

The lawsuits allege AbbVie blocked competition to Humira by
creating a "patent thicket" that effectively prevents biosimilar
makers from reaching the market. Backed by the "thicket," the
company sued biosim makers and settled on 2023 launch dates,
delaying the entry of low-cost copycats. Humira's main patent
expired in 2016.

The recent lawsuits also list Amgen as a defendant. In those cases,
plaintiffs say Amgen will get a payout by being the first to reach
a settlement with AbbVie. Under its settlement, Amgen can launch
its biosimilar in January 2023, while other competitors won't hit
the market until June that year at the earliest.

An AbbVie representative said the allegations are "factually
inaccurate and legally baseless."

"AbbVie's settlement agreements resolved complex intellectual
property issues and provide biosimilar access more than 10 years
before our last Humira patent expires," she added. "They do not
involve any payments or other incentives from AbbVie to induce
resolution."

A spokeswoman for Amgen said the company is "reviewing the
complaints and will vigorously defend our actions."

She said the company's settlement was "procompetitive and not
anticompetitive because it allows Amgen's product to come to the US
market years before the expiration of all of AbbVie's asserted
patents." Amgen will pay a royalty to AbbVie under the deal, she
added. AbbVie won't pay Amgen.

At a recent Congressional hearing, AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez
acknowledged the biosim deals may not be "popular," but he said
AbbVie sought to strike a "reasonable balance" with the moves. Some
of Humira's patents don't expire until long after 2023, he pointed
out.

One biosim maker has opted not to settle. Boehringer Ingelheim has
leveled similar allegations in court, alleging AbbVie pursued
overlapping and non-inventive patents to protect Humira.

Meanwhile, in Europe, biosims have already rolled. There, they're
hurting AbbVie's pricing power and stealing market share. In fact,
a publication in the Netherlands recently reported that the company
is aggressively discounting there in order to keep business. Some
biosim companies have pulled back from the market in response,
according to the report.  

AbbVie's Humira is the world's best-selling drug, generating nearly
$20 billion last year. The company hopes it can protect sales for
the med in the coming years as its new launches pick up steam.
Skyrizi, a new immunology med, recently won its first global
approval in Japan. AbbVie is also counting on upadacitinib to post
strong sales growth upon a launch, expected this year. [GN]


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Barnhart Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IAN BARNHART, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, in his official
capacity, Defendant, Cause No. 1:17-CV-124-TLS (N.D. Ind.), Judge
Theresa L. Springman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, granted the Defendant's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Class Action
Complaint against Defendant Gladieux, in his official capacity.
The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 6, 2017, a First
Amended Motion for Class Certification, and a Second Amended
Complaint on Aug. 15, 2017.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant refused to provide the Plaintiffs with absentee ballots
or alternative access to the polls in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment and seeks damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

On Nov. 13, 2017, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Motion for Class Certification.  In that Order, the Court found
that, although Plaintiff Barnhart was not incarcerated until after
the date in which he could request an absentee ballot, he could not
vote solely because he was a pretrial detainee in the Allen County
Jail and the Defendant did not provide any means for Plaintiff
Barnhart to exercise his right to vote.

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff Barnhart filed a Second Motion to
Certify the Class, which was granted on May 17, 2018.  The Court
certified the class of all individuals held at the Allen County
Jail on Nov. 8, 2016, who on that date were U.S. citizens,
residents of Indiana, were at least eighteen years of age, were not
serving a sentence for a conviction of a felony crime, had not
previously voted in the 2016 general election, were provided
neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a voting center,
and were registered to vote or had been denied the opportunity to
vote while held in the Allen County Jail.

On July 23, 2018, the Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, seeking to dismiss the claims of the Class Members
incarcerated in the Allen County Jail on Oct. 31, 2016.  The
Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
that the October Class Members were unable to vote by absentee
ballot under Allen County Jail policy or practice.

The Defendant argues that the October Class Members were freely
able to vote by absentee ballot under both express Allen County
Jail policy and Indiana law.  Thus, he argues, no policy or
practice of the Allen County Sheriff's Department caused any
alleged constitutional injury.  The Defendant does not move for
summary judgment for Class Members booked into the Allen County
Jail after the Oct. 31, 2016 deadline to request an absentee
ballot, as issues of fact that preclude an entry of summary
judgment.

On Aug. 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Response to the
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  On Sept. 4, 2018,
the Defendant filed a Reply in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.  On Sept. 27, 2018, with the Court's permission,
the Plaintiffs filed a sur-response to the Defendant's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.

Judge Springman cannot say that the policy within the Jail Rules
was insufficient without evidence that the Class Members attempted
to exercise their rights pursuant to the policy.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that there was an omission in
the Jail Rules, and therefore does not need to address whether
there was a corresponding widespread practice that violated the
Class Members' right to vote.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' evidence, the petition and affidavits
do not demonstrate that there was an attempt to exercise the right
to vote via absentee ballot.  Without such an affirmative attempt,
the Defendant could not have had a basis to think that the training
was inadequate.  That the October Class Members were eligible to
vote via absentee ballot and failed to do so does not mean that the
Defendant was on notice that training was inadequate.  Thus, the
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the Defendant's failure to train
resulted in the disenfranchisement of the October Class Members.

Judge Springman concludes that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated
that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial with
respect to the October Class Members.  For the foregoing reasons,
he granted the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, he dismissed without prejudice the claims of the Class
Members incarcerated in the Allen County Jail on Oct. 31, 2016.
The claims of the Class Members incarcerated in the Allen County
Jail after that date remain pending.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/deC3gr from Leagle.com.

Ian Barnhart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher C. Myers,
Christopher C Myers & Associates & David W. Frank, Christopher C
Myers & Associates.

David Gladieux, in his official capacity, Defendant, represented by
J. Spencer Feighner -- jsf@hallercolvin.com -- Haller & Colvin PC &
John O. Feighner -- jfeighner@hallercolvin.com -- Haller & Colvin
PC.


AMAZING HOME: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Rivas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, RICARDO RIVAS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMAZING HOME
COMMUNITY SERVICES, LLC & ADELA SEGO VIA, the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00086-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Orlando L. Garcia
entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act section 216 and and authorizing Plaintiff's
counsel, Lawrence Morales II and Allison S. Hartry of The Morales
Firm, P.C., to issue opt-in notices and consent forms to the
following Class:

   "all current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants
   from [three years prior to the date the notice is issued to the
   present who worked more than forty hours in at least one
   workweek and were not paid an overtime premium of one-and-one-
   half times their hourly rate for those hours";  

   2. directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel in
a usable electronic format no later than 10 days from the entry of
the Court's Order: the names, last-known residential addresses, and
dates of employment of all hourly employees who meet the parameters
of the Class; and

   3. authorizing the Notice and Consent to Join to be issued
immediately to the Class Members.[CC]

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE: Romo Sues over Debt Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against American Medical
Response Ambulance Service, Inc. (AMR) for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). The case is captioned DEBRA
ROMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.
D/B/A AMR, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00707 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2019). In its efforts to
collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff Debra Romo, AMR used an
automatic telephone dialing system, violating the FLSA. During all
relevant times, AMR did not possess Romo's prior express consent to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular telephone. AMR has
also violated the RFDCPA in multiple ways, including but not
limited to causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously
to annoy Romo and to communicating with Romo at times or places
which were known or should have been known to be inconvenient for
Romo.

AMR is a medical response company engaged in collection activity in
connection with debts allegedly owed to it. The company is
headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado and maintains offices
in the state of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Telephone: 323-306-4234
     Facsimile: 866-633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


AMERICAN SECURITY: Chatfield Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ANTONIO CHATFIELD, LORENZO PATTERSON, and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN SECURITY GROUP
A-1, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a A-1 LOCK AND KEY
a/k/a A-1 LOCK & KEY, MICHAEL NETTLES, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 2019-008485-CA was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit
in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 26, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-21641.

Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for Recovery of
Overtime Compensation and Recovery of Minimum Wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Counts I and III) and for
Recovery of Minimum Wages arising under state law (Count II). In
Counts I-III of the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek monetary relief on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals pursuant to
FLSA and state law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     ROBERT M. EINHORN, ESQ.
     ALAINA B. KARSTEN, ESQ.
     ZARCO EINHORN SALKOWSKI & BRITO, P.A.
     One Biscayne Tower
     2 S. Biscayne Blvd., 34th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 374-5418
     Facsimile: (305) 374-5428
     Email: reinhorn@zarcolaw.com
            akarsten@zarcolaw.com
     Secondary Email: acs@zarcolaw.com
            npico@zarcolaw.com


APYX MEDICAL: Pritchard Sues over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action complaint has been filed against Apyx
Medical Corporation and CEO Charles D. Goodwin for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act. The
case is captioned KYLE PRITCHARD, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. APYX MEDICAL CORPORATION
f/k/a/ BOVIE MEDICAL CORPORATION, and CHARLES D. GOODWIN,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00919 (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2019).
Plaintiff Kyle Pritchard alleges that Defendants have carried out a
plan, scheme and course of conduct intended to deceive the
investing public and cause them to purchase Apyx's securities at
artificially inflated prices. Defendants have also employed
devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; made untrue statements
of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary
to make the statements not misleading; and engaged in acts,
practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and
deceit upon the purchasers of the company's securities in an effort
to maintain artificially high market prices for Apyx's securities
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

Apyx is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and its principal
executive offices are located in Clearwater, Florida. Apyx's common
stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol APYX. Apyx was
formerly known as Bovie Medical Corporation, and its stock traded
on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BVX until Jan 1,
2019. Headed by CEO Charles D. Goodwin, this medical technology
company purportedly develops J-Plasma, a plasma-based surgical
product for cutting, coagulation and ablation of soft tissue. It
markets and sells J-Plasma under the brand name Renuvion Cosmetic
Technology. It also claims that it has developed J-Plasma/Renuvion
for use in dermal resurfacing procedures. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
     DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
     5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
     Vero Beach, FL 32963
     Telephone: 772.231.9600
     Facsimile: 772.231.0300
     E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com

             - and –

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


ARS NATIONAL: Vitanza-Stephens Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services
Inc. The case is styled as Joann Vitanza-Stephens on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS
National Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02408 (E.D.
N.Y., April 25, 2019).

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

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and
credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net


ASCENDA USA: Charlot FLSA Suit Transferred From Arizona to Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Charlot, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ascenda USA, Inc. d/b/a 24-7 InTouch, An
Arizona Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00333, was transferred on
April 16, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
(Denver).

The Colorado District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01112
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a collective action to recover overtime wages and
liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Corey R. Feltre, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com
                  corey@lubinandenoch.com
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com


ASUS COMPUTER: Brekhus Suit Moved to N.D. California Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Edward Brekhus, an individual, on behalf of himself, the
general public, and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ASUS Computer International, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-571553,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Francisco
County, to the U.S. District Court for the California Northern
District (San Francisco) on April 29, 2019. The Northern District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02304 to the
proceeding. The suit demands $5,000,000,000.

AsusTek is a Taiwan-based multinational computer and phone hardware
and electronics company headquartered in Beitou District, Taipei,
Taiwan.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for ASUS Computer:

          Robert Brett Bader, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 504-3148
          E-mail: rbader@srclaw.com

AT&T MOBILITY: Morrison Sues over Collection of Geolocation Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit seeks redress against AT&T for its alleged
reckless and negligent violations of customer privacy rights.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are AT&T customers. The action
arises out of Defendant's collection of geolocation data and the
unauthorized dissemination to third-parties of the geolocation data
collected from its users' cell phones.

According to the complaint, AT&T admittedly sells customer
geolocation data to third-parties, including but not limited to
data aggregators, who in turn, are able to use or resell the
geolocation data with little or no oversight by AT&T.

The case is captioned as TYLER MORRISON 4217 SKYVIEW BALTIMORE, MD
21211 on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC 1025 Lenox Park
Blvd. Atlanta, GA 30319 Serve on: Department of Assessment and
Taxation Corporate Charter Division 301 W. Preston Street Room 801
Baltimore, MD 21201, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01257-JKB (D.
Md., April 29, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Cory L. Zajdel, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq.
          David M. Trojanowski, Esq.
          Z LAW, LLC
          2345 York Road, Ste. B-13
          Timonium, MD 21093
          Telephone: (443) 213-1977
          E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com
                  jct@zlawmaryland.com
                  dmt@zlawmaryland.com

ATONOMI LLC: Hunichen Seeks Return of $25MM Under Wash. Sec. Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS HUNICHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Atonomi LLC, a Delaware LLC, CENTRI
Technology, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Vaughan Emery, David
Fragale, Rob Strickland, Kyle Strickland, Don Deloach, Wayne
Wisehart, Woody Benson, Michael Mackey, James Salter, and Luis
Paris, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00615 (W.D. Wash., April 25,
2019) is a suit seeking the return of approximately $25,000,000,
together with statutory interest and attorneys' fees, which
Defendants procured from investors through the sale of unregistered
securities in violation of the Washington Securities Act.

The Act forbids the sale of unregistered securities, and allows
purchasers of unregistered securities to assert joint and several
liability against anyone whose acts were substantial contributing
factors in the sales transaction. The Act requires sellers and
controllers to return the purchase price of unregistered securities
plus statutory 8% interest from the date of sale, together with
reasonable attorneys' fees.

In spring 2018, Atonomi LLC ("Atonomi"), a wholly owned subsidiary
of CENTRI Technologies, Inc. ("CENTRI"), raised approximately
$25,000,000 through the sale of unregistered securities through an
"Initial Coin Offering," or "ICO." Atonomi as seller, and the
remaining defendants, as persons who substantially contributed to
the Atonomi ICO, thereby violated the WSA through their sale of
unregistered securities they called "coins," or "tokens," which
they sold in the ICO. The securities sold in the ICO were neither
registered as required under the Act, nor subject to any exemption
from registration. The ICO resulted in the sale of approximately
$25,000,000 in unregistered securities, and therefore every
defendant is jointly and severally liable for $25,000,000 in
refunded sales proceeds, together with 8% interest dating from the
spring 2018 sale, and attorneys' fees, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Chris Hunichen invested $191,250 in the Atonomi ICO on
February 22, 2018.

Defendant Atonomi is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with a
principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel B. Ard, Esq.
     Ard Law Group PLLC
     P.O. Box 11633
     Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
     Phone: (206) 701-9243

          - and -

     Angus F. Ni, Esq.
     AFN Law PLLC
     506 2nd Ave, Suite 1400
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: (646) 543-7294


AVENTURA CJ: Fente Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Fente Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aventura CJ, LLC d/b/a Aventura
Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21597 (S.D.
Fla., April 25, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. This case
arises from Defendant's unauthorized text messages and calls to
cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with prior
express consent, as well as cellular subscribers who expressly
requested not to receive Defendant's text messages. As a result,
Defendant caused thousands of text messages and calls to be sent to
the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members who either
never provided Defendant with consent to contact them or who had
revoked any prior express consent, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Lopez et al. Seek to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit LAURA LOPEZ, SAM WILLIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02346-VC (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 27, 2019, for class
certification of:

   "employees of Defendant Bank of America ("BofA") employed as
   Small Business Bankers ("SBB") in California from March 14, 2013

   to the present."

The Plaintiffs move for class certification of their claim for
overtime compensation brought pursuant to the state's Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs allege they have been misclassified as exempt and
not paid overtime compensation for overtime hours worked. The
Defendant is relying primarily on the outside sales exemption which
requires that the employee be outside the employer’s place of
business most
of the time, the lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          George R. Nemiroff, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          Wood Island
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 461-6400
          Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
          E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
                  gnemiroff@wynnlawfirm.com

BARTELLHOTELS MANAGEMENT: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA MORALES SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BARTELLHOTELS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00021555-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Diego Cty., April 25, 2019) seeks monetary relief against
Defendants on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
in California to recover, among other things, unpaid wages and
benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged
in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations unfair the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate
unfair competition.

The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class
Members were entitled to receive wages for all time worked
(including minimum wages and overtime wages) and that they were not
receiving all wages earned for work that was required to be
performed in violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, notes
the complaint.  

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees at
Defendants' California business locations.

Defendants operate hotels in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     SAMUELA. WONG, ESQ.
     KASHIF HAQUE, ESQ.
     JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
     AEGIS LAWFIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 379-6250
     Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


BCC FOOD: Castillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIO CASTILLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BCC FOOD HALL LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, d/b/a LA CENTRALE, and JACOPO GIUSTINIANI, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01632-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 26,
2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and other current and
former employees of Defendants who have worked as salaried
"Assistant Managers," however variously titled, seeking unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants during the 3-year
statute of limitations period between approximately March 2018 and
December 2018, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week but Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff time and one-half wages
for all of his actual overtime hours worked each week as required
by the FLSA, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in the position known as
"Assistant Retail Manager," a/k/a "Assistant Manager," in
approximately March 2018.

BCC FOOD HALL LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a LA
CENTRALE and JACOPO GIUSTINIANI, have owned and operated an Italian
food hall.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     KEITH M. STERN
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 901-1379
     Email: employlaw@keithstern.com

          - and -

     Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF HAZEL SOLIS ROJAS, P.A.
     3105 NW 107th Avenue, Suite 400
     Doral, FL 33172
     Phone: (305) 558-8402
     Email: hazel@solisrojaslaw.com


BLUE CROSS: Wun-Ling Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Wun-Ling Chang, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Cross of
California, et al., Case No. 19STCV02777, was removed on April 16,
2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02930-VAP-JC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related disputes.[BN]

Plaintiff Wun-Ling Chang, M.D., Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          Howard Loring Rose, Esq.
          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          GIANELLI AND MORRIS ALC
          550 South Hope Street Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com
                  loring.rose@gmlawyers.com
                  rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Edgington, Esq.
          Don A. Ernst, Esq.
          M. Taylor Ernst, Esq.
          ERNST LAW GROUP
          1020 Palm St.
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 541-0300
          Facsimile: (805) 541-5168
          E-mail: ce@ernstlawgroup.com
                  dae@ernstlawgroup.com
                  te@ernstlawgroup.com

Defendants Blue Cross of California doing business as: Anthem Blue
Cross, and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company are
represented by:

          Amir Shlesinger, Esq.
          Kenneth N. Smersfelt, Esq.
          Benjamin Charles Watson, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: ashlesinger@reedsmith.com
                  ksmersfelt@reedsmith.com
                  bwatson@reedsmith.com


BP EXPLORATION: Claims Admin to Show Settlement Acct. Justification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Requesting Parties-Appellants, v.
CLAIMANT ID 100195328, Objecting Party-Appellee, Case No. 18-30562
(5th Cir.), Judge Carl E. Stewart of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit remanded to the district court in order to remove
the expenses from the calculation of Variable Profit that
correspond with related-party revenue, or to have the Claims
Administrator provide a sufficient accounting justification
demonstrating there is no violation of the Settlement Agreement.

The case arises out of the Settlement Agreement negotiated between
BP and class action representatives in response to the catastrophic
discharge of oil after BP's Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig
exploded and sank in 2010.  The Settlement Agreement permits
individuals and entities that experienced economic and property
damage from that disaster to recover from BP through a Court
Supervised Settlement Program.  Business Economic Loss claims are
calculated under the Settlement Agreement by comparing the "actual
profit of a business during a defined post-spill period in 2010 to
the profit that the claimant might have expected to earn in the
comparable post-spill period of 2010."

There are several steps used to calculate a claimant's total award
under the Settlement Agreement.  The appeal focuses on the
calculation of "Step 1 Compensation."  That compensation reflects
the reduction in a claimant's profit between a period selected by
the claimant that post-dates the Deepwater Horizon discharge of oil
into the Gulf of Mexico, called "the 2010 Compensation Period," and
comparable months of the "Benchmark Period" prior to the discharge.
Step 1 Compensation is a calculation of any reduction in Variable
Profit from the earlier period to the later one. Variable Profit is
the sum of the monthly revenue over the relevant period minus "the
corresponding variable expenses from revenue over the same time
period."

At issue in the appeal is Policy 328 v.2 adopted by the Claims
Administrator.  It directs the Settlement Program's accountants to
review claims to exclude in their Business Economic Loss
calculations any income of the kind "not typically earned as
revenue under the normal course of operations."  The Policy directs
exclusion of "related party transactions that are not arm's length
transactions." It also states that the "Claims Administrator in his
discretion may require that the claimant provide further
explanation and/or additional documentation underlying the monthly
revenue and related expense accounts in question."

The claimant operates a motor vehicle dealership. The claimant
filed a claim under the Settlement Agreement in March 2013.  The
Claims Administrator requested information concerning transactions
between the claimant and two related entities.  The claimant
submitted the information, which generally showed that certain
vehicles purchased by the claimant were sold to the two related
entities at cost.  The Claims Administrator could not determine
whether transactions between the claimant and the related entities
were arms-length transactions, and therefore decided to exclude the
revenue from those transactions due to Policy 328 v.2.  It did not
exclude the earlier costs of those same vehicles from the
calculation. The Claims Administrator ultimately awarded the
claimant about $2.5 million.

The central point on the appeal is that the Claims Administrator
calculated Variable Profit for the post-disaster period by removing
related-party revenue from the revenue total for that period but
did not remove the corresponding related-party expenses. The result
was that the Variable Profit for the post-disaster period was
lower, i.e., the loss was greater, than if the related-party
revenue remained in the calculation or the related-party expenses
had been removed.  As the Variable Profit in the period after the
disaster decreases, the award for lost profits to the claimant
increases.

BP sought review of that award by an Appeal Panel. BP challenged
the Claims Administrator's treatment of the claimant's
related-party transactions. BP claimed that the Claims
Administrator erred by failing to remove corresponding
related-party expenses when it removed the related party revenue
from the Variable Profit calculations. BP's appeal included a
proposed award of $0, whereas the claimant's proposed award was the
amount awarded by the Claims Administrator. The Appeal Panel ruled
in favor of the claimant, finding that it was proper to exclude the
related-party revenue from the calculation of compensation and that
the related-party expenses were properly included because the
claimant had to buy and pay for the vehicles that it sold to the
related party at cost.

Pursuant to the "baseball appeals" process required by the
Settlement Agreement in which an Appeal Panel selects the party's
Final Proposal closest to the correct result "and no other amount,"
the claimant's Final Proposal was accepted and BP's was rejected.
BP then sought discretionary review in the district court, which
was denied.

Judge Stewart concludes that the Settlement Agreement is not being
followed given the manner in which Policy 328 v.2 is being applied,
or that an inadequate explanation for that approach has been
provided.  It is also the case that several examples of the
application of this Policy appear to exist.  Consequently, the
decision not reviewed by the district court actually contradicted
or misapplied the Settlement Agreement.  Therefore, with respect,
he concludes the district court abused its discretion when it
declined to grant review.

The Judge remanded to the district court in order to remove the
expenses from the calculation of Variable Profit that correspond
with related-party revenue, or to have the Claims Administrator
provide a sufficient accounting justification demonstrating there
is no violation of the Settlement Agreement.  The claimant's
request for sanctions is denied.

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

Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

Robert H. Murphy -- rmurphy@mrsnola.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

Peter Brooks Sloss -- psloss@mrsnola.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

James Andrew Langan , for Requesting Party-Appellant.

Brett Salvador Lala -- brett@gctaxlaw.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

Devin Chase Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Sr., for Requesting Party-Appellant.

Aaron Lloyd Nielson, for Requesting Party-Appellant.

George W. Hicks, Jr., for Requesting Party-Appellant.

David Weiner -- deweiner@ebglaw.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

Paul Desbon Cordes, Jr. -- paul@gctaxlaw.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.


BROOKLYN HISTORICAL: Cartagena Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
MARGARJTA CARTAGENA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs, THE BROOKLYN HISTORICAL
SOCIETY, OCEAN GROUP INC., and JASON PffiTRANGELI, PATRICK
VALENTINE, BEATRICE PORTO, and CELESTINO MENDEZ, as individuals,
the Defendants, Case No. cv-19-2507 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2019).
seeks to recover overtime pay puruant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Ms. Cartagena was employed by
Defendants from September 2010 until April 2018. Her primary duties
were as a cleaner, while performing other miscellaneous duties. She
worked approximately 84 or more hours per week at The Brooklyn
Historical Society from in or around April 2013 until in or around
April 2018. But Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half
for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.

The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the
FLSA. The Defendants willfully failed to keep accurate payroll
records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA. As a result of these
violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Roman Avshallunov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718-263 -9591

CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Still in Discussions Over Concussion Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Gord Holder, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that the Canadian
Football League is still in discussions with representatives of
plaintiffs in a four-year-old class-action lawsuit over
concussions, but there's still no guarantee that those talks will
lead to a settlement, CFL commissioner Randy Ambrosie said April
3.

"We're actively pursuing a resolution. I'd say that, like most
things that relate to the Canadian Football League and the people I
get to work with, they want to do good work and they want to do
good things, and I live that every day," Ambrosie said in an
interview following his 52-minute appearance before the House of
Commons Subcommittee on Sports-Related Concussions.

"But you know what? We go into this issue with the goal of
ultimately resolving it in a positive, constructive way and I think
that we are on that path.

"Of course, between here and there, you don't know. But what I can
tell you is the way we approach these issues, it's done honourably
and it's done with the intention of a positive outcome."

The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2015, with former CFL players
Eric Allen and Korey Banks as representative plaintiffs. Since
then, more than 200 other former players or their families have
signed on, seeking damages for every player who practised or played
games with CFL teams between 1952 and 2014. That group includes
Canadian Football Hall of Fame inductee Alondra Johnson, a
linebacker with the B.C. Lions, Calgary Stampeders and Saskatchewan
Roughriders between 1989 and 2004, plus the families of former
Ottawa Rough Riders Rod Woodward, Gary Schreider and Dennis
Duncan.

The lawsuit claimed the CFL and its teams knew or ought to have
known about the long-term health risks from concussions. That claim
has not been tested in court or in arbitration.

A separate grievance filed by former CFL receiver Arland Bruce, who
also claimed he was allowed to return to game action even though he
was still experiencing symptoms from a concussion, is in
arbitration. In March 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada decided not
to hear an appeal of British Columbia court rulings that required
Bruce to go to arbitration because he had been a member of the CFL
Players' Association.

Ambrosie said the Bruce grievance was "part of that overall
conversation, but I can't comment specifically on that case." [GN]


CARE.COM INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a Boston based securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide, has filed a
securities fraud class action against Care.com, Inc. (NYSE: CRCM)
and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court, District
of Massachusetts (Boston), located at 1 Courthouse Way, Boston,
Massachusetts, 02210, and captioned Toussaint v. Care.com, Inc., et
al., No. 19-cv-10628, alleges that between March 27, 2015 and April
1, 2019 (the "Class Period"), Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts, with respect to the manner in which the Company vets
the caregivers and day-care providers listed on its website. A
judge has not yet been assigned.

If you purchased Care.com shares during the Class Period and wish
to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 3, 2019. As a member of the class, you may seek to file a
motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an
absent class member. If you wish to become involved in the
litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you are
encouraged to contact attorney Dan DeMaria at (617) 398-5660, by
email at dan@blockesq.com, or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/care.

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients.

CONTACT:

     Dan DeMaria, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     Tel: (617) 398-5660
     260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
     Boston, MA 02110
     Email: dan@blockesq.com [GN]


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Wallace Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Zakema T. Wallace individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02425
(E.D. N.Y., April 25, 2019).

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

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CCC INFO: Denial of Bids to Compel Appraisal in Milligan Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORENA M. MILLIGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CCC INFORMATION
SERVICES INC., Defendant-Appellant, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Docket Nos. 18-1405-cv, 18-1407-cv
(La. App.), Judge Gerald E. Lynch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York's order denying GEICO's and CCC's motions to
compel Milligan to comply with a provision of her policy requiring
her to submit disputes over the amount of loss to a panel of
appraisers.

Milligan leased a 2015 Lexus automobile in March 2015.  The lease
agreement with Lexus Financial Services, the company from which she
leased the Lexus, stated the purchase price of the car as $51,400.
Milligan obtained an insurance policy with GEICO to cover bodily
injury and property damage to the Lexus.  Approximately two months
after leasing the vehicle, Milligan was involved in a rollover
accident that resulted in the Lexus being damaged beyond repair.
Shortly thereafter, Milligan submitted a claim to GEICO.  GEICO
obtained a Market Valuation Report from CCC, which valued
Milligan's vehicle at $45,924.  GEICO paid Milligan's lienholder,
Toyota Lease Trust, $45,924 on the claim.

On Jan. 15, 2016, Milligan filed the putative class action
complaint asserting claims against GEICO and CCC for breach of
contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of New York
insurance law ("Regulation 64"), and New York General Business Law
Section 349 (which bans unfair and deceptive trade practices),
seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.  The
complaint invokes federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

The thrust of Milligan's complaint is that GEICO violated
Regulation 64, a New York State insurance regulation that requires
an insurer, in the case of a total loss of a current model year
vehicle, to reimburse the owner for the reasonable purchase price
less any applicable deductible and depreciation allowances.

Milligan alleges that her vehicle was a "current model year"
automobile as defined by Regulation 64.  She contends, however,
that rather than paying her the reasonable purchase price of a new
identical vehicle on the date of loss less any applicable
deductible and depreciation allowances, as required by Regulation
64, GEICO paid Milligan the amount contained in CCC's Market
Valuation Report, which calculated her loss using the average of
three similar dealer vehicles that were available or recently sold
in the marketplace at the time of the valuation.  Milligan's
complaint sets forth class allegations suggesting that the
practices alleged affected many GEICO insureds.

On March 8, 2016, GEICO's counsel communicated a demand for
appraisal to Milligan's counsel pursuant to Section III of the
Policy.  In the letter, GEICO demanded, inter alia, suspension of
the instant lawsuit and the identification by Milligan of an
appraiser to participate in the appraisal process.  Milligan's
counsel promptly responded, asserting that the demand was untimely,
citing correspondence with a GEICO claims representative dated July
21, 2015.  The July 2015 communications make clear that by July 3,
2015, Milligan had already filed a claim with GEICO and GEICO had
already paid $45,924 to Toyota Lease Trust.  Milligan's counsel
further disputed that the amount paid was the correct amount owed
under the Policy.

GEICO and CCC then moved to dismiss Milligan's complaint and to
compel appraisal.  The district court referred the motions to
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown for a Report and Recommendation
("R&R").  Judge Brown then issued an R&R that recommended granting
in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss and
denying the motion to compel appraisal.

The R&R concluded that Milligan's breach of contract claim against
GEICO was well pleaded.  The R&R also recommended dismissing
Milligan's claim under Regulation 64 because that statute does not
contain a private right of action, and her negligence claims
against both GEICO and CCC because she failed to plead that either
company owed her any duty in tort.  However, the R&R recommended
that Milligan's claim for deceptive business practices, pursuant to
New York General Business Law Section 349, proceed against both
GEICO and CCC.  Finally, the R&R recommended that the district
court denies GEICO's motion to compel appraisal.  The R&R also
suggested that appraisal was inappropriate in the case because the
appraisal sought would effectively constitute an opinion on the
extent and nature of the coverage provided under the Policy, and
under New York law an appraiser may not resolve legal questions
regarding interpretation of the Policy.

The district court adopted the R&R in its entirety.  GEICO and CCC
timely filed notices of appeal seeking the Court's review of the
district court's denial of their motions to compel appraisal.

Judge Lynch finds that Milligan's complaint does not explain what
she believes would satisfy Regulation 64's requirement that she be
paid the reasonable purchase price on the date of loss of a new
identical vehicle.  At oral argument, however, her counsel
clarified that in Milligan's view, the Regulation requires the
insurer to pay her the sticker price of a new identical vehicle.
GEICO, defending the methodology applied by CCC, contends that
Regulation 64 permits it to determine the reasonable purchase price
of a vehicle as of the date of loss by reference to evidence of the
prices actually paid for such vehicles in the relevant market at or
about the relevant time.  Whichever view is correct, the
disagreement presents a legal question regarding the meaning of
Regulation 64, which is for the district court to decide.

The Judge further concludes that the district court properly denied
CCC's motion to compel appraisal.  CCC was not a signatory to the
Policy and has no other contractual relationship with Milligan.  It
argues that under the doctrine of equitable estoppel it is entitled
to enforce the appraisal provision of the Policy against Milligan.
Under certain circumstances we have compelled signatories to an
arbitration agreement to arbitrate their claims against
non-signatories if the relationship among the parties, the
contracts they signed, and the issues that had arisen among them
discloses that the issues the nonsignatory is seeking to resolve in
arbitration are intertwined with the agreement that the estopped
party has signed.

However, any right CCC might have to request appraisal on a theory
of equitable estoppel is derivative of GEICO's contractual right to
do so.  As CCC admitted at oral argument, if GEICO has no right to
an appraisal CCC would have no right as well.  Because the Judge
affirms the district court's denial of GEICO's motion to compel
appraisal, he similarly affirms the denial of CCC's motion to do
the same.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Lynch affirmed the order of the
district court denying the Defendants' motions to compel
appraisal.

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

KEITH ALTMAN, Excolo Law Group, Southfield, MI, (Ari Kresch, Excolo
Law Group, Southfield, MI, Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law --
Dennis A. Lienhardt, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, on
the brief) for Plaintiff-Appellee.

KATHLEEN LALLY -- kathleen.lally@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Chicago, IL, ( Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL, Benjamin W. Snyder --
benjamin.w.snyder@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC,
on the brief) for Defendant-Appellant CCC Information Services
Inc.

MERRIL BISCONE -- merril.biscone@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler LLP,
Uniondale, NY (Cheryl F. Korman, Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, NY,
on the brief) for Defendant-Appellant GEICO General Insurance
Company.


CENTRAL MAINE POWER: Customers' Class Suit on Hold Until October
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Valigra, writing for WGME, reports that a complaint by
customers seeking a class-action lawsuit against Central Maine
Power for alleged high billing is on hold until the end of
October.

"The justice wants to see what happens at the [Maine Public
Utilities Commission] before ruling on the motion," said Sumner
Lipman, Esq., one of the lawyers attempting to gain class-action
status for the lawsuit.

Lipman made his comments in an update written on March 19, 2019, to
Jud Hopkins, the liaison between the lawyers and a Facebook group
of more than 7,700 members called CMP Ratepayers Unite.

Hopkins shared Lipman's note updating the case on the closed CMP
Ratepayers Unite Facebook page.  That group states as its mission
that it is a forum to unite all CMP customers who have seen a
dramatic increase in their energy bill that cannot or will not be
explained by CMP.

The complaint was first filed in July 2018 in Cumberland County
Superior Court, but since has been moved to the Business and
Consumer Court in Portland. It initially focused on alleged
overbilling and CMP's lack of response to customer complaints, but
in August was amended with a complaint alleging fraud in the way
CMP tried to blame customers for the high bills.

The complaint alleges that more than 97,000 CMP customers have been
overcharged 50 percent or more on their utility bills, and another
200,000 customers have been overcharged up to 50 percent.

In his update on March 19, Mr. Lipman wrote that the defendants in
the case, CMP and its parent, Avangrid, filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the basis that the PUC has exclusive and primary
jurisdiction. The court has not ruled on that motion, he said.

However, he said the court stayed the current proceedings until the
end of October, halting further legal action on the case in court.

"The justice wants to see what happens at the PUC before ruling on
the motion," he said.

The PUC had initiated an investigation into the high bills in 2018.
Many customer bills spiked following the October 2017 wind storm,
which coincided with CMP's changeover of its customer billing and
customer support systems.

The commission launched a full investigation into the high bills in
January 2019 after it received a report on the storm response from
an independent auditor.

The PUC has split what was once one case on the bills and customer
service issues into two cases, one focusing on the high rates and
CMP's smart meter billing system and the other on customer
service.

"We'd like to see something done for the people," Hopkins said in a
phone interview on March 21 while driving to a two-day technical
conference at the PUC on the independent auditor's report.  "So
far, we have received nothing from CMP and they have shown no
accountability for the high rates."

"We are hopeful the PUC will represent the public and not a foreign
corporation and be accountable for the obvious overbilling and poor
customer service," she said.

The conference allows intervenors like Hopkins who are involved in
the case to get questions answered by the auditor, Liberty
Consulting Group of Pennsylvania.  Hopkins was accompanied to the
PUC meeting by fellow CMP Ratepayers Unite members and intervenors
Lauren Loomis and Valery Harris.

The Liberty report found that weather, for the large part, was the
culprit for high bills, although it did find some irregularities
affecting certain customers. The report also blamed CMP management
for poor customer service in explaining the problems to
ratepayers.

However, ratepayers continue to complain about high bills on the
CMP Ratepayers Unite Facebook page and in public comments on the
PUC website.

Lipman said that in response to the court granting a stay, the
lawyers for the class-action lawsuit filed separate motions to
reconsider that ruling and to modify the order.

"If our motion is granted or the order is modified, we will seek to
add additional plaintiffs as well as add additional defendants,"
Lipman wrote.

He said he also expects some changes in the legal team representing
the plaintiffs. He said attorney John Pottle, Esq. --
jpottle@eatonpeabody.com -- of Eaton Peabody based in Bangor has
just been hired to represent the interests of class-action lawsuit
before the commission. [GN]


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Mendieta to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
EDWINS R. MENDIETA, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3
1:19-cv-21585-FAM (M.D. Fla., April 25, 2019) is an action to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of
the United States. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint relates that Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
every week period, but he was not paid for overtime hours.
Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendant was able to check the
hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.
However, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour
that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from December 01, 2003 to April
03, 2019.

THE CHILDREN'S PLACE is a specialty retailer of children's clothing
and accessories. Defendant has a fleet of stores across Miami-Dade
County, the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CHOICE HOTELS: Bid to Dismiss Amended DiFlavis FLSA Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GINA DIFLAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CHOICE HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-3914
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Choice Hotel's Motion
to Dismiss the amended complaint, including on the alternative, to
strike the class allegations.

During her brief tenure as a housekeeper at a Clarion Hotel,
DiFlavis alleges that she suffered violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("MWA").
She now seeks relief, on a class action and collective action
basis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.

Ms. DiFlavis was employed as a full-time hourly housekeeper at the
Clarion Hotel in Essington, PA for approximately three months from
early -- June 2018 until late-August 2018.  She alleges that she
was only paid for 36 hours of work per week even though she worked,
on average, 50 to 55 hours per week.  Ms. DiFlavis also contends
that she was not paid an overtime rate of $13.50 per hour when she
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

According to Ms. DiFlavis, the Defendants are aware of the
violations because they maintain the Rules and Regulations that
result in violations.  She argues that the Rules and Regulations
calculate housekeeper's pay based on work hours and room totals
that supervisors enter into the payroll system, not based on actual
recorded time and room service records.

Ms. DiFlavis asserts that Choice Hotels and Rama are joint
employers.  Although Rama owned and operated the Essington hotel
where she worked, she alleges that Choice Hotels exercised
significant operational control over all Clarion Hotels, including
establishing, mandating, and implementing the compensation, hours
of work, overtime, scheduling and timekeeping Rules and Regulations
at issue in this matter and providing training and guidance on
these Rules and Regulations to Clarion Hotel owners, general
managers, and staff.

Choice Hotels moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, to strike the collective and class
action allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f).  Choice Hotels primarily
argues that Ms. DiFlavis has not sufficiently alleged that Choice
Hotels is a joint employer.  Alternatively, it argues that the
class and collective action claims should be stricken or limited to
the Clarion Hotel in Essington because that is the only hotel where
Choice Hotels and Rama are alleged to be joint employers.

Based on the allegations in the amended complaint, Judge Pratter
finds that Ms. DiFlavis has alleged enough to persuade the Court
that it is plausible that Choice Hotels was her joint employer.
The Rules and Regulations are such that it appears Choice Hotels
had significant oversight over franchisees, which could have led to
the alleged overtime violations in the case.  The FLSA's broad
definition of employer works in Ms. DiFlavis' favor at this early
juncture of the case and helps her complaint to survive the motion
to dismiss challenge.  Choice Hotels can raise these arguments
again at summary judgment when the record is more fully developed
and the extent of the relationship between the parties is clearer.

Choice Hotels also argues that Ms. DiFlavis is required to allege
which employer was her "primary employer" and her failure to do so
requires dismissal.  The Judge finds that Choice Hotels has been
adequately notified as to the basis for Ms. DiFlavis' claims.
Although it may not ultimately bear out that Choice Hotels was Ms.
DiFlavis' joint employer, she has pled enough to survive a motion
to dismiss.

As to Choice Hotels' move to strike the collective and class action
allegations or, in the alternative, limit Ms. DiFlavis' claims to
similarly-situated workers at the Clarion Hotel in Essington
because that is the only location at which she alleges Choice
Hotels and Rama are joint employers, the Judge finds that the case
is not among the rare few where the complaint itself demonstrates
that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met.
Based on the facts pled, it is plausible that a class and
collective action may be warranted in the case.  And discovery will
allow the Court to make a fully informed ruling on the propriety of
FLSA conditional certification and Rule 23 class certification once
the parties file such motions.

For the reasons set out in his Memorandum, Judge Pratter denied
Choice Hotel's Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint, including
on the alternative, to strike the class allegations.  An
appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/H87sOh from Leagle.com.

GINA DIFLAVIS, FOR HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, represented by DAVID J. COHEN --
dcohen@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS,
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP & RYAN F. STEPHAN, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP.

CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH
J. CENTENO -- joseph.centeno@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney PC & JARED PICKELL -- jared.pickell@bipc.com -- Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

RAMA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD J.
DEFORTUNA -- rdefortuna@paisnerlitvin.com -- PAISNER LITVIN LLP.


CIGNA CORP: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses 2nd Cir. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J. McConnell, Esq. -- smcconnell@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith, in an article for Mondaq, reports that when the blog
receives a case that is a bit off-center, involving odd facts or a
different area of law, we grab it as our weekly writing assignment.
If it's a criminal matter, our claim is premised on our stint as a
prosecutor. The case is a securities class action, permitting us to
relive our days fending off shareholders' actions in the 1980s.
Most of those actions were filed by a very, very famous, nay,
infamous, plaintiff lawyer in SoCal who ended up in the hoosegow.
Every time a company's stock price dropped, it seemed like this guy
had a buddy who owned a couple of shares. His firm would tap a
couple of computer keys and produce a class action complaint in
minutes. The whole thing reeked of sleaze.

Good times.

At least, those good times are back, baby. Here is one of the
better opening paragraphs in a judicial opinion we have read in a
while:

"This case presents us with a creative attempt to recast corporate
mismanagement as securities fraud. The attempt relies on a simple
equation: first, point to banal and vague corporate statements
affirming the importance of regulatory compliance; next, point to
significant regulatory violations; and voila, you have alleged a
prima facie case of securities fraud! The problem with this
equation, however, is that such generic statements do not invite
reasonable reliance. They are not, therefore, materially
misleading, and so cannot form the basis of a fraud case."

Singh v. Cigna Corp., 2019 WL 102597 (2d Cir. March 5, 2019). The
Second Circuit can still occasionally sing when it comes to
securities fraud cases. What gave rise to Judge Cabranes's
lyricism?

A large health services organization bought a Medicare insurer.
With the aging of the health services organization's customers, it
looked like a smart play. And, at least for a while, it was. Of
course any entity doing Medicare business is subject to extensive
federal regulations. The acquiring health services organization not
only recognized that fact, it embraced it. Indeed, it not only
embraced that fact, it bragged about its regulatory compliance. In
the "Regulation" section of the company's 2013 Form 10-K, the
company said it "established policies and procedures to comply with
applicable requirements." Similarly, in a section titled "Medicare
Regulations," the company asserted that it "expect[s] to continue
to allocate significant resources" to various compliance efforts.
In December 2014, the company published a pamphlet titled "Code of
Ethics and Principles of Conduct." The pamphlet includes statements
from senior executives affirming the importance of compliance and
integrity. The 2014 Form 10-K continued the theme, with a statement
that the company "expect[s] to continue to allocate significant
resources" to "continue to allocate significant resources" to
compliance.

Sadly, as we all know, regulatory compliance can be hard. During
the period these statements were released, the company's Medicare
operations experienced a series of compliance failures. The
government conducted an extensive audit of the company's Medicare
operations and, in early 2016, it informed the company that the
company had "substantially failed to comply" with regulatory
requirements regarding coverage determinations, appeals, benefits
administration, compliance program effectiveness and similar
matters. The next day, the company filed a Form 8-K disclosing its
receipt of the government audit conclusions and the accompanying
sanctions.

The -- wait for it (but not too long) -- over the next four days,
the company's stock price fell substantially.

Then -- wait for it (but not too long) -- barely a week later, this
shareholder class action was filed, alleging violations of federal
securities laws. The plaintiff claimed that the statements about
regulatory compliance were materially misleading, constituting
fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

The district court dismissed the complaint for want of materially
false statements and scienter. The Second Circuit did not reach the
scienter (meaning deceptive intent) requirement, because it was
obvious that the statements about regulatory compliance were not
materially false. Focus on that word "material." In the securities
world, something is "material" if a reasonable stockholder would
rely on it in making a decision whether or not to buy or sell
stock. Here, the issue is whether a reasonable stockholder would
rely on the statements in question "as representations of
satisfactory legal compliance" by the company. The answer was a
resounding No. A reasonable stockholder would not "consider these
statements important in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of
stock."

So what? (We envision you asking that question. You are, after all,
a bitter and contentious lot.) If you are reading this blog, odds
are that you do not do a whole lot of securities litigation. But
the notion of materiality is relevant to drug and device
litigation. Or, at least, it should be. We might call it causation,
but it's really the same thing. It comes down to whether the
alleged misstatement truly made any difference. Too many courts
presiding over our cases are overly eager to throw the question to
the jury as being fact-bound. But if a court in a securities action
can indulge in a little bit of common sense, why can't courts in
product liability actions? We have seen drug and device plaintiffs
allude to statements of regulatory compliance as the bases for
fraud claims. But if there's a single consumer out there who
decided to ingest a drug or have a device implanted because a
company bragged about its regulatory compliance, we will eat our
law school Securities casebook.

At this moment we are feeling deeply nostalgic about our days as a
securities litigator. That cannot be good. [GN]


CINETOPIA LLC: Viers Files ADA Suit in W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cinetopia, LLC. The
case is styled as David Viers, Vicki March individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Oregon Communication
Access Project an Oregon Corporation, The Washington Communication
Access Project a Washington Corporation, Association of Late
Deafened Adults (ALDA) an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiffs v.
Cinetopia, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-05346 (W.D. Wash., April 25, 2019).

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

Cinetopia LLC owns and operates movie theaters. It also offers live
pre-show music and in-theater restaurant services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Conrad Reynoldson, Esq.
     WASHINGTON CIVIL AND DISABILITY ADVOCATE
     4115 ROOSEVELT WAY NE STE B
     SEATTLE, WA 98105
     Phone: (206) 876-8515
     Fax: (206) 876-8515
     Email: conrad@wacda.com


COLONIAL PARKING: Court Grants Bid to Amend Abraha ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Berthe Benyam Abraha, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Colonial
Parking, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-680 (CKK)
(D. D.C.), Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Amend to Their Complaint.

The Plaintiffs have moved for leave to amend their Complaint.
Defendants Colonial and FCE Benefits Administrators, Inc. oppose,
citing delay, prejudice, and futility.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against their former
employer, Colonial, and its benefits plan administrator, FCE, for
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.  In separate counts against Colonial
and FCE, the Plaintiffs' two-count Complaint alleges that the
Defendants breached various fiduciary, co-fiduciary, and other
obligations under ERISA.  When both the Defendants moved to dismiss
these allegations in the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court found that the Plaintiffs had stated
a claim in nearly all respects.

After a hotly contested period of discovery, the Court denied
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
finding that inadequacies in the parties' briefing inhibited the
Court's assessment of the merits.  Those deficiencies warranted an
opportunity for the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint and seek
the Court's leave to file it, if the Defendants would not consent.


The parties proceeded to brief the Plaintiffs' motion to amend,
punctuated only by an unsuccessful period of mediation.  The
Plaintiffs' reply brief attached expert reports that the Defendants
had marked as confidential or containing confidential information
pursuant to the parties'Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and
Protective Order.  That public filing drew the Defendants'
immediate objections, which resulted in the Court's decision to
seal the attachments containing Colonial's expert reports and to
defer a decision as to the portion of Colonial's request seeking
sanctions for the Plaintiffs' breach of the Protective Order.

Briefing having concluded, the Plaintiffs' motion to amend is now
ripe for decision.  The Court will address Colonial's ripe motion
for sanctions in a separate ruling.


Judge Kollar-Kotelly finds that the Plaintiffs propose an Amended
Complaint that substantially expands their allegations against
Colonial and FCE.  Their premise for tripling the length of the
Complaint is that the voluminous discovery in the matter -- which
concluded prior to their motion -- has given the Plaintiffs greater
insight into the Defendants' alleged violations of ERISA.  Th
e Plaintiffs explain that they substantially expanded allegations
regarding two original claims in what are now Count One Relating to
Excessive Fees and Count Three Relating to the Dependent Coverage.
They also describe four new claims that are not identified in the
Original Complaint, but purportedly arise from the same breaches of
fiduciary duty that were asserted in it.  Those new claims consist
of a payroll tax claim, an interest earnings claim, an ACEC Plan
surplus claim, and a Forge Plan surplus claim.  The first three of
those "claims" appear to be nestled within Count Two Relating to
the ACEC Plan and the DUB Benefit, as evidenced, for example, by
the three separate requests for relief falling under Count Two.
Count Four Relating to the Forge Plan Surplus clearly covers the
last of the Plaintiffs' admittedly new claims.

At the threshold, the Judge disposes of the Defendants' efforts to
defend against the Plaintiffs' motion based on an incorrect
standard.  She holds she need not consider the appropriate standard
for a motion filed after a scheduled deadline.  Rule 15(a) is the
correct standard for a motion to amend a complaint that does comply
with the Court's schedule.

Setting aside Rule 16(b), the Defendants' main argument for undue
delay is that the Plaintiffs knew about their new claims for a long
time -- but did not seek leave to amend any sooner.  Yet, the Judge
holds that the delay does not weigh heavily against the Plaintiffs
when they attribute their amendments to the fruits of discovery,
which concluded only shortly before they filed their motion with
the Court's permission.  Although the Plaintiffs could have moved
sooner without the Court's permission, she cannot say, in the
current posture, that their decision not to do so was in error.

The Defendants also attribute prejudice to any new claims that
would become operative only after discovery has concluded.  While
Defendants have given some examples of further discovery that they
would pursue if the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint were operative,
Defendants have not given the level of detail necessary to win the
Court's consent just yet.  That deficiency could be remedied
through a discovery plan setting forth the parameters, in detail,
for Defendants' further discovery.

Lastly, Defendants urge various grounds for finding that the
Amended Complaint would be futile. The Court need deal only with
their arguments that the Amended Complaint would not withstand a
motion to dismiss. See In re Interbank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig.,
629 F.3d at 218. Notably, the Court already denied, in large part,
Defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint. It is not
immediately apparent that the expanded allegations about excessive
fees and dependent coverage render the broader claims more
susceptible to dismissal. Nor does the minimal briefing about the
merits of Plaintiffs' proposed new claims clearly demonstrate their
futility.

Moreover, the amended pleading attempts to address the further
criteria expressly identified by the Court when it denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs
incorporate allegations that featured in their class certification
briefing but not in the Complaint; allegations pertinent to a
"fraudulent concealment" rebuttal to the Defendants' statute of
limitations defense; allegations specific to each named Plaintiff;
and a proposed class definition derived in part from the class
certification briefing.  The Judge finds that none of the
Defendants' other arguments affect the Court's exercise of its
discretion.

For the foregoing reasons, and in an exercise of her discretion,
Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend to
Their Complaint.  The case will proceed under the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint, which will be separately docketed as of the
date.  The Defendants will respond to the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint by no later than April 19, 2019.

By no later than April 26, 2019, the parties will submit a notice
consisting of a Joint Discovery Plan.  That Plan will identify,
with specificity, the further discovery that Colonial and FCE
propose based on the Amended Complaint, including a timeline for
such discovery. Plaintiffs will identify any such discovery that
the Defendants already received as to the now-operative claims.
Because a premise of the Amended Complaint is that the Plaintiffs
already have discovery to support their allegations, the Plaintiffs
will not be permitted further discovery.

A separate Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/m426DE from Leagle.com.

BERTHE BENYAM ABRAHA, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, ESAYAS AKALU, as individuals and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, SAMUEL HABTEWOLED, as individuals
and on behalf of all others similarly situated & GEDLU MELKE, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Susan Ruth Baron & Edward A. Scallet --
ted@eascolaw.com -- EASCOLAW, PLLC.

COLONIAL PARKING, INC., Defendant, represented by Attison L.
Barnes, III -- abarnes@wileyrein.com -- WILEY REIN LLP.

FCE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Schrier -- mjschrier@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Marc
A. Koonin -- MAKoonin@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, pro hac
vice & Robert D. Eassa -- rDEassa@duanemorris.com -- SEDGWICK LLP,
pro hac vice.


COLUMBUS VILLAGE: Almazo Vidal, et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Catalino Faustino Almazo Vidal, Edy Santiago Hernandez Mencia,
Elcias Lorenzo Mejia Sapon, Hector Sutuj, Martin Itzep Alvarez,
Miguel Alex Quiej Lopez, Ricardo Morales, Ruben Catu Ajmac,
Santiago Antonio Lopez, Hermenegildo Miqueas Tayun Ixcoy, Jacinto
Francisco Sapon Ajche, Juan Noe Vasquez Baten, Sotero Neri Flores,
and Gregorio Lopez Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBUS VILLAGE LLC (D/B/A
BAREBURGER), BARE CITY TWO, LLC (D/B/A BAREBURGER), BB ONE, LLC
(D/B/A BAREBURGER), EAST SIDE BURGERS LLC (D/B/A BAREBURGER), BB 57
LLC (D/B/A BAREBURGER), GEORGIOS TZANIDAKIS, MICHAEL PITSINOS,
EDGAR RAMOS, MANNY DOE, and MARIA DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03675 (S.D. N.Y., April 25, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law
("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants who were employed as
delivery workers.

Defendants operate fast food restaurants located in multiple
neighborhoods in Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


COMPLIANCE ENVIROSYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of Lewis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on April 17, 2019, in
the lawsuit entitled NICHOLAS LEWIS, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. COMPLIANCE ENVIROSYSTEMS,
LLC, SUEZ WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., and SUEZ WATER LONG
ISLAND, INC., Case No. 602878/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty.,
February 28, 2019).

The RJI was filed by the Defendants seeking dismissal of the
complaint/petition.

The action is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiff Nicholas Lewis
and a putative class of individuals, who performed construction
related work for the Defendants to recover wages and benefits,
which the Named Plaintiff and members of the putative class were
contractually entitled to receive for work performed in public
sewers, including work performed in Nassau County (the "Public
Works Projects").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  jnewhouse@vandallp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          FERRARA FIORENZA PC
          5010 Campuswood Dr.
          East Syracuse, NY 13057
          Telephone: (315) 437-7600

               - and -

          RIVKIN RADLER LLP
          926 RXR Plaza
          West Tower
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0926
          Telephone: (516) 357-3000
          Facsimile: (516) 357-3333


CONNECTICUT: Court Grants Bid for Leave to File Amended FAPE Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, D.J., through his parent O.W., on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01197 (CSH) (D. Conn.),
Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut granted retroactively the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File the Proposed Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff D.J., through his parent O.W., brings the putative class
action against the Connecticut State Board of Education, alleging
violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
("IDEA").  Plaintiff D.J. is an individual with a disability who
turned 21 years old on May 29, 2016.  D.J. had been receiving a
free appropriate public education ("FAPE") through the Hartford
School District until June 30, 2016, the end date of the school
year in which he turned 21.  D.J. and co-Plaintiff O.W., his parent
and guardian, brought the purported class action to establish the
rights of Plaintiff D.J. and the class he seeks to represent to a
FAPE under the IDEA until the age of 22.

Under Connecticut law, a student who has not yet received a regular
high school diploma remains eligible for special education through
the end of the school year in which that student turns 21 years of
age.  The IDEA and its implementing regulations state that the
obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to
children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive,
does not apply to children with disabilities who have graduated
from high school with a regular high school diploma.  Such a
diploma must be fully aligned with State standards.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 15, 2016, alleging that he
had not received a high school diploma, and that the FAPE he had
been receiving pursuant to the IDEA had terminated at the end of
the school year in which he turned 21.  The Plaintiff seeks to
certify a class of all individuals who would have otherwise
qualified to continue receiving a FAPE but for turning 21, because
they have not or had not yet earned a regular high school diploma.
The Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the Connecticut laws
which terminate the entitlement of Connecticut students receiving a
FAPE under the IDEA at the end of the school year in which the
student turns 21 are inconsistent with the IDEA "because they apply
only to special education students and not to non-special education
students.

Discovery concluded in August 2017, and in September 2017 the
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification and a motion
for summary judgment.  The motion for summary judgment was
accompanied by an affidavit from O.W., D.J.'s parent, stating that
D.J. earned a diploma from Hartford Public High School in or about
2013.  However, he continued to receive educational and related
services from Hartford Public High School until on June 30, 2016.
This statement appeared to contradict the Plaintiff's allegation in
the Complaint that D.J. had not received a high school diploma.  On
the basis of O.W.'s sworn statement, the Board challenged the
Plaintiff's class certification and summary judgment motions,
arguing that D.J.'s claims are moot because he obtained a high
school diploma and that, for the same reason, he was not an
adequate class representative.  

In response, the Plaintiff submitted a second affidavit from O.W.
stating that officials at Hartford High School offered D.J. a high
school diploma from Hartford Public High School in 2013.  When D.J
was offered this diploma, as his guardian, O.W. refused to accept
it.  D.J. was taking programs through Hartford High School.  O.W.
was told that if D.J. accepted the diploma he would not be able to
continue with those programs.  O.W. understood that the diploma was
kept in the school office.  Even though Hartford High School said
that he could graduate, O.W. knew that he had not learned any
skills that would allow him to live independently or to support
himself.  Starting in 2015, D.J. no longer attended classes at
Hartford High School.

In light of the facts that had surfaced regarding the Plaintiff's
possible receipt of a diploma, the Court issued a Memorandum and
Order on March 23, 2018 that raised the issue of standing sua
sponte.  It concluded that the present record was insufficient to
determine the Plaintiff's standing to bring suit, and authorized
further discovery on the issue for further consideration at an
evidentiary hearing.  Consistent with this ruling, the Plaintiff
deposed Hartford Board of Education employee Dr. June M. Sellers.

Shortly before the scheduled evidentiary hearing, the Plaintiff's
counsel informed the Court and the counsel for the Board that, in
an effort to resolve the standing issue raised by this Court sua
sponte they intended to seek to substitute the current Plaintiff
with a different individual and would also seek to file an amended
complaint.  The Board would not consent to permit amendment.
However, the Board indicated "general agreement" that if the
amendment were allowed, the current briefing would still apply.  On
June 15, 2018, the parties informed the Court that the parties had
not reached agreement and that the Plaintiff would prepare a motion
for leave to file the Amended Complaint.

That motion to amend has now been filed by the Plaintiff.  Through
the motion, the Plaintiff requests leave to file an Amended
Complaint that would substitute another individual, designated as
A.R., as the Plaintiff in place of D.J. Such amendment, the
Plaintiff contends, will avoid unnecessary litigation regarding the
standing issue.

In that regard, Judge Haight holds that the Plaintiff is mistaken.
While Rule 15(a), governing amendments to pleadings, is liberally
applied, it does not extend to cases where Plaintiff attempts to
use an amendment to cure a standing defect.  In consequence, he
must first address the threshold issue of whether the Plaintiff can
establish standing.

He finds that O.W.'s affidavit and Dr. Sellers' deposition
testimony indicate that D.J.'s access to a FAPE was terminated
because he turned 21 -- not due to his purported high school
diploma.  This denial of services that the Plaintiff otherwise
would have received demonstrates injury for purposes of Article III
standing, and is entirely traceable to the Board's enforcement of
the regulation at issue.  Additionally, the Plaintiff's injury
could be redressed by judicial action, such as granting the
Plaintiff's request for compensatory education.

Having concluded that D.J. has standing, the Judge must now
determine whether the Plaintiff should be permitted to amend the
Complaint to substitute A.R. as a Plaintiff.  He finds that the
Defendant has provided no authority suggesting that the potential
for increased liability can constitute undue prejudice, and he sees
no reason that it should -- the Court "freely grants" discretionary
motions to amend, notwithstanding the fact that they rarely seek to
narrow the scope of liability.

There is good cause to permit amendment.  The Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and the cross-motions for summary judgment
are fully briefed and the parties agree as a general matter that
the completed briefing will continue to apply.  Re-litigating a
substantively identical matter would be wasteful of the parties'
and the Court's time and resources: this is the rare case in which
permitting amendment is the more expeditious course of action.

Finally, the Judge notes that the Plaintiff's claims for
prospective and declaratory relief became moot when he turned 22
during the pendency of the litigation.  Under these circumstances,
courts have routinely held that adding a new representative is
"appropriate, or even required," to protect the rights of the
proposed class.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Haight granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File the Proposed Amended Complaint
retroactively.  The previously filed Amended Complaint becomes the
operative complaint in the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Ruling is available
at https://is.gd/jWR3Yc from Leagle.com.

D. J., through his parent O.W., on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason H. Kim --
jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, pro hac vice, Catherine E. Cushman --
info@disrightsct.org -- Disability Rights Connecticut & Sonja Deyoe
-- sld@the-straight-shooter.com -- Law Offices of Sonja L. Deyoe.

Connecticut State Board of Education, Defendant, represented by
Darren P. Cunningham, Attorney General's Office & Ralph E. Urban,
Attorney General's Office.


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Approval of Notice Plan Sought
--------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in two class action lawsuits ask the Court for an
order:

   1. approving a notice plan and forms of notice; and

   2. allowing Class members 60 days from the effectuation of
      Plaintiffs' notice plan to exclude themselves from the
      Class.

The Plaintiffs' notice plan proposes sending individual notice to
members of the class who have been identified and utilizing
internet media, a press release, a website, and a toll-free number
to disseminate notice to members of the class who have not been
identified. Plaintiffs' notice administrator has opined that the
notice plan described below, which has been approved by numerous
other courts in Illinois and elsewhere around the country, will
reach over 70% of class members and is the best practicable under
the circumstances.

The two lawsuits are:

   "ANGEL BAKOV and JULIE HERRERA, individually and on behalf
   of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
   CONSOLIDATED WORLD TRAVEL, INC. d/b/a HOLIDAY CRUISE LINE,
   a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-02980
   (N.D. Ill.)";

        - and -

   "KINAYA HEWLETT, on Behalf of Herself and all Others
   Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED WORLD
   TRAVEL, INC. d/b/a HOLIDAY CRUISE LINE, the Defendant,
   Case No. 1:17-cv-00973 (N.D. Ill.).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          Jeremy Nash, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com
                  jnash@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER  P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7127
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN  P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789-9700
          E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  tmclawhorn@siprut.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

COTTON PATCH: Norred Files Action Over Subminimum Hourly Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Norred, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cotton Patch Cafe, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01010-G (N.D. Tex., April 26, 2019) is a complaint
against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The complaint alleges that the Defendant has a policy or practice
of paying their employee servers, including Plaintiff, subminimum
hourly wages under the tip credit provisions of the FLSA.

Specifically, Defendant unlawfully (1) failed to inform Plaintiff
and Class Members of the tip credit; (2) did not allow Plaintiff
and Class Members to retain all of their tips; (3) required
Plaintiff and Class Members to perform non-tipped work that was
unrelated to Plaintiff and Class Members' tipped occupation (i.e.,
"dual jobs"); and (4) required Plaintiff and Class Members to
perform non-tipped work that, although related to Plaintiff and
Class Members' tipped occupation, exceeded 20% of their time worked
during each workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ian Norred was employed by Defendant within the
three-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit.

Defendant operates a chain of restaurants commonly known as Cotton
Patch Cafe with locations in Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CUSTOM AUTO: Doss Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Joshua Doss, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Custom Auto Service, Inc., and Kevin
Strayhorn, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00296-KGB (E.D. Ark., April
25, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation for all hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendant schedules Plaintiff to
work more than 40 hours per week. During the time that Defendant
paid Plaintiff on a piece-rate basis, Defendant did not ever pay
Plaintiff one and one-half times Plaintiffs regular rate. In other
words, during the time that Defendant paid Plaintiff on a
piece-rate basis, Defendant paid Plaintiff no more than his regular
piece-rate, even when Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Doss is a current employee of Defendant.

Custom Auto Service, Inc., is an Arkansas for-profit corporation
which operates an auto repair business at 401 Custom Lane, Little
Rock, Arkansas 72206.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Butler Appeals E.D. La. Judgment to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Juanea L. Butler filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
her lawsuit entitled Juanea Butler v. Denka Performance Elastomer
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-CV-6685, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 16, 2019, the
Hon. Martin Feldman entered an order regarding Consent Motion to
Postpone Submission Date and to Extend Time to Oppose Class
Certification in the lawsuit.

Judge Feldman ruled that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is dismissed without prejudice, to be re-filed and
re-noticed for hearing, if necessary, after the ruling upon the
Plaintiff's pending Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.

The environmental tort litigation arises from the production of
neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility ("PWF") in St. John
the Baptist Parish.  Neoprene production allegedly exposes those
living in the vicinity of the PWF to concentrated levels of
chloroprene well above the upper limit of acceptable risk, and may
result in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national
average.

Plaintiff Butler has lived in LaPlace, Louisiana since 1998.  She
sued the DOH, the DEQ, Denka, and DuPont, seeking class
certification, damages, and injunctive relief in the form of
abatement of chloroprene releases from her industrial neighbor, the
PWF.

The appellate case is captioned as Juanea Butler v. Denka
Performance Elastomer LLC, et al., Case No. 19-30286, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JUANEA L. BUTLER, Individually and as
representative of all others similarly situated

          Danny Dustin Russell, Esq.
          RUSSELL LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          733 E. Airport Avenue
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 307-0088
          E-mail: danny@dannyrusselllaw.com

Defendant-Appellee DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC is represented
by:

          James Conner Percy, Esq.
          JONES WALKER, L.L.P.
          8555 United Plaza Boulevard
          4 United Plaza
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 248-2130
          E-mail: jpercy@joneswalker.com

Defendant-Appellee E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY is
represented by:

          Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq.
          KUCHLER POLK WEINER, L.L.C.
          1615 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 592-0691
          E-mail: dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com

Defendant-Appellee LOUISIANA STATE, Through the Department of
Environmental Quality, is represented by:

          Lawrence E. Marino, Esq.
          OATS & MARINO
          100 E. Vermilion Street
          Gordon Square
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Telephone: (337) 233-1100

Defendant-Appellee LOUISIANA STATE, Through the Department of
Health; Incorrectly named as Louisiana State Through the Department
of Health and Hospitals, is represented by:

          Timothy W. Hardy, Esq.
          ROEDEL, PARSONS, KOCH, BLACHE, BALHOFF & MCCOLLISTER,
          A.L.C.
          8440 Jefferson Highway
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 929-7033
          E-mail: thardy@roedelparsons.com


ELY'S TIRE: Violates FLSA, Fish Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------
KENNETH FISH, individually, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. ELY'S TIRE, INC. a Florida
corporation, and ELIAS DAMMOUS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-61068 (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2019) is an action arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to seek redress for
Defendants' violations of the FLSA.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate
Plaintiff at the required federal minimum wage rate. The Defendants
also failed to compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily prescribed
overtime rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess
of 40 per week. The wage violations committed by Defendants were
willful and/or intentional, as Defendants knew of the minimum wage
and overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly or
intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff in accordance with
such requirements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a non-exempt employee and
assisted with tire-related services such as changing new and used
tires for various vehicles in or about November 2017.

ETI operates and specializes in performing tire-related services to
automobiles and motorcycles, including computerized alignments,
brakes, suspension, and front-end work and was founded by
Defendant, DAMMOUS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQ.
     MELISSA SCOTT, ESQ.
     USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
     805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 871-0050
     Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Jill@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com


EVERGREEN ADULT: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Lee Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUN YONG LEE, JONG KOOK BYEON, CHUNG-KIL CHO, KWON JUN PARK, HYUNG
JONG KIM, SU WON CHAE, for themselves and all others similarly
situated v. EVERGREEN ADULT DAYCARE CENTER, INC., JAMES KOO, YOUNG
YOON, and JOHN DOES or JANE DOES 1–30, Case No. 1:19-cv-02247
(E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have denied
proper wage and overtime benefits to their employees, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Evergreen Adult Daycare Center, Inc., is organized under New York
law.  The Individual Defendants are officers, managers or employees
of Evergreen.  The exact identities of the Doe Defendants are
presently unknown to the Named Plaintiff.

The Defendants operate an adult daycare center located at 150-12
Roosevelt Avenue, in Flushing, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael S. Kimm, Esq.
          KIMM LAW FIRM
          333 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 106
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 569-2880
          E-mail: msk@kimmlaw.com


EVERYDAY BEAUTY: Lin et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lanqing Lin and other plaintiffs move the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Lanqing Lin, Yong Shan Su, Lixian
      Qian, En Lin Xiao, and Mei Hui Jiang as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing Troy Law, PLLC as class counsel;

   4. permitting Plaintiffs to circulate a class action
      notice by direct mail to the class members; and

   5. granting such other relief as the Court deems just and
      proper.

The case is captioned as LANQING LIN, YONG SHAN SU, LIXIAN QIAN, EN
LIN XIAO, and MEI HUI JIANG, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, and LINGMIN YANG, on her own behalf, the
Plaintiffs, v. EVERYDAY BEAUTY AMORE INC.; EVERYDAY BEAUTY ARITAUM
CORP.; EVERYDAY BEAUTY MISSHA CORP.; EVERYDAY AMORE LLC; EVERYDAY
BEAUTY SHOP, INC.; EVERYDAY GROUP LLC; EVERYDAY BEAUTY ARITAUM LAB
INC.; EVERYDAY BEAUTY CORP.; EVERYDAY BEAUTY LG INC.; EVERYDAY
BEAUTY NATURE COLLECTION CORP.; EVERYDAY BEAUTY SHISEIDO CORP.;
EVERYDAY BEAUTY SUPPLY INC.; JOHN DOE CORP. 1; JOHN DOE CORP. 2;
JOHN DOE CORP. 3; JOHN DOE CORP. 4; JOHN DOE CORP. 5; JOHN DOE
CORP. 6; JOHN DOE CORP. 7; JOHN DOE CORP. 8; JOHN DOE CORP. 9; JOHN
DOE CORP. 10; JOHN DOE CORP. 11; XIU QING SU, and XIN LIN, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00729 (E.D.N.Y.).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          John Troy, Esq.
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com



EXTREME NETWORK: June 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Labaton Sucharow LLP
regarding the Extreme Networks Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:
All Actions.


CLASS ACTION
Master File No. 3:15-cv-04883-BLF

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK AND EXCHANGE-TRADED CALL OPTIONS,
AND/OR SOLD PUT OPTIONS, OF EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., DURING THE
PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 THROUGH APRIL 9, 2015.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that Lead
Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, on behalf of itself
and the proposed Settlement Class, and Extreme Networks, Inc.
("Extreme" or "the Company"), Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola,
and John T. Kurtzweil (collectively, the "Individual Defendants,"
and with the Company, "Defendants"), have reached a settlement in
the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of
$7,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by
the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action.1

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, Robert F. Peckham Federal
Building & United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San
Jose, CA 95113 at 1:30 p.m. on June 20, 2019 to, among other
things, determine whether (1) the Settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Plan of
Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and any
interest thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice and
Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or
expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund") should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (3) to approve
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of
no more than 25% of the Settlement Fund (or up to $1,750,000) and
payment of expenses of no more than $230,000 from the Settlement
Fund, which may include the expenses of Lead Plaintiff pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The Court
may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing
another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing
in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
NET SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received the full Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim
and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its
website: Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o KCC
Class Action Services, P.O. Box 505026, Louisville, KY 40233-5026,
(866) 526-6266, www.ExtremeNetworksSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Inquiries may also be made to Lead Counsel: Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Carol C. Villegas, Esq., 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005, (888)
219-6877, www.labaton.com, settlementquestions@labaton.com.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or received no later than June 6, 2019.  If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no
later than May 23, 2019.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and
do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Court
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such
that they are postmarked or filed no later than May 23, 2019.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS,
OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: April 8, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 The complete terms of the Settlement are in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated November 30, 2018, which can be
viewed at www.ExtremeNetworksSecuritiesLitigation.com. [GN]


EXXON MOBIL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss LeBlanc and Beasley Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WARREN LESTER, ET AL. v. EXXON MOBIL CORP., ET AL.,
SECTION "L" (2), Civil Action No. 14-1824 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon
N. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied the two motions to dismiss without prejudice filed
by the Plaintiffs Herman LeBlanc and Donnie Beasley.

The Plaintiffs in the instant Lester action were allegedly exposed
to naturally occurring radioactive material associated with the
cleaning of used oilfield pipe at pipe yards in Harvey, Louisiana,
including the "Grefer Tract," nearby tracts of land, and tracts of
land in other locations in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and
Oklahoma.  These Plaintiffs are individuals residing in several
states who either worked at, or lived near, these facilities.  The
Lester Plaintiffs, a number of whom allege to have contracted
cancer from NORM, seek damages for personal injury, medical
monitoring, property damage, and punitive damages.

Lester has a lengthy procedural history.  In 2002, over 600
Plaintiffs filed a single petition seeking damages in Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
Since 2002, the state court proceedings have disposed of various
Plaintiffs' claims through "trial flights," settlements, or other
dismissals, such that just over 500 Plaintiffs now remain.  The
state court has systemically grouped up to 12 Plaintiffs'
like-claims together for trial flights.  According to the
Plaintiffs, none of the completed trial flights have had preclusive
effect on subsequent trial flights.

One of the Plaintiffs included in the Lester petition was Cornelius
Bottley, who died from esophageal cancer in 2012.  On July 16,
2014, three members of his surviving family filed a separate
Bottley action, also in Civil District Court in Orleans Parish.  On
July 31, 2014, with an upcoming trial flight, these Bottley
Plaintiffs moved the state court to transfer and consolidate their
case with the Lester state action.  

Based on this motion for consolidation, Bottley Defendant Exxon
Mobil Oil removed both Lester and Bottley to the Court under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The Plaintiffs moved to remand
the cases to state court.  The Court, however, denied remand on
Oct.23, 2014, and consolidated Lester and Bottley.  It explained
that the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in state court
constituted a "proposal for joint trial," particularly where over
500 Plaintiffs remained at the time the motion to consolidate was
filed . Thus, CAFA bestowed federal "mass action" jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs appealed the decision, and in June 2018, the Fifth
Circuit upheld the Court's denial of the motion to remand.
Subsequently, on Jan. 31, 2019, Shell moved for summary judgment;
however, after finding there were still significant issues of
material fact regarding Shell's contribution to the Plaintiffs'
injuries, the Court denied Shell's motion.

The instant motions relate to two Lester Plaintiffs -- Donnie
Beasley and Herman LeBlanc.  These Plaintiffs' claims have been
pending in the action since 2005.  On Dec. 19, 2016, Beasley was
diagnosed with a bone tumor on his spine, which was subsequently
determined to be multiple myeloma.  On July 30, 2018, LeBlanc was
diagnosed with bladder cancer.  Rather than amending their claims
in the instant matter to include additional Defendants, Beasley and
LeBlanc filed separate suits in Louisiana State Court.  Of the nine
defendants in the state court action, seven are also Defendants
before the Court in Lester.

Both Beasley and LeBlanc filed motions pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) seeking dismissal of their claims before
the Court without prejudice.  In their motions, the Plaintiffs
assert they filed their claims in state court to avoid naming
additional Defendants in the Lester mass action.  Next, they
contend the Defendants will not suffer any legal prejudice if the
claims currently before the Court are dismissed.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs argue the state forum offers them an opportunity to have
their cases tried more quickly in light of the recent developments
in their cancers, which they contend could become more severe
quickly, without warning.

The Defendants first argue the Plaintiffs' motions are an attempt
to avoid the Court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to remand
and the Fifth Circuit's ruling affirming that order.  Next, they
contend that granting the Plaintiffs' motion would deprive them of
their lis pendens defense in Plaintiffs' pending state court
actions.

Judge Fallon finds that the adverse ruling the Defendants point to
is the Court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  He
notes that forum shopping is an insufficient basis upon which to
establish legal prejudice.  Moreover, even assuming the Plaintiffs
are attempting to avoid the Court's denial of their motion to
remand, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of
the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice in Manchack,
despite the district court's having previously denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  Thus, the Judge will not deny the
Plaintiffs' motion on this basis.

With respect to the Defendants' losing the availability of their
lis pendens exception in state court, the defense is not absolute,
such as an exception based on the statute of limitations; rather,
the exception of lis pendens simply forces the case to proceed in
the court in which the case was first filed.  Again, the same law
would apply to the Plaintiffs' claims regardless of whether the
case proceeds in state or federal court.  Because granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss would not allow them to select a
different body of law unfavorable to the Defendants' position, the
Judge will not deny the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on this
basis.

Finally, the Defendants argue they will suffer legal prejudice from
the dismissal of these two Plaintiffs, as (1) the case has been
pending before the Court since August 2014, (2) the parties have
undergone extensive motions practice, and (3) allowing both the
CAFA mass action and the two prospective individual actions to
proceed simultaneously will force the Defendants to litigate
substantially similar claims in multiple venues.

The Judge finds that not only are the Plaintiffs seeking to dismiss
only two of their claims, both LeBlanc and Beasley have refiled
their claims in two separate state courts.  Thus, allowing
dismissal of LeBlanc's and Beasley's claims would require the
Defendants to defend suits based on substantially similar claims in
three different venues.  In addition, the case has been pending
before the Court since August 2014.  Since removal, the Court has
ruled on the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, which was affirmed by
the Fifth Circuit, and, although the Court found it was filed
prematurely, the Court has also considered the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.  While he does not find the Plaintiffs filed
their motion to dismiss to avoid these rulings, the Judge does find
the parties have invested substantial time and effort in litigating
this case and therefore will suffer legal prejudice should the
Court grant the Plaintiffs' motions to dismiss.  Moreover, the
Plaintiffs have not offered any curative actions the Court could
take to prevent Defendants from suffering legal prejudice.  As a
result, the Judge will deny the Plaintiffs' motions to dismiss
without prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons; Judge Fallon denied the motions to
dismiss without prejudice filed by Plaintiffs LeBlanc and Beasley.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Qc0HeC from Leagle.com.

Warren Lester, Alfreda Marshall, David Quinn, Demetria Sterling,
Dawn Humphries, Joseph LeBlanc, Sr., Jeffrey Guidry, Eugenio
Mallol, Antionette Clark, Wade Bethley, Charles Paine, III, Rebekah
Paine, Renee Deris, Kevin Pollard, Harold Singleton, Arthur
Russell, Jr., Darlene Roche, Leo Pollard, Ronald Williams, John
Williams, Sr., John Gros, III, Jack Roy, Clarence Ross, Earl
Williams, Jr, Merlin Williams, Sr, John Hendrix, Jr., Leonardus
Meerman, Alan Humphries, Bruce Ingram, An Nguyen, Vi Nguyen, Thoa
Vo, Judy Mark, Milton Thompson, Laura Arcement, Robert Arcement,
Don Hymel, Clarence Washington, Adam LeBoeuf, Laura LeBoeuf, John
Cade, Eric Harrison, Calvin Plaisance, Jr., Mary Favorite, James
Autin, Sr., David Hervey, Gregrey Liberta, Jeffrey Liberta, Lyle
Ragas, Cedric Watts, Norman Abreo, John Booth, Jr., Louis Brown,
Jr, Richard Fritz, Rosetta Williams, Timothy Crowley, Mediamolle
Leo, Othe Nash, Raymond Schaeffer, Pierre Orlandez, Sr., Janice
Toups, Aquanette Granger, Marylee Calvey, John Oleszkowicz, John
Lester, Hermina McCall, Ronald ODonley, Dallas Antoine, Wanda
Lester, Warren Lester, Jr., Montreal Matthews, Ronald Watts, Alvin
Campbell, Sr., Linda Wickem, Ventress Degree, Antonia Scott, Joseph
Scott, Cheryl Nicholas, Janice Lew, Kevin Nicholas, Francis Mends
Johnson, Rose Johnson, Charles Green, Sr., Joseph Ruffin, Ernest
Sauls, Dolin Calvey, Richard Shrieves, Raymond Hoffmann, Glenda
OChery, Robert Ashley, Warren Hock, Roland Fonseca, Kevin
Babineaux, J Lindsey, Wallace Lanasa, Jr., Nola Toups, Kent
Arcement, Michael Babineaux, George Martinez, Billy King, Ernest
Peters, Alexander Raymond, Roger Laviolette, Lloyd Baise, Laura
Borders, Kenny Coutee, Oscar Lomax, Calvin Nicholas, Melkile
Favorite, Ivy Nash, Louis Banks, Edward Williams, Lawrence Jackson,
Leonard Stevenson, James Usin, Alma Loston, Alfrida Loston, Clark
Murphy, Dennis Hock, Jr., Vanessa Mitchell, Lawrence Batiste,
Clarence George, Roselee Gaston, Rayfield Gaston, Jr., Oscar
Jasmine, Sterling Harris, Jeffery Lang, Randy Coleman, Joseph
Johnson, Tilman Guidry, Ernest Aguilard, Elvira Aguilard, John
Celistan, Jr., Raymond Patin, Barbara Wilson, Margaret Patin,
Hakeem Wakeelah, Roland Fleming, Rayfield Gaston, III, Charles
Napoleon, Jr., Tannard Darrensburg, Paris Dardar, Joseph Battle,
Ernest Mayho, Lionel Gaston, Noble Morton, Jr., Mae Rivet, George
Singleton, Barbara Hamilton, Richard Matthews, Jr., Page Girtley,
Willis Jackson, Darrel Clarks, Thomas Robinson, Morris Patin,
(Hameen), Minnie Patterson, Ethel Henry, Antoinette Magee, Louis
Orear, Jr., Lionel Helton, Jimmy Lanette, Lois Walker, Timothy
Richard, Denise Lew, Arthur Mitchell, Marva Ceasar, David Brown,
Sr., George Bowie, Bobby Bolden, Kerry Dixon, Earl Sevin, Morris
Bias, Jr., Denise Jones, Jackie Hebert, David Washington, Jerry
Chaisson, Wanda LeBlanc, Carlton LeBlanc, Theodore Stamps, III,
Wilfred Adams, Arthur Keys, Barry Humphries, William Walker, Sr.,
Elwood Dixon, Mae Spears, Henry Roussell, Victor McCaskill, Gaynell
Smith, Garfield Gaston, Carolyn Levier, Ahrionne Levier, Aldo
Hernandez, Shirley Watts-Robinson, Reginald Price, Magee Winston,
Warren Pierce, Maxine Stevenson, Artis Buckley, Deidre Allen,
Wilbert Allen, III, Lum Davis, Jr., L.J. Harper, Jr., Eula Scott,
Murphy Gautreaux, Arlen Whelan, Charles LeBoeuf, Cecilia Cummings,
Steven Brignac, Charles Carter, Sr., Wilton Gary, Sr., Darlene
Jenkins, Andrew Burnett, Andrew Nason, Jerry Daniels, Jarmaine
Seltzer, Willie Hills, Albert Lloyd, Julien Arcement, Jr., James
Dufrene, Jr., Raymond Guidry, Grace Guidry, Russell Todaro, Brandy
DiMaggio, Pam Todaro, Ella Todaro, Camille Todaro, Melanie Langeau,
Kathleen Lavalla, Todd Lavalla, Samuel Lavalla, George Thomas, Jr.,
Sylvester Johnson, William Brown, Dr., Horace Crappel, Gloria
Crappel, Brant Griffin, Kevin Sider, James Jackson, Bryan Bournes,
George Tracy, Jimmie McGee, Carla Simmons, Frank Morris, Raymond
Schaefer, James Perry, Willis Clofer, Kirbie Hawkins, Darrell
Wilson, Johnny Riley, Charles Cross, Hector Martinez, Mark Russell,
Avis Russell, Edward Russell, Raymond Hill, Roy Jacks, Edward
Dabney, Lercy Dabney, Jr., Percy Burns, Henry Stokes, David Hill,
James Lee, Laddies Jones, Jr., Merian Cross, Lonzo Taylor, Kenneth
Honora, Samella Addison, Janet Addison, Jimmy Merchant, Michelle
Nicholas, Stanley Harris, Sr, Wayne Hill, Steve Ricard, Robert
Stokes, Leo Coleman, Freddie Carter, Sr., Henry Thompson, Delores
Johnson, Orlandez Pierre, Fred Wilson, Jr, Marion Burks, Richard
Schwary, Kenneth Gaines, Joseph Paul, Jr., Earl Williams, III,
Jeffery Duckett, Reginald Hadley, Lorraine Davis, Carnel Allen,
Charles Hadley, Lawrence Dorsey, Sherman Gaston, Wynesta Gaston,
David Snedecor, Monroe Turner, David Lackey, Jr, Barbara Lackey,
Donald Johnson, Terral Johnson, Mason Saulsberry, Jr, Joseph
Baudion, Joseph Hadley, Louis Fulton, Jr, Christopher Ford, Larry
Bourg, Albert Lewis, Jr., Genevea Marshall, Joseph Thomas, III,
Paul Plaunche, Tyrone Boyd, Roy Rome, Jr, Roland Bougere, Robert
Williams, Rose Brown, Clifford Pierre, Winston Whitten, Charles
Davis, Jr, James Roussell, Louis Coleman, Jessie Clark, Milton
Carter, Jr, J D Frazier, Gerald Hunter, Porter Edwards, Tong Tran,
Eddie Fitzgerald, Allan Lepine, Ruth Lepine, Hayes Lepine, Kevin
Meredith, Joe Frazier, Donald Hill, Hilton Clark, Fred Adams, Isiah
Parker, Thomas Breaux, Jr, Maxine Harris, John Harris, III, Damion
Harris, Rosie Page, Ruby Paige, Randy Thortorn, Terry Joseph,
Trelldrieke Addison, Dirk Addison, Joann Stevenson, Lawrence Davis,
Teresa Davis, Leroyal Hester, Sr, Rod Robin, Carlo Blanda, Russell
Champ, Randolph Harris, Edna Semien, Salvador Lebella, Glenn
Cuccia, Eddie Fonseca, Herman Fonseca, Sr, Jeanette Houston, Thomas
Saylor, Betty Thomas, Edward Jackson, III, Kenneth Walker, Kenneth
Lew, Jr., Reynard Mitchell, Rodell Houston, Jr., Rodell Houston,
Sr., Selina Tipton, William Clarke, Alex Henry, Kim Walker, King
Robinson, Alvin Richardson, Jr., Wiley Dorsey, Jr., Larry Bourg,
Jr., Dan Crowley, Sr., Ruby Bowie, William Brown, Francis Turner,
Yvette Burks, Eugene Young, Robert Goudy, Clarence Harris, Jr.,
Freddie Harris, Renee Harris, Tina Kreig, Alvin Comeaux, Frank
Miller, Shareta Miller, Edward Lee, Lloyd Vercher, Flowers Wilson,
Russell Jack, Sr., Claude Dupre, Jr., Lee Pellegrin, Sr., Clyde
McGill, Joseph Baker, Hanson Theriot, Willie Boldens, Harold
Harris, Wayne Townsend, Robert Jacquot, Preston McGee, Jr.,
Theodore Gatlin, Earl Johnson, Richard Grear, Gillbert Hoffpauir,
Derryl Himel, Sr., Billy Lebouef, Jr., Russell Jasmine, Philip
Breaux, James Day, Earl Gautreaux, David Williams, Leon Hill, Alvin
Beaubouef, Sr., Irving Benoit, Aubrey Smalls, Rufus Jean-Batiste,
Walter Lemieux, Jr., Augusta Genorta, Leonard Grace, Henry Mang,
Hal Jenkins, Tamika Brown, Nerry Landry, Ion Verret, Gilda
Knighton, Roger Coursey, Rene Domangue, Mytaya Semien, John Dupont,
Terry Lovern, Andrew Wright, Sr., Ervin Porche, Sr., Roosevelt
Scott, John Barrios, Leeroy Babin, Jr., William Hebert, Hayward
Bourque, H. Jackson, Harold Quellette, Willis Touchet, Wardell
Brignac, James Lewis, Terry Young, Jimmie Gray, Sidney Howard,
Margaret Teague, Angela Lawrence, Shala Allen-Miller, Anita Miller,
Kim Smith, Edna Raymond, obo Frank Raymond, Jr., deceased, Earl
Boullion, Jr., Earnest Wilson, Sr., Eva Wilson, John Julien, Sr.,
Rodney Wilson, Freddie Credear, Carmen Teague, Keith Duhon, Larry
Duhon, Peter Duhon, Byron Mansion, Sr., Lionel Ayo, James Smith,
also known as, Mary Doris, Yacheka Brown, Marquette Smith, Mickey
Chaney, Clarence Gamble, William Cook, Joyce Cook, Isaac Smith,
Reginald Raymond, obo Frank Raymond, Jr., deceased, Preston Jack,
Sr., Gregory Wilson, Sr, Eugene Thompson, Jr., Sidney Manison, III,
Wilson Bowie, Jr., Charlotte Istre, Bert Istre, Laddie Batiste, Don
Harris, Herbert Teague, Julia Caldwell, Lionel Singleton, Raoul
Toups, Marlon Edwards, Donald Steel, Clinton Mikel, Louis Noel,
Barry Mayon, Michael Wilson, David Perry, James Braud, Robin
Rodrigue, Karen Rodrigue, Rodney Morehead, Patricia Judy, Curtis
Dixon, Houston Slate, Joseph Berry, Jeffrey Harmond, Andrew De
Lotte, Melvin Brown, Darryl Elliott, Simon Elliser, Earl Hamilton,
Detroit Roy, Evelyn Lirette, Stuart Lirette, Randy Luke, Joseph
Batiste, Deborah Desereaux, Judy Perrin, Harris Lanette, Darryl
Lirette, Isabella Tinson, Danny Blanchard, Glenn Coulon, Michelle
Chauvin, Travis Lirette, Daisy Sylve, Darren McDonald, Thomas
Willette, Jr., Cecil Breaux, Cory Paige, Valeria Paige, Vivian
Paige, Joseph Page, Carlos Paige, Melanie McMullen, Betty Reed,
Lloyd Folse, JoAnn Folse, Alvin Miller, Joseph Palmer, Sean
Raymond, Lester Drennan, Gaylen Spencer, Joycelyn Jasmine, Jack
Page, Ira Simoneaux, Jr., Richard Benoit, Giles Lanasa, Melanie
Scioneaux, Onise Lirette, Janel Edwards, Albert Williams, Victor
Bonilla, Wilbert Miller, Sidney Maise, Angela Pollard, Earleen
Miller, Macey R. Aucoin, Sterling J. Aucoin, III, Armand F.
Bellanger, Sr., Jessica Billiot, Walter T. Bonnie, Jr., Leroy J.
Bottley, Berkline Boudreaux, Sr., Bruce Campbell, Danielle R.
Champine, Byron Davis, Sherman Farr, Sr., Sherman R. Farr, Jr.,
John E. Fleming, Dennis A. Foret, Michael E. Grygo, Alan Williams,
Sr., Clarence Hall, Jr., Robert Johnson, Christopher J. Johnson,
Isaiah J. Kellup, Jr., Lawrence B. Knight, Herman LeBlanc, Jr.,
Stella C. Lirette, Deyond Lloyd, Mose Lloyd, Tony L. Louviere,
Robert McCall, Stephen C. Niehaus, Garland R. Oldham, Gary I.
Price, Michael J. Thomas, Rosalie Williams, Stephen Yancey, Kawana
Valet, for decedent, Leroy Valet, Kerry Valet, for decedent, Leroy
Valet, Kenneth Valet, for decedent, Leroy Valet, Karen Alexie
Rodrigue, Felix Alexie, Jr., Kevin Alexie, Michelle Alexie, Morris
Bowie, Harold Bowie, Cora M. Chess, Brenda Washington, Diane
Lawrence, Roy Chess, Mary Bradley Doris, Parnell M. Doris, Kevin A.
Doris, Gerard Doris, Charell Doris Ellis, Daryl R. Doris, Charlene
B. Boquet, Nedra B. Detiveaux, Doris Young, as tutrix of her minor
child, Terrell Young, Jennifer Hurst, Alice Junior, Randy Junior,
Lionel Junior, II, Landa Boyd, Kristin Johnson, Lezia M. Parsley,
Charles C Parsley, Natalie P. Brown, Angela R. Parsley, Diana
Verret, James Verret, II, Angele Verret Ridge, Sheri Dunlavy, Jerry
Lynn Dunlavy, Casey Dunlavy, Adrienne J. Ingram, Jovanna Thompson,
Darryle Johnson, Wanda Raymond, obo Frank Raymond, Jr., deceased,
Marie Stevenson, obo Frank Raymond, Jr., deceased, Aje Edwards, obo
Frank Raymond, Jr., deceased, Ja'don Charles, obo Frank Raymond,
Jr., deceased, Frank Raymond, III, obo Frank Raymond, Jr.,
deceased, Shirley Bottley, Jovane Benoit, Juajuan Benoit, Christi
Allen, on behalf of decedent, Ronald Allen, Natasha Allen Burns, on
behalf of decedent, Ronald Allen, Ronda Allen, on behalf of
decedent, Ronald Allen, Jessica Allen, on behalf of decedent,
Ronald Allen, Tiffiny Allen, on behalf of decedent, Ronald Allen,
Teon Allen, on behalf of decedent, Ronald Allen, James Mead, #591 &
Richard Mead, #591, Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy John Falcon,
Falcon Law Firm, Jarrett S. Falcon, Falcon Law Firm, Jeremiah A.
Sprague, Falcon Law Firm, Juan C. Obregon --
Juan.Obregon@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Kevin David
Micale, Smith Stag, LLC, Michael G. Stag, Stag Liuzza, LLC & Stuart
Housel Smith, Smith Stag, LLC.

Joseph Grefer, Camille Grefer, Rosemarie Grefer Haase & Henry
Grefer, Defendants, represented by Gladstone N. Jones, III --
gjones@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC,
Eberhard D. Garrison -- egarrison@jonesswanson.com -- Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Jacqueline Alexandra Stump &
Kevin Earl Huddell -- khuddell@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson,
Huddell & Garrison, LLC.

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Movant, represented by Glen Marion
Pilie -- glen.pilie@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP, David M.
Stein, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Donald Cole Massey,
Couhig Partners, LLC, E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Adams & Reese, LLP,
Martin Alan Stern, Adams & Reese, LLP, Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr.,
Adams & Reese, LLP, Ronald J. Sholes -- ronald.sholes@arlaw.com --
Adams & Reese, LLP & Valeria M. Sercovich -- valeria.guey@arlaw.com
-- Adams & Reese, LLP.


EXXON MOBIL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Goldstein Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Arnold Goldstein, John Covas and Gisela Janette La Bella
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Arnold
Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring the action in the wake of the Torrance Refinery's February
18, 2015 explosion which registered a 1.7 magnitude earthquake,
sending flames and ash into the sky and fueling fears among the
families, residents, and workers in proximity to the Refinery.

The appellate case is captioned as Arnold Goldstein, et al. v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-80048, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, an individual, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN COVAS, an
individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; and GISELA JANETTE LA BELLA are represented by:

          Matthew Kendall Edling, Esq.
          SHER EDLING, LLP
          100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (628) 231-2500
          E-mail: matt@sheredling.com

               - and -

          Daniel Joseph Bass, Esq.
          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore Olivier Subramaniam, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: dbass@maternlawgroup.com
                  mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey
corporation; PBF ENERGY INC., a Delaware corporation; TORRANCE
REFINING COMPANY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PBF
ENERGY WESTERN REGION LLC; PBF HOLDING COMPANY LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; PBF ENERGY COMPANY LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and STEVEN STEACH are represented by:

          Mark Randall Oppenheimer, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          E-mail: roppenheimer@omm.com

Defendant-Appellees EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey
corporation, is represented by:

          Dawn Sestito, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6352
          E-mail: dsestito@omm.com


EXXON: Victoria, BC Mayors Reconsidering Class Action Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shepherd, writing for The Washington Free Beaconn, reports
that the mayor of Victoria, British Columbia told a local radio
show she's no longer convinced that launching lawsuits against
energy producers like Exxon, Shell, and BP is the best use of the
city's resources towards the goal of fighting climate change,
suggesting localities may be reconsidering such efforts.

The Victoria City Council, representing a city just a three hour
ferry ride northwest from Seattle, originally passed a motion in
January in support of filing a class-action lawsuit against the
world's major oil producers to seek damages the city believes it
has suffered due to climate change.

"Since we passed the original motion, I have had some second
thoughts," Mayor Lisa Helps told CBC's Daybreak North. "I think
there might be more prudent and more timely approaches."

"Time is running out and fighting lawsuits is probably not the best
way to spend our time, when we've got a planet to save," she added
later.

Her comments suggest the appetite for such efforts, which kicked
off in 2017 when local governments on the coasts filed nuisance
suits against top energy producers, is waning.

"It was easy enough to say yes to the climate litigation proposal
when it first appeared on the agenda," said Stewart Muir, executive
director of the Resource Works Society, which believes the lawsuits
could create significant economic damage. "This has been the case
in a lot of communities where the seemingly innocuous proposal has
been passed without anyone giving it much thought. It looks like
this is what happened in Victoria."

"When both the local chamber of commerce and the hotels association
protested Council's decision to buy into the climate litigation
campaign, it appears the mayor might have started looking more
closely at the issue," he continued.

"As hoteliers and small business owners know, Victoria is utterly
dependent on hydrocarbon-based fuels. The summertime cruise ship
business brought 260 visits to the city's cruise terminal in 2018,
and those ships burn a lot of fuel oil. The local airport is a
growth story and is currently expanding its departure hall to
accommodate increasing flights."

Spencer Walrath, Research Director for Energy In Depth, a project
of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, echoed those
comments.

"It's great to see Mayor Helps reconsidering her position on
Victoria's potential climate lawsuit," Walrath said.

"It seems she's read the tea leaves and seen that these lawsuits
are going nowhere. Litigation will do nothing to reduce emissions
and is nothing more than an empty gesture that delays real action
on climate change. Other mayors and local leaders should follow her
example and consider ways they can work with their local
communities and business leaders."

Since the original activity in 2017, the federal lawsuit shared
between San Francisco and Oakland has been dismissed, although the
cities are currently appealing. Another lawsuit involving a set of
smaller governments in California was sent back down to state
court, a development that did not bode well for the plaintiffs.

After the numerous filings based in California, the zeal for
similar legal action spread to East Coast governments such as
Baltimore and Rhode Island in 2018. Also, in November of that year,
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations also filed
a civil action, becoming one of the first non-governmental entities
to file similar claims.

Currently, the District of Columbia Attorney General's office is
reviewing bids from outside law firms or legal teams in support of
an "investigation and potential litigation" under the government's
banner as well.

Most, if not all, of the government-initiated suits are being
handled as contingency fee arrangements with third-party attorneys
in which the attorneys handling the work are only paid if a
judgment is awarded to the government.

Many former attorneys general, mainly Republicans, have been highly
critical of these kinds of arrangements saying they invite ethical
challenges, especially about broadening the scope of a state's law
enforcement powers. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Ex-Post Moderator Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Sarah Jeong, writing for The New York Times, reports that in an
opinion article Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, said
he agreed with the growing consensus that Facebook -- and other
social media companies -- should be subject to more regulation. The
article, published in four countries and three languages, was fated
to be misunderstood from the start.

His first suggestion was to create an independent body so users
could appeal Facebook's moderation decisions. Over the past few
years, Facebook has caught fire from all sides for its content
moderation. Some say hate speech should be censored more
aggressively. At the same time, the company has been accused of
censoring conservative viewpoints. And for years, it has been
roundly criticized for its puritanical ban on female nipples.

But if Facebook had its way, the ultimate authority would no longer
lie with Facebook -- or Twitter or YouTube or other competitors.
That job would fall to unspecified "regulators."

"Regulation could set baselines for what's prohibited and require
companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare
minimum," Mr. Zuckerberg wrote. For a company exhausted by a year
of scandal, a regulatory scapegoat is just what the doctor ordered.
If you don't like what we do, why don't you try it for a change?

American legal experts were incredulous. Daphne Keller of the
Stanford Center for Internet and Society accused Facebook of
proposing an unconstitutional system, knowing it was impossible. In
an initial statement, Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties
Union said it was a violation of the First Amendment. The
Electronic Frontier Foundation claimed it would violate the freedom
of expression guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

Facebook's head of public policy, Kevin Martin, explained that
while Mr. Zuckerberg's reference to "regulation" might mean actual
government intervention in France, Germany and Ireland, it meant
only private sector self-regulation in the United States.

This kind of faux regulation is nothing new. Among the examples
cited were Finra, a nongovernmental financial industry "regulator";
the Motion Picture Association of America, which rates films; and
the Entertainment Software Rating Board, which rates video games.
(After this clarification, the A.C.L.U.'s Mr. Wizner agreed that
independent bodies like the M.P.A.A. are not unconstitutional).

But none of these examples deal with directly regulating speech.
Social media content moderation is a different beast entirely.
Slapping a label on a video game isn't the same as banning
distribution of the video game.

Facebook avoided bringing up the Hays Code, the closest corollary
to what they propose. The M.P.A.A.'s current rating system is a
pale shadow of Hollywood's old Hays Code, the now-laughable list of
rules that for years had onscreen husbands and wives sleeping in
separate beds.

The Code was developed voluntarily by the studios in hopes of
avoiding government censorship. It zealously policed depictions of
romance, crime, law enforcement and the clergy. When the Supreme
Court held that motion pictures were protected by the First
Amendment in 1952, enforcement of the code diminished.

Facebook's proposal is a bow to public opinion. Last year, a
coalition of advocacy groups published the Santa Clara Principles
-- new baseline rules for how content moderation should work. The
principles focus most heavily on the right to appeal decisions --
particularly in conjunction with "new independent self-regulatory
mechanisms" created in collaboration with industry.

All this sounds like what The Verge's Casey Newton calls "a
Facebook Supreme Court." It's almost as though the Santa Clara
Principles were developed by a room full of lawyers. Hammer, meet
nail.

Due process would be much welcomed in a world where people believe
simultaneously that Facebook takes down too little content or too
much. But due process is costly, even after removing high-billing
lawyers from the equation. Consider that the Supreme Court, with a
budget of nearly $90 million, receives 8,000 petitions a year --
most of which are rejected. Meanwhile, according to a class-action
lawsuit filed by an ex-Facebook moderator, "moderators are asked to
review more than 10 million potentially rule-breaking posts per
week."

No wonder content moderation on the big platforms doesn't so much
resemble an unpleasant visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles as
it does a re-enactment of the horror film "The Purge." Due process
is a luxury good.

We're not likely to see a Facebook Supreme Court -- not an American
one, in any event. The Hays Code died after the First Amendment was
extended to movies; a Hays Code for the internet will probably be
dead on arrival.

In a confused, fractured world, Facebook would be glad to stick to
a single global standard. This is perhaps why Mr. Zuckerberg offers
full-throated praise of the European Union's privacy standard, the
General Data Protection Regulation, in his op-ed. The fracture of
the internet into different spheres of influence would be bad for
his business, and to that end, the company would much rather impose
European sensibilities on the American internet than deal with
multiple standards.

So, while the American government has its hands tied behind its
back by the Constitution, the French, the Germans and the Irish
will set their own bar for online speech. In the future, American
speech -- at least online -- may be governed by Europe. [GN]


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Cherry FCRA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Cherry v. First Advantage Background Services
Corp., Case No. 19CN-CC00011, was removed on April 17, 2019, from
the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-06052-DGK to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.[BN]

Plaintiff George Cherry, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
          Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
          BROWN & WATKINS, LLC
          301 S. US 169 Highway
          Gower, MO 64454
          Telephone: (816) 505-4529
          Facsimile: (816) 424-1337
          E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
                  watkins@brownandwatkins.com

Defendant First Advantage Background Services Corp. is represented
by:

          Dana T. Cutler, Esq.
          JAMES W. TIPPIN & ASSOCIATES
          21 West Gregory Blvd.
          Kansas City, MO 64114-1105
          Telephone: (816) 471-8575
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0243
          E-mail: dtcutler@tippinlawfirm.com


FIRST CHOICE: May 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 6
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of First Choice Healthcare Solutions,
Inc. (OTC:FCHS) from April 1, 2014 through November 14, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for First Choice investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the First Choice class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1544.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants retained Elite Stock Research, Inc. to falsely
promote First Choice securities to investors in order to materially
inflate the price of First Choice stock; (2) Christian Romandetti,
Sr., First Choice's former CEO, President, and Chairman of the
Board of Directors, participated in a scheme to materially inflate
the price of First Choice securities through an unlawful, paid
promotional campaign, in which Romandetti personally profited; (3)
defendants were in violation of First Choice's internal compliance
policies including its Compliance Program, Code of Ethics, and
Disclosure Policy, by participating in the pump and dump scheme;
and (4) a primary cause of fluctuations in First Choice's stock
price was the unlawful campaign, in which Romandetti directly
participated, that caused the price of First Choice stock to be
inflated while at the same time allowed others to dump their First
Choice stock for profit. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 28,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1544.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


FITBIT: Settles Class Action Over Defective Sleep Tracker Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News4JAX reports that Fitbit has agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit which claims its sleep tracker devices are defective and do
not work as advertised.

It only includes the FitBit Flex, One or Ulta models that were
registered online.

Florida purchases must have been made between September 1, 2009 and
October 27, 2014.

If you bought yours in Georgia, it must have been done between
March 26, 2014 and October 27, 2014.

You can get up to $12.50 and must include the e-mail you used to
register your Fitbit.

The deadline to apply is May 30. [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Bid for Responses in Safont Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT SAFONT, Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP,
LVNV FUNDING LLC, SHERMAN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, MARK A. GARBUS, and
RONALD FORSTER, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 00356 (WFK) (CLP) (E.D.
N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Polak of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's request for responses.

On Jan. 18, 2018, Safont, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, commenced the action against the Defendants,
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
According to the Complaint, the case stems from a lawsuit filed by
Forster & Garbus on behalf of LVNV to recover a past due debt owed
to LVNV.

On Feb. 1, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a letter informing the Court
of discovery disputes over certain documents withheld by the
Defendants.  Specifically, the Defendants have objected to the
Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 1-10, and Requests for Production
Nos. 2-14, 23, 24, and 26-32.  They argue that the requests are
overbroad, burdensome, vague, and seek legal conclusions.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' objections are conclusory
and therefore improper.

Request for Production No. 4 seeks documents that show each seller
of the account associated with the Plaintiff.  The Defendants
previously indicated that they did not possess the requested
documents.  In their latest response, they indicate that they have
no documents responsive to this request.  Magistrate Judge Polak
therefore finds that this dispute is resolved.

The Plaintiff argues that his Requests for Production Nos. 23, 24,
and 29 are relevant to the claims in the Complaint.  Request No. 23
seeks procedures, work standards, manuals, instructions, and
guidance issued to Forster & Garbus, LLP by or on behalf of LVNV or
regarding Forster & Garbus' work for LVNV.  Request No. 24 seeks a
copy of the agreement between LVNV and Forster & Garbus, between
Resurgent Capital and Forster & Garbus, and/or between Sherman
Financial Group, LLC and Forster & Garbus.   Request No. 29 seeks
information relating to the collection, ownership, and beneficial
interest in the collection of the debt at issue in the case.

The Magistrate finds that Requests Nos. 23 and 24 are reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and
directs defendants to respond.  With respect to Request No. 29, she
finds the phrasing to be vague, and Orders the Plaintiff to revise
his request.

Request No. 26 seeks the notes, documents, spreadsheets, Excel
files, and electronic files sent to Forster & Garbus before the
Plaintiff was served with the lawsuit for past due debt.  Request
No. 27 seeks a copy of the documents setting forth the actions
which Forster & Garbus requires of their attorneys regarding the
documents and information to be reviewed before one of their
attorneys signs a Summons and Complaint and approves it for filing
and service.  Request No. 28 seeks the notes, documents,
spreadsheets, Excel files, and electronic files reviewed by the
attorney in the matter before that attorney signed the complaint
against the Plaintiff.  The Defendants object to these requests,
characterizing them as vague, irrelevant, and burdensome.

The Magistrate finds that the information sought by Requests for
Production Nos. 26, 27, and 28 and Interrogatories 3 and 4 are
relevant, and directs the Defendant to respond to them.  To the
extent that the Defendants believe that some of the requested
documents are protected by the attorney client privilege or the
work product doctrine, they are directed to provide a privilege log
in accordance with Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the Local Rules of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

With respect to Requests for Production Nos. 16 and 17, the
Plaintiff requests that the Defendants revise their responses to
indicate that they have no responsive documents besides the
documents bearing Bates Nos. 1-70.  The Defendants indicate that
they will make this revision, so the Magistrate finds that this
dispute is resolved.

The Plaintiff explains that Requests Nos. 2, 3, and 5-14, as well
as Interrogatories 1, 2, and 5-10 are relevant in order to
determine whether a class can be certified.  Request No. 2 seeks a]
copy of each lawsuit filed by Defendant Forster & Garbus against an
individual between March 1, 2017 and the present to attempt to
collect debt, where Defendant LVNV is the creditor.  Request No. 3
seeks a copy of each notice or communication sent to the debtor
notifying the debtor of the assignment of the debt for each lawsuit
responsive to Request No. 2.  Interrogatory No. 1 requests the
number of letters materially identical or substantially similar to
the one that the Plaintiff received.  Interrogatory No. 2 requests
the number of lawsuits filed by Defendant Forster & Garbus against
an individual between March 1, 2017 and the present to attempt to
collect debt, where Defendant LVNV is the creditor, and which one
or more Defendants is treating or has designated or classified or
labeled the debt as a consumer debt.

The Magistrate directs the Defendants to respond to Requests Nos.
5-14 and Interrogatories Nos. 5-10.  Even if there is uncertainty
as to the proper parties for the case, she finds that the requests
are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.  In addition, although defendants claim that the
Plaintiff seeks to harass defendants by making this request, they
have failed to explain how such a request is harassing.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Polak granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's request for responses.  The Clerk is
directed to send copies of the Order to the parties either
electronically through the Electronic Case Filing system or by
mail.

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

Scott Safont, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin --
mpash@verizon.net.

Forster & Garbus, LLP, LVNV Funding LLC, Sherman Financial Group,
LLC, Mark A. Garbus & Ronald Forster, Defendants, represented by
Arthur Sanders -- asanders@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger,
P.C. & Mitchell Lee Williamson -- mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com --
Barron & Newburger, PC.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Stessel FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Liba Stessel, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Forster & Garbus LLP, Capital One Bank and
Bulldog Process Service, LLC, Case No. EF001975-2019, was removed
on April 16, 2019, from the New York Supreme Court, County of
Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (White Plains).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:19-cv-03389 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.[BN]

Defendant Capital One Bank is represented by:

          Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 548-2167
          Facsimile: (212) 715-6275
          E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com


FOX RUN: Hawk Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------
AMBER HAWK, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals, Plaintiff v. JAMES M. DEASCENTIS d/b/a FOX RUN
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01659-JLG-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, April 27, 2019) is a class and collective action against
Defendant seeking damages, back-pay, restitution, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, and all other relief that the Court deems just, reasonable
and equitable in the circumstances.

Specifically, Plaintiff complains that Defendant misclassified
Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective as
"independent contractors" when they should have been classified as
"employees." As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all
other members of the class and collective minimum wage compensation
they were entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Wage Law ("OMWL"), says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer by Defendant at Fox Run
in Lockbourne, Ohio for the period of about 2012 through 2018.

Defendant is an individual that does business under the trade name
"Fox Run" and operates as a gentlemen's club featuring female
exotic dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew S. Goldwasser, Esq.
     Phillip A. Ciano, Esq.
     CIANO & GOLDWASSER, LLP
     ETON Tower
     28601 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 250
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (216) 658-9900
     Facsimile: (216) 658-9920
     Email: asg@c-g-law.com
            pac@c-g-law.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


GEORGIA: Court Denies Bid for Joinder in Wright Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARKUS LAKEITH WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. Warden BRUCE
CHATMAN, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:16-cv-00490-TES-MSH
(M.D. Ga.), Judge Tilman E. Self, III of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder.

The U.S. Magistrate Judge construes the Plaintiff's motion as one
for class certification and recommends denying it because a pro se
prisoner-plaintiff may not bring a class action lawsuit on behalf
of other prisoners.  The parties filed no timely objections to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Having thoroughly reviewed the
matter, Jugde Self adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation and made it order of the Court.  Accordingly, he
denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder.

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

TAMARKUS LAKEITH WRIGHT, Plaintiff, pro se.

Warden BRUCE CHATMAN, GDCP, JUNE BISHOP, Deputy Warden of Security,
GDCP, WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy Warden, GDCP, WILLIAM MCMILLIAN, Unit
Manager, GDCP, RUFUS LOGAN, Unit Manager, GDCP, RODNEY MCCLOUD,
Superintendent, Telfair State Prison, JAMES MCMILLIAN, Unit
Manager, MICHAEL CANNON, Superintendent, CALDWELL, Deputy Warden,
BETTY DEAN, Tier Segregation Program Director, COMMISSIONER HOMER
BRYSON, VICTOR WALKER, Regional Director, TIMOTHY WARD, Assistant
Commissioner & RICK JACOBS, Regional Director, Defendants,
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER.


GPB CARS 12: Page Files Consumer Credit Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GPB CARS 12, LLC et
al. The case is styled as RACHAEL A PAGE on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GPB CARS 12, LLC doing
business as: NORTH PLAINFIELD NISSAN, NISSAN EXTENDED SERVICES
NORTH AMERICA, G.P., NATION MOTOR CLUB LLC also known as: NSD also
known as: NATION SAFE DRIVERS, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-11513
(D. N.J., April 26, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to
the Truth in Lending Act.

GPB CARS 12, LLC offers a new and used automobile dealership, also
service and parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DAVID C. RICCI, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC
     51 JFK PARKWAY
     FIRST FLOOR WEST
     SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078
     Phone: (973) 218-2627
     Fax: (973) 206-6955
     Email: dricci@njconsumerlawyer.com


GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Hochhauser Files FDCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grossman &
Karaszewski, PLLC. The case is styled as Hindy Hochhauser
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02468 (E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2019).

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

Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC is a debt collection law office
located in East Amherst, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HCSG WEST: Barrientos Brings Suit Under Calif. Wage & Hour Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA BARRIENTOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HCSG WEST LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV14541 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 26,
2019) seeks civil penalties for violation of the California Labor
Code, under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The Defendants have had a consistent policy or practice of failing
to pay wages, including minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff
and other non-exempt aggrieved employees in the State of California
in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of,
including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked. The
Defendants have further failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly
aggrieved employees the full amount of their wages owed to them
upon termination and/or resignation as required by Labor Code
sections 201 and 202, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee at
their facilities in the State of California.

HCSG WEST LLC ("HCSG"), is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a
limited partnership organized and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310) 553-3603



HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until May 21, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against Healthcare Services
Group, Inc. (NasdaqGS: HCSG), if they purchased the Company's
securities between April 11, 2017 and March 4, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

If you purchased shares of Healthcare Services and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-hcsg/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 21, 2019.

                        The Lawsuit

Healthcare Services and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On March 4, 2019, the Company disclosed an ongoing investigation by
the SEC regarding its EPS calculation and reporting practices,
including the receipt of a subpoena in March 2018, and that because
of these circumstances and its own internal review of the matter,
it was unable to file its 2018 10-K report on time.

On this news, the price of Healthcare Services Group's shares
plummeted.

The case is Koch v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc., 19-cv-1227.

         Contact:
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Website:  www.ksfcounsel.com.     
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


HERBERT P. SEARS: Thompson Brings Suit Under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HERBERT P. SEARS CO., INC. DBA
HP SEARS, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00754 (C.D. Cal., April 25, 2019) is a case arising as a
result of false, deceptive, and unfair debt-collection practices
promulgated nationwide by Defendant, in its collection letter
campaigns wherein Defendant misrepresents consumer and debtor
rights.

In particular, Plaintiff alleges that within the year preceding the
filing of this Complaint, Defendant attempted to collect debts from
her and other consumers and debtors by systematically sending them
mail-based collection correspondence that overshadow the disclosure
requirements under Federal and State statutes in violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made misrepresentations and
omissions in its communications with Plaintiff in connection with
the alleged debt, which is inherently deceptive and misleads the
least-sophisticated consumer into making payments without apprising
them of their rights under both Federal and State laws.

Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Orange County, State of
California who is allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

Defendant is a company that uses any instrumentality of interstate
commerce or the mails in its business, the principal purpose of
which is the collection of any debts; it also regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or
asserted to be owed or due another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 323-306-4234
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


HIRERIGHT LLC: Bid to Transfer Gray FCRA Suit to M.D. Tenn. Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, St. Joseph Division, denied
HireRight's motion to transfer the case, MICHAEL GRAY, Plaintiff,
v. HIRERIGHT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-06177-NKL (W.D.
Mo.), to the U.S. Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Plaintiff Gray applied in August 2018 for employment with
Communications Solutions, LLC ("CS"), and after interviewing him,
CS hired him.  He worked at CS for approximately two weeks, at
which time CS told him that his employment was being terminated
because his consumer report, which had been generated by HireRight,
indicated that he had lied during the hiring process concerning the
absence of a criminal record in the last seven years.

Specifically, the report indicated that Mr. Gray had been charged
with or convicted of felony charges within the seven years
preceding his employment application.  Mr. Gray advised CS that he
had not been charged or convicted of any crime in the last seven
years.  CST nonetheless terminated Mr. Gray on the basis of
HireRight's purportedly inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete
consumer report.

HireRight is a background screening company.  Its U.S. hub of
operations for North American public criminal record processing and
its operations department for the United States are in Nashville,
Tennessee. Id. "The operations department is responsible for
creating, maintaining, and implementing policies and procedures
regarding the preparation and delivery of background reports,
including compliance with the FCRA.  HireRight states that the
individuals with knowledge of the implementation of those
procedures, including as specifically applied to this case, are
located in Tennessee.  The team of "Investigative Specialists" that
perform the research and analysis that may be included in the
background reports are primarily located in Tennessee.

Of HireRight's 1,900 employees, 260 are in Tennessee.  In contrast,
HireRight has just one employee based in Missouri, a person who
works from home in a "technical support capacity" and does not
process background reports.

Mr. Gray initiated a putative class action against HireRight on
Nov. 6, 2018, alleging violations of the FCRA.  He alleges that
HireRight produced a consumer report concerning the Plaintiff that
was inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete, and that HireRight's
failure to utilize procedures designed to comply with the
unambiguous mandates of the FCRA when producing consumer reports is
negligent, reckless and willful.

He seeks to represent three nationwide classes defined as follows:
(1) all individuals who were the subject of one or more consumer
reports in which the Defendant identified an individual as having a
felony or misdemeanor record in the last seven years when they did
not, from Nov. 6, 2013, through the conclusion of the matter; (2)
all individuals who were the subject of one or more consumer
reports in which the Defendant identified the court records as
being within the last seven years but included records beyond seven
years, from Nov. 6, 2013, through the conclusion of the matter; and
(3) all individuals who were the subject of one or more consumer
reports in which the Defendant failed to include information
specifying that the consumer had no criminal records in the last
seven years from Nov. 6, 2013, through the conclusion of the
matter.  He seeks statutory and punitive damages as well as costs
and attorneys' fees, but not actual damages.

After removing Mr. Gray's proceeding from state court to federal
court, HireRight moved for transfer of the case to the Middle
District of Tennessee.

Judge Laughrey denied HireRight's motion to transfer the case.  She
finds that the factor of the parties' convenience thus does not
weigh in favor of either forum.  Further, neither Tennessee nor
Missouri appears more convenient for members of the putative class.
At best, the prospect of a nationwide class is a neutral factor.

Next, she finds that the judicial economy slightly favors the
current forum, as the Court now has some familiarity with the
alleged facts, and HireRight has not suggested that similar actions
already are pending in the Middle District of Tennessee.  Mr.
Gray's choice of forum of course weighs against transfer, but
because this is a purported nationwide class action, Mr. Gray's
preference is given less than the "substantial weight" ordinarily
afforded a plaintiff's choice of forum.

While the convenience factors are neutral, the interests-of-justice
analysis favors the current forum.  The statute permitting
transfers of civil actions does so only insofar as it is in the
interest of justice.  Because she cannot find that the interest of
justice warrants transfer, the Judge deems transfer inappropriate.

For these reasons, Judge Laughrey denied HireRight's motion to
transfer the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/uL0l2s from Leagle.com.

Michael Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown --
brown@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Watkins, LLC & Jayson A.
Watkins -- watkins@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Watkins, LLC.

HireRight, LLC, Defendant, represented by Cindy D. Hanson --
cindy.hanson@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, pro hac vice,
Harrison Scott Kelly -- scott.kelly@troutman.com -- Troutman
Sanders, pro hac vice, Patrick Farley Dillard --
patrick.dillard@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, pro hac vice &
Matthew Duff Turner -- mturner@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP.


HUNTER WARFIELD: Vazquez Suit Transferred From E.D. to M.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled VAZQUEZ v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., et al., Case
No. 2:19-cv-01486, was transferred on April 17, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Harrisburg).

The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00655-JEJ
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.[BN]

Plaintiff Maria Vazquez, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          ROBERT P. COCCO PC
          1500 Walnut St., Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 351-0200
          E-mail: rcocco@rcn.com


IDAHO: High Court Might Weigh Public Defender Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Simmons, writing for Idaho Press, reports that a district
court judge on March 19, 2019, recommended the Idaho Supreme Court
weigh in on a civil lawsuit filed against the state, which claims
Idaho's criminal public defense system is inadequate.

The case of Tucker v. State of Idaho, filed in 2015, was set for a
40-day court trial to begin in April. As that date loomed, both
sides of the lawsuit asked 4th District Court Judge Samuel Hoagland
to rule on the matter. In his written response on March 19,
Hoagland declined to issue a ruling and recommended both sides ask
the Idaho Supreme Court to examine it instead. He issued a stay on
the trial date until then.

It's the latest act in the long story line of Idaho's struggle to
establish a constitutionally adequate public defender system, after
a national agency in 2010 found none of the Idaho public defenders'
offices it surveyed lived up to the requirements laid out in the
U.S. Constitution.

What the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the group
that conducted the study, did find in Idaho in 2010, however, were
"systemic deficiencies."

The report left the Idaho Legislature with the task of fixing those
deficiencies, and those conducting the report noted their faith in
lawmakers to do so, pointing out Louisiana quadrupled its public
defenders' budgets and overhauled its system in 2007 while still
reeling from the effects of Hurricane Katrina.

The job has proven problematic for Idaho, however, and the lawsuit
-- filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of Idaho, and the global law firm
Hogan Lovells -- sought to address those difficulties.

Current system

Unlike some states, Idaho does not have a state public defender
system. Idaho's 44 counties are left to manage public defense
systems for themselves. They have four options under Idaho law when
they do: they can establish county public defender office, as Ada
and Canyon counties do, they can contract with an established
public defender office, they can join with another county in the
same judicial district and establish a public defender's office, or
they may contract with a private defense attorney.

According to court documents, 31 counties contract with private
attorneys. Ada, Bannock, Bonner, Bonneville, Canyon, Gooding,
Jefferson, Kootenai and Twin Falls counties have their own public
defender offices, and Cassia, Minidoka, Power and Oneida counties
have joint offices.

The piecemeal system has created problems, according to the ACLU's
lawsuit. For example, in many counties, county commissioners only
spoke with prosecutors, not defense attorneys, about how to fund
the county public defender's office, according to minutes from
commissioners' meetings. That left open the possibility public
defenders' offices might not be funded as well as prosecutors'
offices. Additionally, in 28 Idaho counties, defense attorneys must
"obtain permission (from commissioners) to access investigative
resources" — meaning resources they would use to help investigate
their client's case.

The lawsuit also identifies problems in court. It claims in 16
county courthouses, there is no place for attorneys to meet with
clients in private, although it does not identify which counties
those are. Many times, defense attorneys aren't even able to be
present with defendants when they first appear in court after their
arrest.

"Because public defenders in most instances do not have the staff
or resources to be present at initial appearances, indigent
defendants are most often left to fend for themselves during these
critical proceedings, without the assistance of counsel," according
to the 2015 complaint the ACLU filed on behalf of four indigent
criminal defendants who said they didn't receive adequate
representation in court. "Counsel at this stage is especially
important to, among other things, presenting reasoned legal
arguments to reduce bail ... advising their clients about how to
plead, and negotiating with prosecutors regarding potential plea
agreements and pretrial release terms."

Defense attorneys are often crushed under heavy caseloads, the
complaint alleges — in Kootenai County in 2014, for instance,
four of the 15 public defenders in the office handled "well over"
400 cases each. Idaho's Legislative Services Office in 2014 found
in at least six counties "individual public defenders are
responsible for handling more than twice the work that one attorney
should ever take on," according to the complaint.

The Idaho Public Defense Commission

In 2014, a year before the ACLU filed the lawsuit, the Legislature
created the Idaho Public Defense Commission, a team made up of nine
people: two representatives from the legislature, one appointed by
the Idaho Supreme Court, and six appointed by the governor. Its job
was to address public defense problems.

"When it was initially created, it really had no power at all,"
Ritchie Eppink, Esq. attorney for the ACLU of Idaho, told the Idaho
Press on March 21.

After the ACLU filed its lawsuit in 2015, Eppink said, the
legislature gave the commission the power to craft standards and to
distribute a certain amount of money to public defenders' offices.
But the funding the commission has provided, Eppink said, was "not
enough to match the state's addiction to prosecution and
incarceration."

According to court documents, "it appears that about 17 counties
would have attorneys with excessive caseloads under the
(commission's) proposed workload standards."

The lawsuit

Attorneys for the ACLU filed the lawsuit in 2015. In January 2016,
the 4th District Court dismissed the suit, the grounds of
"standing, ripeness and separation of powers," according to the
website for the ACLU of Idaho. Attorneys appealed the case to the
Idaho Supreme Court, and in April 2017 the court's justices ruled
the suit could continue, however. The scheduling of the 40-day
court trial in April came after that.

The goal of the lawsuit, Eppink told the Idaho Press, is to compel
Idaho to establish a public defense system that complies with its
residents' Sixth Amendment right to a competent defense attorney.
It's not the only such case in the country either. In the ruling he
handed down on March 19, Hoagland pointed out that despite the fact
that people have sued states over public defense systems before,
"the United States Supreme Court has not weighed in on the standard
to be applied in lawsuits challenging public defender systems, and
the approach taken by lower courts varies widely."

That's why, Hoagland wrote, the case is a matter for the Idaho
Supreme Court to examine. There are legal questions in the case
that would establish precedent. For example, Hoagland wrote he was
uncertain if each individual plaintiff in the case had to prove
they'd each "personally suffered some or all of the harms
identified." Plus, Hoagland continued, attorneys for the state
argued the case's plaintiffs must prove their rights had actually
been violated, while the ACLU of Idaho claimed simply the risk of
those violations occurring should be enough to prompt an order from
a judge to change the public defense system.

In his writing, Hoagland appeared concerned any ruling he offered
would result in an appeal -- and that the case would then drag on
even longer. He recommended the case's players appeal the case to
the Idaho Supreme Court again to ask justices what the "appropriate
legal standard" is in the matter. [GN]


INOGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Inogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: INGN) from November 8, 2017
through February 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Inogen investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Inogen class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1529.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total
addressable market ("TAM") for its portable oxygen concentrators
and had misstated the basis for its calculation of the TAM; (ii)
Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the strong sales
acumen of its salesforce, when in reality it was due in large part
to sales tactics designed to deceive its elderly customer base;
(iii) the growth in Inogen's domestic business-to-business sales to
home medical equipment ("HME") providers was inflated,
unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales; and (iv)
very little of Inogen's business was actually coming from the more
stable Medicare market. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 6,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1529.html

         Contact:
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


ISLE OF CAPRI: Wage Class Action Scheduled for Trial Next Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Vockrodt, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a
lawsuit filed by a card dealer at the Isle of Capri casino in
Kansas City claiming that wages of hourly employees were
miscalculated is scheduled for trial next year.

Cynthia Larson, who has been a card dealer since 2013, alleges that
Isle of Capri rounded off employee time cards in such a way that
hourly workers were not paid for time they were actually on the
clock. Larson's lawsuit also contends that Isle of Capri violated
wage laws for employees making tips.

Judge Ortrie Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri scheduled a jury trial for July 2020. In
December, he ruled that Larson's lawsuit can proceed as a
collective action case, which is similar to a class action that
allows several people with similar allegations to bring claims
under one lawsuit.

Isle of Capri's parent company, Eldorado Resorts Inc., did not
respond to a request for comment. In a regulatory filing, the
company said broadly that no lawsuits currently pending against the
company were considered material to its finances. Eldorado bought
Isle of Capri in Kansas City in 2017.

Larson's lawsuit said that the casino's time card system could
track when employees clocked in and clocked out by the minute, but
would round those times off by 15-minute intervals. For example, an
employee showing up and clocking in between 7:53 or 8:07 a.m. would
be considered as having arrived for their shift at 8 a.m.

The lawsuit says that the casino kept an attendance policy that
warned employees against clocking in after their scheduled start
time. As a result, Larson's lawsuit said several employees would
show up earlier than their shift, clock in beforehand but not
receive pay for the minutes they had worked.

Over time, the lawsuit says, employees accumulated time that they
worked but for which they were not paid.

The lawsuit also alleges that Isle of Capri violated rules under
the Federal Labor Standards Act concerning employees who are paid
under the minimum wage but make up the difference through tips.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, overtime wages and other damages.

Isle of Capri is one of four casinos on the Missouri side of the
Kansas City region and one of 13 licensed casinos in Missouri. In
February, Isle of Capri attracted 142,200 visitors and made $5.2
million in adjusted gross revenue, the lowest for both metrics
among casinos in Kansas City and St. Louis, according to figures
from the Missouri Gaming Commission. [GN]


JIFFY LUBE: Faces Migyanko Suit over Handicapped Accessibility
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Jiffy Lube
International, Inc. for violations of the Title III of the American
Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations in
connection with Defendant's failure to provide and ensure equal
access for individuals with mobility disabilities who patronize
Defendant's automotive service centers. The case is captioned
RONALD J. MIGYANKO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00438-NBF (W.D. Pa., April 17, 2019).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's properties are not fully
accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. Defendant has
also failed to make reasonable modifications to its policies,
practices, and procedures that are necessary to provide its goods,
services, facilities, and accommodations to individuals with
mobility disabilities. By failing to undertake efforts to ensure
that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services
or otherwise treated differently than other individuals, Defendant
subjects Plaintiff and those similarly situated to discrimination
and unequal treatment in violation of the ADA.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
enjoining Defendant from continuing its discriminatory conduct,
including an order directing Defendant to make readily achievable
alterations to its facilities to remove physical barriers to access
and make its facilities fully accessible to and independently
usable by people with disabilities to the extent required by the
ADA; an order requiring Defendant to make all reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures necessary to
afford all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities on a
full and equal basis; and a declaration determining that
Defendant’s policies and practices of discrimination result in a
violation of Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations;
an award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs associated with
pursuit of this litigation; and any other such relief that this
Court deems just and proper.

Jiffy Lube International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation,
headquartered at 150 N. Dairy Ashford Road, Houston, Texas. The
company owns, operates, leases, franchises, and/or controls
approximately 2,000 automotive service centers across the United
States, and approximately 50 throughout Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
     Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh PA, 15222
     Telephone: (412) 322-9243
     Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
     E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
             kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
             bfox@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

     Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
     Chad Throndset, Esq.
     THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
     Cornerstone Building
     One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
     St. Michael, MN 55376
     Telephone: (763) 515-6110
     Facsimile: (763) 226-2515
     E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
             chad@throndsetlaw.com


KARL E. THOMAS: Tenants Sue Landlord Over Unlawful Lease Terms
--------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUETT A CORTE and ALY ARO GONZALES, on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. KARL E. THOMAS,
SR., individually and d/b/a "Thomas PROPERTIES, Defendants, Case
No. 2019CH05365 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 26, 2019)
seeks to vindicate the rights of aggrieved tenants.

In or around the Spring of 2018, Plaintiffs' ceiling began to cave
in. As a result of that damage, water began leaking into
Plaintiffs' unit. The Plaintiffs repeatedly requested that
Defendant repair the leak. Plaintiffs captured several videos of
water pouring into their unit through holes in the roof and
ceiling. The Defendant instead told Plaintiffs to repair the roof
themselves. Plaintiffs could not afford to repair the roof for the
entire building. Plaintiffs' lease did not require them to repair
the roof to the subject matter property. As a result, Plaintiffs
again requested that Defendant repair the roof and stop the leaks.
The Defendant responded by telling Plaintiffs that if they did not
stop complaining, he would report them to ICE and have them
deported. As a result, Plaintiffs were forced to collect the water
in buckets as it poured into their units.

Karl Thomas is a Cook County slumlord who forces his tenants,
largely immigrants, to be both residents and unpaid workforce under
a name "Thomas Properties" that he doesn't own. Thomas uses illegal
leases, doesn't maintain his properties, and forces his tenants to
repair conditions in their own units for free, even when those
conditions include severe water damage or toxigenic mold, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs applied to rent the subject matter property on or about
August 29, 2012.

Defendant held himself out as the owner of a business called
"Thomas Properties".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sheryl Ring, Esq.
     Open Communities Legal Assistance Program
     990 Grove Street, Suite 500
     Evanston, IL 60201
     Phone: (847) 501-5760
     Email: sheryl@open-communities.org


KIA MOTORS: Casas Files Suit Over Vehicles' Engine Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
GRACIELA CASA and GABRIEL CASAS, JR., on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV14457
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2019) seeks to
redress KMA's violations of California and Illinois' consumer fraud
statutes, and also seeks recovery for Defendant's breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing, and common law fraud.

On August 13, 2013, Plaintiffs purchased a 2013 Kia Optima vehicle
identification number 5XXGR4A64DG204934, (hereafter "Subject
Vehicle"), which was manufactured and or distributed by Defendant.
The Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or
performance of the Subject Vehicle or to provide compensation if
there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period
of time. The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event
a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle during the warranty
period, Plaintiffs could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to
Defendant's representative and the Subject Vehicle would be
repaired.

During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or
developed defects.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew since 2009, if not
earlier, that the 2011-2016 KIA Optima, 2011-2016 KIA Sportage,
2012-2016 KIA Sorento, 2011-2016 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2016
(hereafter "KIA Vehicles") contained one or more design and/or
manufacturing defects in their engines (hereafter "Engine Defect")
that results in the restriction of oil flow through the connecting
rod bearings, as well as to other vital areas of the engine.
Plaintiffs allege that prior to Plaintiffs acquiring the Vehicle,
Defendant was well aware and knew that 2.0L GDI engine installed on
the Subject Vehicle was defective but failed to disclose this fact
to Plaintiffs at the time of sale and thereafter.

Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Vehicle from a person or entity
engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling
consumer goods at retail.

KMA was engaged in the design, development, manufacture,
distribution, marketing, selling, leasing, warranting, servicing,
and repair of automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tionna Dolin, Esq.
     Sean Crandall, Esq.
     Strategic Legal Practices APC
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 929-4900
     Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
     Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com
            scrandall@slpattorney.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Judge Refuses to Kick Avenatti Off Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge declined to kick
indicted attorney Michael Avenatti and his now-defunct firm Eagan
Avenatti LLP off a $450 million class action over defective
surgical gowns against Kimberly-Clark Corp. [GN]


KIND LLC: Years-Long Stay of False Marketing Suit Lifted
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I. Weinstein, Jennifer Yang, and Russell Kostelak, writing
for The National Law Review, report that Judge William H. Pauley
III in the Southern District of New York lifted a years-long stay
in a lawsuit against KIND LLC concerning the allegedly false
marketing of KIND snack products as "all-natural" and "non-GMO." In
re KIND LLC "Healthy and All Natural" Litigation, No. 15-MD-2645.

The "all-natural" claims were originally stayed in 2016 in light of
ongoing FDA rulemaking regarding the use of "natural" labeling, and
the "non-GMO" claims were subsequently stayed in early 2018 pending
the USDA's establishment of a national disclosure standard for
bioengineered food.  In December 2018, the USDA promulgated its
"non-GMO" rules through the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
Standard, which became effective in February 2019.  The FDA,
however, is continuing its lengthy deliberative process.  In
considering this delay, Judge Pauley concluded that "[i]t is time
for this multi-district litigation to move forward."

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2015, alleging that KIND
deceptively marketed certain products as "all-natural" and
"non-GMO" even though they purportedly contain synthetic and
genetically modified ingredients, in violation of New York and
other state laws. In September 2016, Judge Pauley stayed the
"all-natural" claims pursuant to the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, to wait for the FDA rulemaking process to run its
course and provide guidance on the definition of the term
"natural." In March 2018, the Court also granted KIND's motion to
stay the "non-GMO" claims pending USDA action on a national
disclosure standard for bioengineered food, which was expected to
occur in July 2018.

At the same time, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to lift the
stay of the "all natural" claims. In doing so, Judge Pauley
recognized the "glacial pace" of the FDA in defining the term
"natural." However, because there was a significant interest in
litigating the "all natural" and "non-GMO" claims together, the
Court continued to stay the "all natural" claims, but only through
August 15, 2018—two weeks after the date on which the USDA was
expected to promulgate the "non-GMO" standard. In doing so, the
Court noted that the justification for lifting the stay on the "all
natural" claims would be "substantially stronger" if the FDA failed
to provide guidance by this date.

The USDA promulgated its "non-GMO" rules through the National
Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard on Dec. 21, 2018. The Court,
therefore, found in its February 2019 decision that there was no
reason to continue the stay as to plaintiffs' "non-GMO" claims.
However, all parties were in agreement that the "non-GMO" claims
should not proceed without the "all natural" claims, again putting
at issue whether the stay of the "all natural" claims should be
lifted as well, despite the continued absence of FDA guidance on
the definition of the term "natural."

Judge Pauley noted that courts have split on the question of
whether to lift similar stays of "natural" claims pending FDA
rulemaking: some have declined to do so, others have lifted stays,
and some have chosen not to stay these types of claims at all. But
citing his prior determination that if the FDA provided no further
guidance by August 2018, "the basis for lifting the stay w[ould] be
substantially stronger, and that there was no reason to continue to
stay the "non-GMO" claims, the Court concluded that the stay of the
"all natural" claims should be lifted in this case. As a result,
this lawsuit that began in 2015 will now proceed to discovery.

In the meantime, KIND petitioned the FDA last week to update its
regulations on nutrient content labeling because, in KIND's view,
current regulations permit manufacturers to use nutrient content
labeling in a way that misleads the public by concealing the use of
added sugars and trans fats in products marketed as contributing to
a healthy diet. Watch this space for further developments in-KIND.
[GN]


KRAFT HEINZ: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action Over False Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of various publicly
traded companies, including Kraft Heinz Company.

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.

The Kraft Heinz Company (NASDAQ: KHC)
Investors Affected: July 6, 2015 - February 21, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
The Kraft Heinz Company. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (i) Defendants misrepresented that the
Zero Based Budgeting ("ZBB") and other cost-saving measures would
deliver increased profitability while simultaneously maintaining
base business momentum; (ii) Defendants failed to disclose known
trends that were negatively impacting the Company's organic sales
growth and profitability; (iii) Defendants falsely represented the
ability of the Company's pipeline of new products to generate
organic growth; (iv) Defendants falsely stated that "main-stays
like Oscar Mayer [and] Kraft cheese" were "tangible drivers of [a]
turnaround in the second half of 2018"; (v) Defendants failed to
disclose known trends that resulted in the intangible asset
impairments associated with the Company's Oscar Mayer and Kraft
brands; and (vi) Defendants failed to disclose known trends that
resulted in the goodwill impairments affecting its U.S.
Refrigerated and Canada Retail divisions. [GN]


LAOS: Hmong Exiles Petition Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Hmong 1, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the matter
styled Hmong 1, et al., Petitioners v. Lao People's Democratic
Republic, et al., Case No. 18-1315.

Response is due on May 17, 2019.

The Lower Court Case is titled Hmong 1, et al., Petitioners v. Lao
People's Democratic Republic, et al., Case No. 17-16828, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Petitioners Hmongs 1 - 5 attempted to bring this action under the
Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1350 ("ATS"), for atrocities
allegedly committed by the Defendants in Laos as part of a campaign
to destroy the Hmong people to the root.  The Ninth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's Judgment of Dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

Two questions are presented:

   1. Whether petitioners/survivors of the atrocities committed
      by the Laos communist government met their pleading burden
      under the Alien Tort Claims Act by alleging that the USA
      conducted a secret war in Laos; made a verbal request and
      agreement with the King of Laos to hire Hmong people in
      Laos to fight the secret war in Laos; made a solemn promise
      from USA President to King of Laos to protect the Hmong no
      matter who won or lost the war; brought over substantial
      stockpiles of highest grade (CIA grade) level guns,
      ammunition, air planes, barrels of poison; all of which was
      conducted planned out of CIA, Langley, Virginia as official
      acts of the US government, and then later brokered a peace
      treaty forced upon the Laos Royals that was immediately
      thereafter breached by the Laos Communist; resulting in the
      communist taking possession of all the US CIA weapons, and
      turning those very weapons into weapons of a genocide
      against the Hmong people of Laos; and

   2. Whether the immunities afforded to heads of state invoked
      by the Suggestion of Immunity submitted by the United
      States of America pursuant to 28 USC section 517 for the
      Laos President and Prime Minister are inapplicable to this
      case because it involves claims of war crimes involving
      genocide, sex crimes, torture, evisceration, and other
      mayhem committed openly against the Hmong people in Laos.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Ninth
Circuit on Jan. 14 tossed a Hmong woman's proposed class action
accusing Laos and several of its highest-ranking government
officials of trying to exterminate Hmong people who fought in the
Vietnam War as part of the CIA's "secret army."

In an unsigned memorandum, the three-judge panel affirmed findings
that the unidentified woman failed to establish subject-matter
jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute because her allegations
weren't connected with events in the United States.

"Because plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to establish
federal jurisdiction, the district court could not have granted her
default judgment," the 4-page memorandum said.

The Plaintiff, who lives in an unspecified location in Southeast
Asia, sued Laos, its then-president Choummaly Sayasone and several
government ministers in November 2015 following the killing of her
husband in what she called "the official campaign in Laos to
terminate Hmong people."

According to the complaint, Laos' communist government launched a
campaign immediately after the end of the Vietnam War to
"exterminate to their last root" Hmong people in Laos who had
helped the CIA fight Vietcong guerillas on the border between Laos
and Vietnam as part of a CIA-backed "secret army."

The Laotian government "then proceeded to do exactly that and sent
the full force of their firepower into the jungles of Laos where
hundreds of thousands of Hmong veterans of the 'Secret War' and
their descendants were located, killed, maimed, tortured, raped,
and poisoned both the Hmong people and the jungle/their environment
[including poisoning of the water systems and food systems]," the
woman claimed in her lawsuit.[BN]

Petitioners HMONG 1, HMONG 2, HMONG 3, HMONG 4, AND HMONG 5,
FICTITIOUSLY NAMED INDIVIDUALS, are represented by:

          Herman A.D. Franck, Esq.
          FRANCK & ASSOCIATES
          910 Florin Road, Suite 212
          Sacramento, CA 95831
          Telephone: (916) 447-8400
          Facsimile: (916) 447-0720
          E-mail: franckherman@hotmail.com

Respondents LAO PEOPLE S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, et al., are
represented by:

          Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
          SOLICITOR GENERAL
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2203
          E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov


LAZZONI USA: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lazzoni USA Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lazzoni USA Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03756 (S.D. N.Y., April 26, 2019).

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

Lazzoni manufactures high quality, contemporary, functional, modern
furniture and offers complimentary interior design service in New
York and New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


LENDLEASE: Faces Investor Class Action Over Share Price Plunge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the company building the delayed NorthConnex project in Sydney is
facing a class action from investors over its November share price
plunge, caused in part by it revealing it was behind schedule on
the multibillion-dollar road development.

Investors, represented by Maurice Blackburn, are taking action
against construction giant Lendlease over its share tumble in
November following a surprise $350 million write-down on its
engineering business that includes the major Sydney road project.

Maurice Blackburn has started taking registrations for a class
action against the global builder and developer. The law firm
alleges Lendlease broke the Corporations Act by failing to properly
inform its shareholders about serious issues in its engineering and
services arm and by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

Lendlease saw its shares tumble on the day of the write-down
announcement to $14.25 after closing strongly on November 8 at
$17.45. The share fall wiped billions from the company's market
capitalisation over a period of five trading days.

At the time, Lendlease said it was reviewing the division.

Lendlease further updated the market in late February, saying the
engineering and services business would no longer be a required
part of the group's strategy and it would book restructuring costs
of between $450 million and $550 million.

Lendlease told the market at the time that its engineering and
services business had been hit by wet weather, a slowdown in work
on Sydney's NorthConnex, and some other project problems.

Lendlease is also the main contractor on Melbourne's flagship
infrastructure project -- the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project.

The NorthConnex project is expected to be delivered six months
after schedule. The tunnel is due for completion in 2020.

Investors who bought ordinary Lendlease shares between February 21
and November 8 can participate in the claim. A funder has been
secured to fund the class action as well.

At the time, Lendlease said it was reviewing the division.

Lendlease further updated the market in late February, saying the
engineering and services business would no longer be a required
part of the group's strategy and it would book restructuring costs
of between $450 million and $550 million.

Lendlease told the market at the time that its engineering and
services business had been hit by wet weather, a slowdown in work
on Sydney's NorthConnex, and some other project problems.

Lendlease is also the main contractor on Melbourne's flagship
infrastructure project -- the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project.

The NorthConnex project is expected to be delivered six months
after schedule. The tunnel is due for completion in 2020.

Investors who bought ordinary Lendlease shares between February 21
and November 8 can participate in the claim. A funder has been
secured to fund the class action as well. [GN]


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action in U.S. Over Fridge Compressor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Richards, writing for ChannelNews, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed in the USA against LG Electronics is gathering
momentum with owners claiming that food is "going off" because of a
faulty refrigerator compressor and that LG is forcing owners to pay
for a compressor fix despite a 10-year warranty.

Documentation filed in an Illinois federal court against LG claims
that frozen items thaw and ". . . cause water to leak from the
refrigerator onto the consumers' kitchen floors."

In some cases, defendants allege they are ". . . being charged for
replacement parts, despite such parts being covered under
warranty."

Other claims are that "The Compressor Defect prevents the
refrigerators from cooling consumers' food and beverages,
ultimately causing the food and beverages to spoil…"

Michael Lindsley of Waldo in Sheboygan County bought his LG
refrigerator five years ago. His compressor had a 10-year
warranty.

"It simply started making a really loud noise and ice started
actually melting," said Lindsley.

The refrigerator started leaking and his food was spoiled. He
contacted LG for repairs and ended up waiting five months before it
was fixed.

He said appliance vendors working with LG told him it wasn't worth
their time to make the repairs since LG didn't pay them enough for
the service.

Lawyers for the defendants claim that "all" LG refrigerators are
impacted? ChannelNews knows of no cases in Australia or of any of
their local LG refrigerators being affected by the alleged faulty
compressors.

On a Facebook page called "LG Life is NOT GOOD," people from all
over the country are complaining about older refrigerators and new
ones and all different kinds.

In the USA lawyers are pointing media to the Consumer Affairs'
website where they claim there are "thousands" of complaints. (See
Here)

The compressor is a central part of an appliances' cooling process.
Some consumers have apparently run into issues with the
compressors, including outright failures. The problem has affected
refrigerators across different price categories ranging from $1,400
to $7,000 and has rendered the appliances in need of repair within
just a few years of use.

The plaintiffs involved in the case claim they would not have
purchased an LG refrigerator if they knew that there were known
issues with the compressors.

The US National Association of Home Builders claims the average
lifespan of a refrigerator is approximately 13 years. LG reportedly
claims that its refrigerators should have about a have a 20-year
lifespan.

As part of the class-action suit, the affected customers are
seeking to have costs associated with fixing the compressor
compensated. That includes paying for necessary parts and repairs,
as well as reimbursement for food that was spoiled by the
malfunctioning appliances and time spent without a working
refrigerator.

LG has not publicly commented on the class-action suit. [GN]


LIBERATO RESTAURANT: Ramirez Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage for Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
M.L. San Jose Enterprises, Corp., and Manuel Antonio Liberato for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New
York Labor Law, and the supporting New
York State Department of Labor Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous
Industries and Occupations. The case is captioned JOSE RAMIREZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, - against
- M.L. SAN JOSE ENTERPRISES, CORP., (d/b/a LIBERATO RESTAURANT) and
MANUEL ANTONIO LIBERATO, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:19-cv-03429 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2019). Plaintiff Jose Ramirez
accuses M. L. San Jose Enterprises, Corp, trading as Liberato
Restaurant, of failing to pay its delivery car drivers the premium
overtime compensation for all hours worked beyond 40 per workweek.
Plaintiff Ramirez also asserts that the Defendants have violated
the FLSA prohibition against kickbacks by requiring that Plaintiff
and the FLSA Collective to purchase, insure, and maintain a
vehicle, in order to perform his duties as a car delivery driver
and by depriving them of minimum wages free and clear because the
costs associated with owning and maintaining a vehicle cut into
Plaintiff's minimum wages and overtime.

M.L. San Jose Enterprises, Corporation owns, controls and operates
Liberator Restaurant, a Latin American restaurant located at 10 W.
Burnside Ave. Bronx, New York. Owner-operator Manuel Antonio
Liberato determines the wages and compensation of employees,
establishes the schedules of employees, maintains employee records,
and has the authority to hire and fire employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C.
     277 Broadway, Suite 206
     New York, NY 10007
     Telephone: (212) 766-9870
     E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com


LIFEGUARD AMBULANCE: Loper Class Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Loper v. Lifeguard Ambulance Service LLC,
Case No. 01-CV-19-901153.00 was removed on April 17, 2019, from the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00583-JHE to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.[BN]

Plaintiff Heather Loper, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew Phillip Campbell, Esq.
          John Parker Yates, Esq.
          CAMPBELL GUIN WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE LLC
          505 20th Street North Suite 1600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 224-0750
          Facsimile: (205) 383-2647
          E-mail: andy.campbell@campbellguin.com
                  Parker.Yates@campbellguin.com

               - and -

          Kristopher O. Anderson, Esq.
          CLARK PARTINGTON
          4725 Main Street, Ste. F222
          Orange Beach, AL 36561
          Telephone: (251) 245-8595
          Facsimile: (251) 271-0445
          E-mail: kanderson@clarkparkington.com

Defendant Lifeguard Ambulance Service LLC is represented by:

          Douglas L. McCoy, Esq.
          Edward Thomas Rowe, Esq.
          Rodney R. Cate, Esq.
          HAND ARENDALL HARRISON SALE, LLC
          P.O. Box 123
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Telephone: (251) 694-6255
          Facsimile: (251) 694-6375
          E-mail: dmccoy@handarendall.com
                  erowe@handarendall.com
                  rcate@handarendall.com

               - and -

          Mark D. Hess, Esq.
          HAND ARENDALL HARRISON SALE, LLC
          1801 5th Avenue North, Suite 400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 324-4400
          Facsimile: (205) 322-1163
          E-mail: mhess@handarendall.com


LL BEAN: California Judge Dismisses Return Policy Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lori Valigra Bangor, writing for The Keene Sentinel, reports that
a district court judge in California on March 14, 2019, dismissed
the third of four lawsuits filed against outerwear retailer L.L.
Bean after it changed its lifetime return policy in February 2018.

All four lawsuits, in California, Massachusetts, Illinois and New
York, sought class-action status, with the plaintiffs asking for
damages allegedly suffered when L.L. Bean put a time limit on
returns.

L.L. Bean cited fraud and lost revenue as the reasons for the
policy change. In its recent financial performance release, the
company said changes to the return policy have cut fraudulent and
abusive returns. However, it did not reveal the financial benefits
from the policy change.

The California lawsuit was filed May 4, 2018, by William A. Shirley
of Berkeley. It sought class-action status, and was similar to the
first lawsuit filed Feb. 12 in Illinois Northern District Court by
lead plaintiff Victor Bondi of Chicago, and two subsequent
lawsuits. The second was filed Feb. 28, 2018, in New York by Anita
Berger and the third on April 24 in Massachusetts by Benjamin
Pershouse.

Of the four plaintiffs, Pershouse was the only one to have tried to
return an item to L.L. Bean, according to court documents. He was
unsuccessful. His case is ongoing in Massachusetts.

In dismissing the complaint by Shirley, U.S. District Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers wrote, "Shirley alleges no current, concrete
injury. At best, Shirley alleges a hypothetical future harm that
would arise if he attempts to return an item he purchased before
February 2018, and L.L. Bean denies the return for reasons other
than those in the current return policy. Such speculative injuries
do not establish standing."[GN]


LOUISVILLE METRO: Healey et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JACOB HEALEY, et al., the
PLAINTIFFS-Movants, v. LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:17-cv-00071-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the
Plaintiff-Movants Jacob Healey, James Michael Jarvis, Jr., Cynthia
Dawn Yates, and Betty Melloan ask the Court to certify a class
consisting of:

   "all persons who, since February 3, 2016, were imprisoned,
   detained or incarcerated more than four hours after:
   (a) entry of an order directing their release; and/or
   (b) their satisfaction of their term of incarceration set
   by prior court order."

Movants seek injunctive and declaratory relief to reduce
overdetentions at Louisville Metro Department of Corrections if not
stop them entirely.[CC]

Counsel for the Movants:

          James D. Ballinger, Esq.
          Ballinger Law, PLLC
          3610 Lexington Road
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 426-3215
          E-mail: jim@kentuckytrial.com

               - and -

          Gregory A. Belzley, Esq.
          Camille A. Bathurst, Esq.
          Aaron Bentley, Esq.
          BELZLEY, BATHURST & BENTLEY
          P.O. Box 278
          Prospect, KE 40059
          Telephone: (502) 292-2452
          E-mail: gbelzley@aol.com
                  camillebathurst@aol.com
                  abentley3B@gmail.com

M.K. MORSE: Benton Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
Anthony Benton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE M.K. MORSE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00933-JRA (N.D. Ohio, April 25, 2019) is a case challenging
the policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act ("OMFWSA").

Plaintiff, the FLSA Class and the Ohio Class frequently worked more
than 40 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime
compensation under the FLSA and the OMFWSA. However, they were not
paid all of the overtime compensation they earned, says the
comaplaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee
within this district and division within the last three years.

Defendant is an Ohio corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE: Discounted Stock Repurchase Unfair, Says Glynn
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest J. Glynn, Jeffrey T. MacDonald, Douglas K. Johnson and
Joshua T. Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE SUPPLY CO.
and DANIEL GUERIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00176-NT (D. Me.,
April 25, 2019) is a class action arising from Defendant Maine
Oxy's establishment of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"),
the subsequent acquisition of 49% of the company by its employees,
and the Defendants' unlawful efforts to repurchase the shares for a
fraction of their value.

At a minimum, the Defendants intentionally and/or negligently
misrepresented the value of the employees' 49% share of the company
in order to facilitate the repurchase of the employee stock at a
steep discount, to the direct financial benefit of the Defendants
and to the wrongful detriment of the Plaintiffs and the Class, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employees of Maine Oxy and participants in Maine
Oxy's ESOP.

Maine Oxy is a supplier of welding equipment, industrial and
specialty gases that was founded in 1929 and incorporated in the
State of Maine in 1935.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas L. Douglas, Esq.
     DOUGLAS MCDANIEL & CAMPO LLC, PA
     90 Bridge Street, Suite 100
     Westbrook, ME 04092
     Phone: (207) 591-5747
     Email: tdouglas@douglasmcdaniel.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey P. Russell, Esq.
     Bloomer Russell & Beaupain
     175 Exchange St.
     Bangor, ME 04401
     Phone: (207) 942-7110
     Email: jeff@bloomerrussell.com

          - and -

     Lauren Thomas, Esq.
     Law Office of Lauren Thomas, Esq.
     18 Wild Rose Ave.
     South Portland, ME 04106
     Phone: (207) 619-4149
     Email: laurenthomaslaw@gmail.com


MALCOLM S. GERALD: 11 Cir. Flips FDCPA Claim Dismissal in Holzma
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN HOLZMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MALCOLM S.
GERALD & ASSOCIATES, INC., LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 16-16511 (11 Cir.), Judge Julie Carnes of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed
in part the district court's ruling dismissing the Plaintiff's Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), claims pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) and declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act claim.  

Defendant LVNV is a debt collector that purchases and attempts to
collect on time-barred debts.  In 2015, LVNV purchased such a debt,
which had been incurred by the Plaintiff on a personal credit card
years prior and had subsequently been charged off by the original
creditor in 2007.  LVNV retained Defendant Malcolm Gerald &
Associate to collect the debt on LVNV's behalf.  Like LVNV, Malcolm
is a debt collector for purposes of the federal and state statutes
at issue in the litigation.  In connection with its collection
efforts, Malcolm sent the Plaintiff a collection letter.

After receiving the collection letter, the Plaintiff filed a
putative class action complaint against the Defendants asserting
federal claims under the federal FDCPA,  and its state corollary,
the Florida Act.  In support of his FDCPA claims, the Plaintiff
alleged that (1) the letter was "false, deceptive, or misleading"
in violation of Section 1692e of the FDCPA because it could lead a
consumer to believe that there were legal consequences to not
making the requested payment when, in fact, the statute of
limitations barred legal enforcement of the debt; and (2)
attempting to collect on the Plaintiff's time-barred debt via the
letter constituted an "unfair or unconscionable" practice in
violation of Section 1692f of the FDCPA.  The Plaintiff further
alleged that the letter violated the Florida Act because it falsely
asserted a legal right that Defendants knew did not exist.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule 12(b)(6).  In an oral ruling and following a
hearing on the motion, the district court dismissed the Plaintiff's
FDCPA claims with prejudice.  In support of its ruling, the court
cited Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc., Huertas v. Galaxy
Asset Management, and Ehrich v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., for
the legal principle that the FDCPA permits debt collectors to seek
voluntary repayment of time-barred debt so long as the debt
collector does not initiate or threaten legal action in connection
with its debt collection efforts.  It determined that the letter
the Plaintiff received did not contain any language that could be
interpreted as initiating or threatening legal action.  Thus,
accepting the legal principle announced in Freyermuth, Huertas, and
Ehrich, the court concluded that the Plaintiff's allegations did
not assert a plausible violation of the FDCPA.

In so ruling, the district court distinguished Daugherty v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Buchanan v. Northland Group., Inc.,
and McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC,in which the Fifth, Sixth, and
Seventh Circuits, respectively, held that a collection letter
offering to "settle" a time-barred debt, but not threatening
litigation, could nonetheless serve as the basis for an FDCPA
claim.  The district court noted that the collection letter
Plaintiff received offered to "resolve" his time-barred debt, not
"settle" it.  According to the court, the "settle" language used in
the letters at issue in Daugherty, Buchanan, and McMahon was more
akin to a threat of legal action than the "resolve" language used
in the letter Plaintiff received.  Consequently, the court
determined that the Plaintiff could not state a viable FDCPA claim
under the rationale of Daugherty, Buchanan, or McMahon.

Having dismissed the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims, the district court
declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
Florida Act claim.  The court thus dismissed this claim without
prejudice.

The Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his FDCPA and Florida Act
claims.  He argues that he has presented a plausible claim that the
collection letter he received from Defendants was "false,
deceptive, or misleading" in violation of Section 1692e of the
FDCPA, given that the debt referenced in the letter was legally
unenforceable.  In addition, the Plaintiff argues that the general
practice of attempting to collect time-barred consumer debts is per
se "unfair or unconscionable" in violation of § 1692f of the
FDCPA.  Assuming his federal claims are revived pursuant to either
argument, the Plaintiff asserts that his state claim should be
reinstated and addressed on the merits.

Judge Holzman finds that it is at least plausible that the
collection letter the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff would have
been "false, deceptive, or misleading" to the "least sophisticated"
recipient of the letter, in violation of Section 1692e of the
FDCPA.  As the Plaintiff has thus stated a claim for relief under
Section 1692e of the FDCPA, the district court's order dismissing
the Plaintiff's Section 1692e claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is
reversed,

Although he finds that the Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim
that the Defendants' collection letter was misleading under Section
1692e, the Judge rejects the Plaintiff's claim that the general
practice of attempting to collect on time-barred debt is per se
unfair or unconscionable in violation of 1692f of the FDCPA.
Accordingly, he affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
Plaintiff's claim under Section 1692f.

The district court did not dismiss the Plaintiff's Florida claim on
substantive grounds, but rather declined to exercise pendent
jurisdiction over it after dismissing the Plaintiff's federal FDCPA
claims.  In light of his reversal of the ruling as to the
Plaintiff's claim under Section 1692e of the FDCPA, the Judge holds
that the Plaintiff's Florida claim should be reinstated for
consideration on the merits.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Holzman affirmed in part and
reversed in part the district court's ruling dismissing the
Plaintiff's FDCPA claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and declining to
exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's Florida Act claim.  The
case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Wy9Hrd from Leagle.com.

Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Alexander Daniel Weisberg -- aweisberg@carlemon.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

David Neal McDevitt -- dmcdevitt@thompsonconsumerlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.


MATT MARTORELLO: Weddle v. Williams Moved From Colo. to Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Weddle v. Williams, et al., Case No.
1:18-mc-00225, was transferred on April 16, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).

The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-mc-00015-REP to the proceeding.

In June 2017, the Respondents filed suit in the Eastern District of
Virginia, alleging that Defendant Matt Martorello ("Defendant
Martorello") and others (collectively "Defendants") engaged in a
"criminal enterprise established with the intent of evading state
usury laws."  Specifically, the Respondents allege that Defendants
employed a "rent-a-tribe" business model, whereby a payday lending
scheme associates with a Native American tribe "in an attempt to
cloak itself in the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the tribe
-- or to at least create the illusion that it enjoys tribal
immunity."[BN]

Respondents Lula Williams, Gloria Turnage, George Hengle, Dowin
Coffy and Marcella P. Singh, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th St., Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-6689
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

Third-Party Defendant Matt Martorello is represented by:

          Michelle Lynne Alamo, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          4643 S Ulster Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80237
          Telephone: (720) 722-7189
          Facsimile: (720) 200-0679
          E-mail: malamo@armstrongteasdale.com

               - and -

          Richard Lawrence Scheff, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          1500 Market Street, 12th Floor East Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 246-3469
          Facsimile: (215) 569-8228
          E-mail: rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com

Movant Jennifer Weddle is represented by:

          William Daniel Hauptman, Esq.
          Carolyn J. Fairless, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: hauptman@wtotrial.com
                  fairless@wtotrial.com


MCKINLEY HOMEBUILDERS: Jackson Hits Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA JACKSON, CHRISTINA HICKS, LARRY HICKS, AND STEPHEN
DICKERSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MCKINLEY HOMEBUILDERS, INC., MCKINLEY
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., HB AMERICAN GROUP, INC. d/b/a HB
RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, DENALI LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., YELLOW ROSE
COMMERCIAL ASSETS, INC., COTTONWOOD COMMERCIAL ASSETS, INC., GREY
MOSS INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., AMERICA FOCUS GROUP, LLC, AMERICA &
CHINA INVESTMENT SERVICE CENTER, INC., CFA CABINETRY (DALLAS) LLC.,
CLEVELAND GRAND OAKS RESERVE HOA, INC., TEXAS CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS, INC., VMC TOOL SOLUTIONS LLC, 7S ALLIANCE, LLC, RENCOTX
CONSULTING, LLC, & JIAYOU GONG, YI ZHAO, YUHAI ZHAO, JIE ZHOU, FANG
ZHAO, DAVID NEMETH, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-01544 (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2019) is a collective action
and lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated employees to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages
from Defendants.

This is a collective action complaint brought on behalf of a class
of individuals who were employed by Defendants and whom Defendants
classified as exempt or independent contractors. Defendants
employed Plaintiffs for various roles and titles within the
organization. Defendants did so to avoid having to pay staff
appropriately.

The Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as exempt and failed to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Jessica Jackson further
alleges racial discrimination.

Plaintiffs were individuals who were employed by Defendants.

McKinley Homebuilders, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation
doing business in the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Samantha Martinez, Esq.
     325 Heights Blvd.
     Houston, TX 77007
     Phone: (713) 333-3270
     Telecopier: (713) 333-3275
     Email: sam@mtzfirm.com


MDL 2672: Bid to Remand Cook to Alabama State Court Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt.
No. 3659 Crook v. VWGoA, No. 3:17-cv-1977-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB
(JSC) (N.D. Cal.), to Alabama state court.

The Plaintiffs are three individuals who each bought a Volkswagen
or Audi 2.0-liter TDI diesel-engine car, and who opted out of the
Court-approved 2.0-liter class action settlement.  They allege that
VWGoA and Volkswagen AG marketed Volkswagen and Audi TDI
diesel-engine cars as having low emissions, good gas mileage, and
an environmentally-friendly engine.  To obtain these benefits, the
Plaintiffs allege that they agreed to pay premium prices for the
cars.

In fact, the cars did not have low emissions and were not good for
the environment.  And not only were the cars' emissions higher than
represented, but VW knew this.  VW knew that the cars could not
perform as promised and had specifically developed and installed
software in them that detected and evaded emissions testing.
During testing, the cars appeared to satisfy governing emission
standards; but when the cars were on the road, they emitted
nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the legal limits.  VW has since
admitted that it equipped its TDI diesel-engine cars with
emissions-cheating software and that it intentionally deceived U.S.
regulators and U.S. consumers about the cars' emissions.

The Crook complaint includes four claims against VW. The claims are
for (1) fraudulent concealment, (2) fraudulent misrepresentations,
(3) violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("DTPA"), and (4) unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiffs seek remedies
which include actual and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

VWGoA removed Crook to federal court, in part on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction.  VW AG was not served and did not join the
notice of removal.  The Plaintiffs responded by filing a motion to
remand.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that there is complete diversity of
citizenship between them, on the one hand, and VWGoA and VW AG on
the other.  They have, however, made a factual attack on VWGoA's
amount-in-controversy allegations.

VWGoA, in responding to the Plaintiffs' factual attack, has
submitted evidence of the amount in controversy.  That evidence
falls into three categories: proof of actual damages in dispute,
proof of punitive damages in dispute, and proof of attorneys' fees
in dispute.  In considering the evidence, the Court must determine
whether a preponderance of it supports that the $75,000 threshold
has been passed.

Judge Breyer found that the Plaintiffs do not dispute that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between them, on the one hand,
and VWGoA and VW AG on the other.  Also, a preponderance of the
evidence supports that the amount-in-controversy requirement is
met.  The Judge therefore concluded that it has diversity
jurisdiction over Crook.  Accordingly, he denied the motion to
remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/iET5vz from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David
M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer
--
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2672: Brooks Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California remanded the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN
DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 3642 Brooks, No.
3:17-cv-3308-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), to the state
court where it was filed.

The Plaintiffs are a couple who bought a Volkswagen TDI
diesel-engine car.  They filed their case in Florida state court
and named Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA"), Volkswagen
AG ("VW AG"), and Direct B, LLC, doing business as Brandon
Volkswagen as the Defendants.  VWGoA removed the case to federal
court based on federal-question jurisdiction.

Pending now is the Plaintiffs' motion to remand their case to state
court.

Judge Breyer granted the motion.  He finds that the Plaintiffs'
complaint is materially the same as complaints that the Court
examined in a recent Order in which it held that it lacked
federal-question jurisdiction.  He adopted the same reasoning in
the instant matter; the Court does not have federal-question
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' case.

VWGoA argues that removal was alternatively appropriate on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction.  VWGoA removed the Plaintiffs'
case only based on federal-question jurisdiction.  Because
federal-question jurisdiction is lacking, the Plaintiffs' case was
not properly removed, and the Judge cannot now consider a ground
for removal that VWGoA did not identify in its notice of removal.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
does not warrant a different conclusion.  The court held there that
if the defendant's removal notice identifies a valid ground for
removal, then even if that ground for removal disappears (e.g., if
the basis for removal was federal-question jurisdiction and all
federal claims are later dismissed), the district court must retain
jurisdiction on any other ground apparent from the complaint, even
if that ground was not identified in the notice of removal.
Because VWGoA did not identify a valid basis for removal in its
removal notice, Williams does not apply, and the Judge cannot now
consider a separate ground for removal that VWGoA raised for the
first time in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

The Clerk of the Court will remand the case to the state court
where it was filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/iKW6pv from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David
M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer
--
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2672: McGowan Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California remanded the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN
DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 3640 McGowan,
3:16-cv-3204-CRB McGowan, 3:16-cv-4742-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)
(N.D. Cal.), to the state court where it was filed.

Edward Robert McGowan is an individual who bought a Volkswagen TDI
diesel-engine car in 2010.  After he learned that the car used a
defeat device to evade emission standards, he filed suit in
Louisiana state court against VWGoA, Volkswagen AG, and VW Credit
Leasing, LTD.  VW AG and VW Credit each filed a notice of removal,
and VWGoA consented to removal.  The Defendants alleged in their
notices that removal was appropriate based on federal question and
diversity jurisdiction.

Pending now is the Plaintiff's motion to remand his case to state
court.

Judge Breyer granted the motion.  He finds that the Plaintiff's
complaint is materially the same as complaints that the Court
examined in a recent Order in which it held that it lacked
federal-question jurisdiction.  He adopted the same reasoning in
the instant matter; the Court does not have federal-question
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's case.

Although the Defendants also removed the Plaintiff's case based on
diversity jurisdiction, they have since acknowledged that diversity
jurisdiction is lacking.  The Court will therefore not retain the
case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Judge Breyer concludes the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over the Plaintiff's case.  As a result, the Clerk of the Court
will remand the case to the state court where it was filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/rCq04c from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David
M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer
--
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2848: Hedlund Suit vs. Merck over Zostavax Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHARLOTTE HEDLUND the Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC.,
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-81504
(E.D. Pa., April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages including
medical expenses; the loss of accumulations; and other economic
damage.

In June 7, 2016, Plaintiff was inoculated with Defendants' Zostavax
vaccine at the Walmart pharmacy in Murfreesboro, Tennessee for
routine health maintenance and for its intended purpose: the
prevention of shingles (herpes zoster).

Shortly after receiving Defendants' Zostavax vaccine, on or about
June 24, 2016, Plaintiff suffered debilitating injuries including
bilateral facial cellulitis, abscesses to her face and eyes and
peri orbital soft tissue swelling and edema which caused severe
pain and disfigurement resulting in hospitalization for
approximately four days

As a direct and proximate result of Merck's defective Zostavax
vaccine, Plaintiffs symptoms have resulted in physical limitations
not present prior to using Merck's product and caused by the
Zostavax vaccine. Plaintiff also experiences mental and emotional
distress due to resulting physical limitations and seriousness of
her condition and has suffered economic losses due to her inability
to work.

The Hedlund case is being consolidated in MDL No. 2848 Re: Zostavax
(Zoster Vaccine Live) Products Liability Litigation, pursuant to an
order by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered on August 2, 2018. All actions involve common
factual questions arising out of allegations that Zostavax, a live
vaccine for the prevention of shingles, caused plaintiffs to
develop shingles or other injuries triggered by exposure to the
live, attenuated varicella zoster virus contained in the vaccine,
and that defendants did not provide sufficient warning of the risks
to healthcare providers or consumers. Issues concerning the design,
testing, manufacture, regulatory approval, labeling, and marketing
of Zostavax are common to all actions. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

In its August 2, 2018 order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel concluded
that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate
transferee district for this litigation. Seven actions are pending
in this district, and they are the earliest filed and most advanced
actions in this litigation. The record indicates that the Merck
facilities involved in the development, manufacturing, labeling,
and marketing of Zostavax are located in Pennsylvania and nearby at
its New Jersey headquarters. Thus, many of the common documents and
witnesses likely will be located in this area.

Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
          24110 Eden Street
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
          E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com

MDL 2885: Amaro et al. Suit over Defective Earplugs Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ANTONIO AMARO, JR., RYAN M. DOWNEY,
KARL FLEMING, DEMIEN FRAN, KEVIN A. GARDNER, SR., JOSEPH ALLEXANDER
GROLL, SR., ISSAC MALONE, CLAYTON ANTHONY MAYNARD, KEITH B. MENDES,
RONALD NEUMEISTER, ANDREW JOSEPH ONDISH, TRAVIS JAMES RUBLE, BRIAN
ANTHONY SALOIS, AND DOUGLAS TRUSSELL,, the Plaintiffs, v. 3M
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-913 (Filed April 2, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Pensacola) on April 29, 2019. The Northern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01170-MCR-GRJ to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage
they allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S.
military, including during foreign conflicts. They contend that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

The Amaro case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M Combat
Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share common factual
questions and centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other
pretrial matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Jacob R. Jagdfeld, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1810
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jjagdfeld@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq.
          Timothy J Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1806
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com
          tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

Counsel for 3M Company:

          Benjamin Hulse, Esq.
          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE P.A.
          431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3248
          Facsimile: (612) 343-3205
          E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  bhulse@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com

MDL 2885: Britton vs 3M over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LOUIS BRITTON, JR., the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01200-RV-EMT
(N.D. Fla., April 29, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage the class allegedly suffered while serving in
various capacities in the U.S. military, including during foreign
conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs,
Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively
designed and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M
denies these allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

The Britton case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M
Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions and centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net

MDL 2885: Coyaso Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled ACHIQUE COYASO v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS,
LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC, AND AEARO TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00097, was transferred on April 16, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00670-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

The lawsuit arises out of an alleged extensive fraud that 3M
perpetrated on the United States Government and the men and women,
who served in the United States Armed Forces.  From approximately
2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the USAF tens of thousands of
dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs")
which 3M falsely represented as meeting the military's
specifications, including that they were suitable for use as
hearing protection for military personnel and that they were free
from all defects that impair their serviceability.  All the while,
3M knew the Combat Arms Earplugs were defective and would expose
service members to the extremely dangerous and disabling noise the
Combat Arms Earplugs were supposed to protect against.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Francis Perkin, Esq.
          Brandee J.K. Faria, Esq.
          James Wade, Esq.
          PERKIN & FARIA, LLLC
          841 Bishop Street, Suite 1000
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 523-2300
          Facsimile: (808) 697-5304
          E-mail: perkin@perkinlaw.com
                  bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com
                  jwade@perkinlaw.com

MDL 2885: Dufresne-Yidi Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled JONATHAN N. DUFRESNE-YIDI, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
0:19-cv-60739, was transferred on April 16, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00652-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation styled
IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

Plaintiff Jonathan N. Dufresne-Yidi brings this federal Complaint
against 3M: (1) on his own behalf to recover damages for his
personal injuries incurred while in training and/or on active
military duty, resulting from Defendant's defective and
unreasonably dangerous product, the Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM)
earplugs (Version 2 CAEv.2) ("Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM)
earplugs"), and (2) on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated individuals, requested to establish a
Court-supervised fund to provide medical monitoring to active-duty
and veteran service members of the armed forces of the United
States of America due to their increased risk from using 3M's
defective products, and to extend some of the claims deadlines for
fraudulent tolling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com


MDL 2885: Garcia Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled ROBERTO GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-21005,
was transferred on April 16, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00659-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

The action arises out of alleged serious and permanent personal
injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, a veteran of the United States
military, as well as thousands of similarly situated veterans, who
all risked their lives while defending the country.  The Plaintiff
contends he specifically used the Defendant's dangerously defective
Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs while deployed in Afghanistan
and during other training and combat exercises.  The Defendant sold
the Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs to the U.S. military for
more than a decade without the military and/or the Plaintiff having
any knowledge of the defect(s) and failed to adequately warn the
military and/or the Plaintiff of the defect(s).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Matthew Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-5269
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          Facsimile: (786) 298-5737
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Suzanne Marie Aldahan, Esq.
          HOLLAND AND KNIGHT
          215 Royal Palm Way
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 213-3932
          E-mail: suzanne.aldahan@hklaw.com


MDL 2885: Gould et al. Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GUY F. GOULD, ADRIAN LUMUN
HUTCHISON, JOSE JAIME IBARRA, III, TERRY NELSON IRVIN, JR., WILLIAM
DEVIA JACKSON, BRANDIE JOHNSON, JOSHUA ETHAN JORDAN, TRAVIS S.
PAINTER, and ISMAIL MALIIK SCOTT, the Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-784 (Filed March 20, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Pensacola) on April 29, 2019. The Northern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01150-MCR-GRJ to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage
they allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S.
military, including during foreign conflicts. They contend that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

The Gould case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M Combat
Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share common factual
questions and centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other
pretrial matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Jacob R. Jagdfeld, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1810
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jjagdfeld@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq.
          Timothy J Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1806
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com
          tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

Counsel for 3M Company:

          Benjamin Hulse, Esq.
          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE P.A.
          431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3248
          Facsimile: (612) 343-3205
          E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  bhulse@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com

MDL 2885: Lynch Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled SEAN LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00273, was transferred on April 17, 2019, from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00709-MCR-GRJ to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of Lt. Sean Lynch and a Class of
all military personnel, who have used 3M's Combat Arms(TM)
Earplugs.  The lawsuit seeks medical monitoring for the Plaintiff
and the Class to help diagnose and/or mitigate hearing loss and
hearing related maladies resulting from the use of 3M's defective
product.[BN]

Plaintiff SEAN LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Jessica Hamman Meeder, Esq.
          MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY
          1 South Street, Suite 2300
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 951-8744
          E-mail: jessica.meeder@murphyfalcon.com

               - and -

          Steven William Teppler, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
          5715 Firestone Ct.
          Sarasota, FL 34238
          Telephone: (941) 487-0050
          Facsimile: (941) 870-4403
          E-mail: steppler@timecertain.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

Defendant 3M COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, is represented by:

          Kimberly O. Branscome, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          E-mail: kimberly.branscome@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 N Lasalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: robert.ellis@kirkland.com


MDL 2885: McDonagh Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MCDONAGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 9:19-cv-80253, was transferred on
April 16, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00663-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation styled
IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

The Plaintiff alleges that he wore 3M's Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM)
earplugs while in training and in the field and while in active
duty.  He contends that he now suffers from bilateral hearing loss
as a direct result of 3M's admittedly defective products.  This
case seeks, among other things, damages for Mr. McDonagh as a
direct result of him using these defective ear plugs while serving
the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  adams@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Suzanne Marie Aldahan, Esq.
          HOLLAND AND KNIGHT
          215 Royal Palm Way
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 213-3932
          E-mail: suzanne.aldahan@hklaw.com


MDL 2885: Smith Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARK SMITH, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01202-MCR-HTC
(N.D. Fla., April 29, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage they allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contend that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2")
manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed
to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

The Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M Combat
Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share common factual
questions and centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other
pretrial matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary. In April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions arising
out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were
defective, causing plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or
tinnitus. Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all actions.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead
case is 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net

MDL 2885: Stokes Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled SHAYNE STOKES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-14098,
was transferred on April 16, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00661-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

The action arises out of serious and permanent personal injuries
sustained by the Plaintiff, a veteran of the United States
military, as well as thousands of similarly situated veterans, who
all risked their lives while defending the country.  The Plaintiff
contends he used 3M's defective earplugs in training and/or on
active military duty domestically and abroad.  He specifically used
the Defendant's dangerously defective Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM)
earplugs while deployed in Iraq and during other training and
combat exercises.  The Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat
Arms(TM) earplugs to the U.S. military for more than a decade
without the military and/or the Plaintiff having any knowledge of
the defect(s) and failed to adequately warn the military and/or the
Plaintiff of the defect(s).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Suzanne Marie Aldahan, Esq.
          HOLLAND AND KNIGHT
          215 Royal Palm Way
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 213-3932
          E-mail: suzanne.aldahan@hklaw.com


MDL 2885: Torres Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled NOEL TORRES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-21001,
was transferred on April 16, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00656-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation styled
IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
veterans to recover damages for their personal injuries incurred
while in training and/or on active military duty, resulting from
the Defendant's defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the
Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs.  The Dual-ended Combat
Arms(TM) earplugs were provided for single use while the Plaintiff
was deployed and during his pre-deployment training.  The Plaintiff
alleges he now suffers from hearing loss as a direct result of 3M's
admittedly defective products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Suzanne Marie Aldahan, Esq.
          HOLLAND AND KNIGHT
          215 Royal Palm Way
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 213-3932
          E-mail: suzanne.aldahan@hklaw.com


MDL 2885: Wimberley Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GERALD WIMBERLEY, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01204-RV-MJF
(N.D. Fla., April 29, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage they allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contend that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2")
manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed
to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

The Wimberley case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M
Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions and centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net

MENDAKOTA CASUALTY: Graves Sues Over Insurance Policy Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Graves, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mendakota Casualty Company, Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH05372 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 26, 2019) is a
class action lawsuit by Plaintiff, the named insured under a
Mendakota automobile policy issued for private passenger auto
physical damage coverage, including collision or physical damage
other than collision, which requires payment of "Actual Cash Value"
or "ACY" in the case of a total loss of the insured vehicle.

One of the coverages Defendant offers is collision or physical
damage other than collision coverage. Upon information and belief,
Defendant systematically underpaid not just Plaintiff but numerous
other putative class members, asserts the complaint. Moreover,
Defendant failed to pay the amounts it owed its insureds for losses
for total loss vehicles insured with ACY collision coverage.

This lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated insureds who suffered damages due to
Defendant's practice of refusing to pay full ACV payments or full
total loss payment ("FTLP") to first-party total loss insureds on
physical damage coverage, including collision or physical damage
other than collision coverage. Specifically, as a matter of policy,
Defendant fails to include both sales tax and vehicle title
transfer and vehicle registration fees ("Vehicle Title and
Registration Fees") in its calculation of ACV when paying FTLP to
its insureds, which is a breach of the insurance policy, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff owned a 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo
(VINIC4RJFAG1GC414027) and insured the vehicle with Defendant.

Defendant is a large private-passenger automobile insurance company
that operates, among other states, in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
     Robert J Wozniak, Esq.
     Brian M Hogan, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLENLLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannock bum, IL 60015
     Phone: (224) 632-4500
     Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
     Email: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
            rwozniak@tklmlaw.com
            bhogan@fklmlaw.com

          - and -

     Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 389-0600
     Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
     Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
            utanski@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
     Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
     One West Las Olas, Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 525-4100
     Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
     Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
     Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
            streisfeld@kolawyers.com


MERCHANT INDUSTRY: Fabricant Sues Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCHANT INDUSTRY, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03313 (C.D. Cal.,
April 25, 2019) seeks redress under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") for Defendant's practice of placing
automated telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers without
prior express written consent.

In order to sell Swipe4Free, Defendant purchases "leads" (i.e.,
names and contact information of potential buyers) from third
parties and then places automated telemarketing calls to those
"leads." The Defendant used VanillaSoft software to both manage its
list of leads and to place the automated telephone calls.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not have Plaintiff's
prior express written consent to place these calls. Defendant's
calls harmed Plaintiff by violating his rights under the TCPA.
Defendant's calls harmed Plaintiff by causing the very harm that
Congress sought to prevent--a "nuisance and invasion of privacy."
The Defendant's calls harmed Plaintiff by trespassing upon and
interfering with his rights and interests in his cellular
telephone, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Fabricant is an individual and a resident of Los Angeles
County, California.

Defendant sells credit card processing equipment marketed as
"Swipe4Free" to small businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     PATRIC A. LESTER, ESQ.
     CONSUMER ATTORNEY ADVOCATES, INC.
     5694 Mission Center Road, #385
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 665-3888
     Fax: (314) 241-5777
     Email: pl@lesterlaw.com

          - and -

     TIMOTHY J. SOSTRIN, ESQ.
     KEOGH LAW, LTD
     55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 726-1092
     Fax: (312) 726-1093
     Email: TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Class in Knight FDCPA Suit Has Prelim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENEISHA KNIGHT, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC,
Civil Action No. 17-3118 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mark A. Kearney of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Finding that the Plaintiff amply satisfied prerequisites for a
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), the
Judge preliminarily certified the action to proceed as a class
action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of the
Class defined as all consumers with an address in Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania who received collection letters from Midland
Credit Management, Inc. dated on or after July 14, 2016 in
substantially the same form as Exhibit A attached to the Second
Amended Complaint, concerning debts incurred primarily for
personal, household, or family purposes and originally owed to
Capital One Bank, N.A.

He appointed Reneisha Knight as the Class representative, and the
Plaintiff's counsel, Zemel Law, LLC, as the Class Counsel.

The Class Counsel shall, as soon as practicable, confer with the
Defendant's counsel regarding appropriate notice to the Class
compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).  As
soon as possible and no later than April 16, 2019, the Plaintiff's
counsel will move under our Policies, including describing both
parties' position on any remaining irreconcilable objection to the
negotiated notice, to approve a form and protocol for notice to the
Class to satisfy due process including under Rule 23.  The
opposition to the proposed notice will be filed within five days of
the Class Counsel's motion for approval.

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

RENEISHA KNIGHT, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED CONSUMERS, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXANDER R. FERRANTE
-- aferrante1@verizon.net -- GOLD & FERRANTE, DANIEL ZEMEL, ZEMEL
LAW LLC & ELIZABETH EASLEY APOSTOLA, ZEMEL LAW LLC.

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW M.
SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN PC & STEPHEN KEIM -- sgkeim@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL
DENNEHEY.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Dipisa Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew T. Dipisa
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02467 (E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Robert J Johnson
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02479 (E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Woos Investors for Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (NYSE: MBT) securities
between March 19, 2014 and March 7, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 20, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Mobile TeleSystems and its subsidiary were involved in a
scheme to pay $420 million in bribes in Uzbekistan; (2)
consequently, Mobile TeleSystems knew or should have known it would
be forced to pay substantial fines to the U.S. government after
disclosing in 2014 that the U.S. Department of Justice and
Securities and Exchange Commission were investigating its
Uzbekistan operations; (3) Mobile TeleSystems' level of cooperation
with the U.S. government and remediation was lacking; (4) due to
the aforementioned misconduct, Mobile TeleSystems would be forced
to pay approximately $850 million in criminal penalties to the U.S.
government; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Mobile TeleSystems securities during the Class
Period or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class
Period, have information, would like to learn more about these
claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters please contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Oleyar Seeks to Recover Damages for Roundup Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORETTA OLEYAR v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-00133 (E.D.
Tenn., April 17, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the alleged
injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as the direct and proximate
result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing,
labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

Ms. Oleyar maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel V. Parish, Esq.
          WOLFF ARDIS, P.C.
          5810 Shelby Oaks Drive
          Memphis, TN 38134
          Telephone: (901) 763-3336
          Facsimile: (901) 763-3376
          E-mail: dparish@wolffardis.com

               - and -

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


MOPHIE INC: Hid Juice Pack's Low Capacity, Dolar Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAN DOLAR, individually and on behalf of those similarly
sisturated, PLAINTIFF, V. MOPHIE, INC., a California corporation,
DEFENDANT, Case No. 30-2019-01066228-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty., April 25, 2019) seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful, unjust, unfair, and deceptive practices in
misrepresenting the capacity of its products in violation of state
law during the applicable statute of limitations period.

A power bank with a higher capacity, as is expressed in
milliampere-hours ("mAh"), has a greater ability to recharge PEDs
compared to a power bank with a lower capacity. The primary value
and main differentiator is the power bank's capacity as compared to
other power banks. Thus, consumers prefer and are willing to pay a
premium for power banks with higher mAh ratings.

Unfortunately for consumers, testing has shown that the Defendant's
Products' actual capacity is substantially lower than what Mophie
represents, notes the complaint. By deceiving consumers about the
Products' capacity, Mophie is able to sell more of, and charge more
for, the Products, than it could if they were labeled accurately.
Further, Mophie was also motivated to mislead consumers to take
away market share from competing products, thereby increasing its
own sales and profits, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased a Juice Pack compatible with his Pixel XL phone
in 2017.

Mophie manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale to consumers
nationwide and in California a number of Power Banks under the
Powerstation and Juice Pack labels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
     BROWN, NERI, SMITH & KHAN, LLP
     11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2080
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (310) 593-9890
     Fax: (310) 593-9980
     Email: nate@bnsklaw.com

          - and -

     D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     Sara K. Bonaiuto, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
     445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone (914) 298-3290
     Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
            sbonaiuto@fbfglaw.com

          - and -

     E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
     Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
     Minneapolis, MN 55414
     Phone (612) 594-5999; (612) 584-4470
     Email: emdrake@bm.net
            jhashmall@bm.net


MOWI ASA: Bagels & Baguettes Sues Over Salmon Price-fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Bagels & Baguettes, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine
Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of
Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes
Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc.,
Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar
ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish
Sea Farms Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21579 (S.D. Fla.,
April 25, 2019) is a lawsuit arising from unlawful coordination of
the price of farm-raised salmon and salmon products derived
therefrom which were sold by Defendants between July 1, 2015 and
the present in violation of federal antitrust law and various state
antitrust and unfair competition, consumer protection and unfair
trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws.

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

Plaintiff seeks to represent a Nationwide Class consisting of all
commercial and institutional purchasers in the United States and
its territories that purchased farm-raised salmon and/or products
derived therefrom ("Farm-Raised Salmon"), once or more, other than
directly from Defendants, entities owned or controlled by
Defendants, or other producers of farm-raised salmon or products
derived therefrom, from July 1, 2015 to the present, says the
complaint.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samueal J. Dubbin, Esq.
     DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP
     1200 Anastasia Avenue
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 371-4700
     Email: sdubbin@dubbinkravetz.com

          - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     Jennifer Kelly, Esq.
     Blaine Finley, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
            danielc@cuneolaw.com
            jkelly@cuneolaw.com
            bfinley@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     David McMullan, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. BOX 927
     404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Phone: (662) 834-2488
     Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
            dmcmmullan@barrettlawgroup.com


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Dicristo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Mark Dicristo individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02470
(E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2019).

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

National Recovery Solutions LLC was founded in 2006. The company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE: Onley Alleges Breach of Insurance Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Nationwide Mutual
Fire Insurance Company for alleged breach of insurance contract and
violation of Georgia law. The case is captioned WILLA ONLEY,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00141-MTT (M.D. Ga., April 17, 2019).  Georgia law
and Defendant's insurance policies with Plaintiff Willa Onley and
the putative class members have required Defendant to assess for
and, where found, pay damages for diminution in value of
Defendant's insureds' properties resulting from covered insurance
claims. Despite these obligations, Defendant has reportedly failed
to assess its insureds' properties for diminution in value and has
never paid its insureds for any diminution in value which their
properties may have incurred. In violation of Georgia law and in
breach of its insurance contract with Plaintiff, Defendant failed
to perform an assessment of Plaintiff's property for diminution in
value that exists despite physical repairs of the water damage and
failed to pay Plaintiff for such diminution in value to her insured
home or deny the existence of diminished value.

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company is a foreign insurance
company that is incorporated in Ohio, and which maintains its
principal place of business at One West Nationwide Boulevard,
1-04-701, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2220. The company is a licensed
insurer in the state of Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam P. Princenthal, Esq.
     PRINCENTHAL &MAY, LLC
     750 Hammond Drive
     Building 12, Suite 200
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Telephone: (678) 534-1980
     E-mail: adam@princemay.com

              - and -

     Richard Kopelman, Esq.
     Clint W. Sitton, Esq.
     KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC
     5855 Sandy Springs Circle, Suite 300
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Telephone: 404-351-5900
     E-mail: clint@kopelmansitton.com
             richard@kopelmansitton.com

              - and -

     C. Cooper Knowles, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF C. COOPER KNOWLES, LLC
     750 Hammond Drive
     Building 12, Suite 350
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Telephone: (770) 668-2081
     E-mail: cknowles@cckfirm.com

              - and -

     Michael J. Brickman, Esq.
     Kimberly Keevers Palmer, Esq.
     Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
     James C. Bradley, Esq.
     RICHARDSON, PATRICK,WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
     1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A (29464)
     Post Office Box 1007
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
     Telephone: (843) 727-6500
     E-mail: mbrickman@rpwb.com
             kkeevers@rpwb.com
             nfields@rpwb.com
             jbradley@rpwb.com


NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Class Action Lower Court Rulings Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Griffith, Esq. -- lgriffith@littler.com -- and Ira D.
Wincott, Esq. -- iwincott@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson, in
an article for Mondaq, report that the day most anxiously
anticipated (or dreaded) by the vast home care industry in New York
has arrived, and a huge sigh of relief from home care agencies and
New Yorkers who rely on their services can be heard across the
state.  An industry that has been fraught with hundreds of class
action lawsuits was given the green light on March 26, 2019, to
continue to follow the New York Department of Labor's (NY DOL)
interpretative guidance and pay home care aides for 13 hours of a
24-hour shift, so long as the workers are afforded 8 hours for
sleep breaks (5 of which are uninterrupted) and 3 hours for meal
breaks.

The April 2 decision in Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care, Inc.
and Moreno v. Future Care Health Care Services, Inc., reversed
lower appellate court and trial court rulings that refused to give
deference to the NY DOL's interpretive guidance and directed that
home care aides were entitled to compensation for every hour of a
24-hour shift, regardless of breaks.  An alternative decision would
have been devastating and quite literally could have led to the
collapse of the industry.  

The Court of Appeals remanded to the lower courts the issue of
whether class action treatment of cases is appropriate where home
care aides do not receive the requisite sleep and meal breaks and
are nonetheless paid for only 13 hours of a 24-hour shift. [GN]


NORTHBOUND INVESTMENTS: Does not Pay Proper OT Wages, Says Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM ABRAHAM HERNANDEZ and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NORTHBOUND INVESTMENTS CORPORTION d/b/a BACCI'S PIZZA
& PASTA, CHRISTOPHER M. GRAW, and DANIEL C. THOMPSON, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00996-G (N.D. Tex., April 25, 2019) is an action
arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants have employed several other similarly situated
employees like the Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime for
work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly and/or minimum wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of being paid
set weekly salaries regardless of the hours actually worked from
the filing of this complaint back at least three years, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff ADAM ABRAHAM HERNANDEZ worked for Defendants as a cook at
a "Bacci's Pizza & Pasta" restaurant in Addison, Texas from on or
about October 6, 2016 through on or about April 3, 2019.

NORTHBOUND INVESTMENTS CORPORATION d/b/a BACCI'S PIZZA & PASTA is a
company that regularly transacts business within Dallas County and
Denton County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
     Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
     6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
     Dallas, TX 75240
     Phone: 972-233-2264
     Fax: 972-386-7610
     Email: zabogado@aol.com
            rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
            josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


NPS PROPERTY: Discrimination Victims' Suit Enlarged as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maura McDermott, writing for Newsday.com, reports that a federal
discrimination lawsuit against a company that owns and manages at
least five Suffolk County apartment complexes was amended in an
effort to make it a class action that would cover others who
allegedly faced discrimination in seeking rentals.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Central Islip accused
Lindenhurst-based NPS Property Corp. of discriminating against
people based on their race, disability and source of income.

In a statement, an attorney for NPS, Ilene Jaroslaw, Esq. said, "We
believe the plaintiffs are deliberately mischaracterizing the facts
and the law in this complaint. The properties in question house
members of various races and nationalities, able-bodied and
disabled persons, and subsidized and unsubsidized tenants.  Like
landlords throughout the New York metropolitan region, our clients
welcome all renters who meet standard income and credit
requirements."  

A judge would need to grant permission for the suit to proceed Esq
NPS Property Corp as a class-action case. An attorney for the
plaintiffs, Brian Corman, Esq. -- bcorman@cohenmilstein.com -- of
the Washington, D.C., office of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, said
they have until Aug. 30 to seek class-action status.

Jaroslaw said NPS will argue the case should not be allowed to go
forward with class-action status.

In the original lawsuit filed in June, West Babylon resident Doreen
Kernozek and two housing groups, Long Island Housing Services and
Suffolk Independent Living Organization, charged NPS with
discriminating against Kernozek because she is disabled and
receives a federal subsidy for people with disabilities, and also
against others on the basis of their race, disability and source of
income.

NPS acknowledged in a September filing Kernozek tried to rent an
apartment but said it did not discriminate against her or anyone
else.

The court document filed on March 22 added one plaintiff, Lori
Gerardi of Patchogue, who charged NPS with discriminating against
her because she is disabled and receives a federal housing subsidy
for disabled people.

The federal Fair Housing Act and state and local laws prohibit bias
based on race and disability. Suffolk and Nassau county laws forbid
discrimination based on source of income, such as government
subsidies.

Gerardi said in the amended lawsuit she was told by an NPS
representative that tenants must have an income that is at least
double the monthly rent, regardless of subsidies. That policy, as
well as others in place at NPS properties, would "discourage anyone
who … had a disability-based subsidy from applying or from even
inquiring about the apartments," Corman said.

The lawsuit seeks a change in policy to stop discrimination at NPS
properties, he said.

In the suit, Gerardi said she was turned down twice for apartments
at South Shore Gardens, also known as South Shore Commons, a West
Babylon complex operated by NPS. In 2017 Gerardi was told the
complex had "reached its quota" for those receiving
disability-related subsidies, and in 2018 she was told her income
was not high enough and her subsidy would not be taken into
consideration, according to the lawsuit.

Gerardi, 54, has osteoarthritis, vascular disease, epilepsy, cancer
and ruptured spinal discs, the lawsuit said.

Before she joined the suit, the court filings focused on bias
allegedly faced by Kernosek and by people hired by Long Island
Housing Services to test for bias. In November 2016, Kernosek, who
is disabled due to severe osteoporosis and high blood pressure,
applied for an apartment at NPS' Holiday Square complex in West
Babylon. She was rejected due to her low income, even though her
subsidy covered most of the rent and she could afford the rest, the
lawsuit stated.

Suffolk Independent Living, which had been helping Kernosek find
housing, contacted Long Island Housing Services to complain.

Before either of the women applied for apartments at the complexes,
Long Island Housing Services had been sending "testers" to NPS
properties to check for discrimination, according to the lawsuit.
The group filed complaints with federal, state and county agencies
in 2017, alleging consistent patterns of bias against people who
are African-American, disabled or recipients of government
subsidies. [GN]


NUTANIX INC: Pomerantz Investigating Securities Fraud Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Nutanix, Inc. ("Nutanix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NTNX).   Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Nutanix and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On February 28, 2019, Nutanix issued a press release announcing the
Company's financial and operating results for the second fiscal
quarter of 2019.  In the press release, Nutanix advised investors
that "[l]ooking head, our third quarter guidance reflects the
impact of inadequate marketing spending for pipeline generation and
slower than expected sales hiring.  We took a critical look at
these areas and have taken actions to address them."  Later that
day, on a conference call discussing the Company's financial
results, Nutanix revealed that despite its previous representations
that the Company had been investing in sales and marketing and
growing its business, in actuality Nutanix had held flat or
decreased lead generation, the key driver of pipeline.  As a
result, Nutanix had missed its pipeline targets and Nutanix's
financial guidance for upcoming quarters was significantly
negatively impacted.

Following these disclosures, Nutanix's stock price fell $16.39 per
share, more than 32%, to close at $33.70 per share on  March 1,
2019.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is acknowledged as
one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and
antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L.
Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz
Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more
than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition
he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar
damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]


OHIO MULCH: Carter Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under Ohio Wage Act
------------------------------------------------------------
RAY CARTER, NATHAN DUNKLE, AND JASON BORDEN, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OHIO MULCH
SUPPLY, INC. and JIM WEBER II, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01632-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 26, 2019) is a complaint
against Defendant for their failure to pay employees overtime
wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
("the Ohio Wage Act"); and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA").

Plaintiffs and Defendants' other hourly non-exempt employees at
their Universal Road Facility regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week, but they were not paid one and one-half times their
regular rate for all of hours worked over 40 as a result of
Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy, says the complaint.
This resulted in unpaid overtime.

Plaintiffs were jointly employed by Defendants.

Ohio Mulch Supply, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation that
operates and conducts substantial business activities in the
Southern District of Ohio and jointly operates numerous stores
throughout Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Phone: 614-949-1181
     Fax: 614-386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

          - and -

     Peter Contreras, Esq.
     Contreras Law, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Phone: 614-787-4878
     Fax: 614-957-7515
     Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


ORACLE CORP: Workers Seek Jury Trial in 401(k) Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Oracle Corp.
workers continue to push for a jury trial in their class action
challenging the investment options in their $12 billion 401(k)
plan.

The workers say their claims are triable by jury because they seek
to hold the Oracle defendants personally liable for the plan's
monetary losses. This is a legal claim that can go before a jury,
not an equitable claim that must be heard by a judge, the workers
say in an April 2 filing. [GN]


ORLANS PC: Garland Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------
FREDDIE GARLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ORLANS PC, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11561-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. taking class certification and to set briefing schedule
      the motion under advisement but deferring any further
      briefing or hearing on it for the time being:

      Class:

      "all persons to whom Orlans PC caused to be sent any
      version of the Orlans PC Foreclosure Letter in
      connection with mortgages conveyed for residential real
      property, which was not returned as undelivered by the
      U.S. Post Office";

      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Subclass

      "all individuals to whom Orlans PC caused to be sent
      any version of the Orlans PC Foreclosure Letter in
      connection with mortgages conveyed for residential real
      property in the United States, dated one year or less
      from the filing of the original Complaint in this
      action, which was not returned as undelivered by the
      U.S. Post Office, through the date that the Court
      issues an order certifying any class requiring notice
      in this matter, and through the date of entry of final
      judgment as to any class for which notice is not
      required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23"; and

      RCPA Subclass

      "all individuals to whom Orlans PC caused to be sent
      any version of the Orlans PC Foreclosure Letter in
      connection with mortgages conveyed for residential real
      property in Michigan, which was not returned as
      undelivered by the U.S. Post Office, dated from six
      years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the
      date that the Court issues an order certifying any
      class requiring notice in this matter, and through the
      date of entry of final judgment as to any class for
      which notice is not required under Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23"

   2. establishing a discovery and briefing schedule for
      class certification;

   3. scheduling a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      certification in the future, after the issues have been
      fully briefed;

   4. certifying the classes, as supplemented by any further
      modification and briefing after discovery, and
      appointing Plaintiff as class representative and his
      counsel as class 0 counsel; and

   5. ordering such further relief as this Court deems just
      and appropriate.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq.
          122 S Main St, Suite 118
          P.O. Box 7711
          Ann Arbor, MI 48107
          Phone: (734) 274-9374
          E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel G. Firebaugh, Esq.
          FIREBAUGH & ANDREWS PLLC
          38545 Ford Rd, Ste 104
          Westland, MI 48185
          Telephone: (734) 722-2999
          E-mail: samuelgfirebaugh@hotmail.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          I. W. Winsten, Esq.
          Bruce L. Segal, Esq.
          HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP
          660 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2290
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 465-7608
          E-mail: iwinsten@honigman.com
                  bsegal@honigman.com

PARADISE OAKS: Young Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paradise Oaks Youth
Services. The case is styled as Vanetta Young, Individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Paradise
Oaks Youth Services, a California domestic nonprofit, Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00255174-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., April 25, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment".

Paradise Oaks Youth Services is a non-profit corporation licensed
by the State Department of Social Services that began providing
services in the Sacramento County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Daniel F Gaines, Esq.


PETER THOMAS: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Miller Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KARI MILLER and SAMANTHA PAULSON, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETER
THOMAS ROTH, LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH GLOBAL, LLC; PETER THOMAS ROTH
LABS LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. C 19-00698 WHA (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
Defendants Peter Thomas Roth, LLC and Peter Thomas Roth Global,
LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs are California residents who have filed a putative
class action alleging false advertising regarding certain cosmetic
products.  They sued four entities bearing the name of Peter Thomas
Roth, alleging all claims against each Defendant equally: PTR LLC;
PTR Global; Peter Thomas Roth Designs, LLC; and Peter Thomas Roth
Labs, LLC.

The motion to dismiss is brought by two Defendants, PTR LLC and PTR
Global only.  As PTR Labs filed an answer to the Plaintiffs'
complaint and does in fact manufacture, advertise and sell cosmetic
products in California and operates a marketing and sales website,
PTR Labs is not part of the motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs allege that all the Defendants are "large skin care
companies that market, advertise and sell" the "Water Drench" and
"Rose Stem Cell" products at issue in their complaint.  The "Water
Drench" products represent that the active ingredient, hyaluronic
acid, will draw moisture from the atmosphere into the user's skin
and will hold 1,000 times its weight in water for up to 72 hours.
The Rose Stem Cell products represent that rose stem cells are
capable of repairing, regenerating, and rejuvenating human skin
(Dkt.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert six causes of action against
PTR LLC, PTR Global, and PTR Labs arising from the manufacture and
sale of each of both Rose Stem Cell Products and Water Drench
Products, including (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.; (2) violation of
Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.; (3) fraud,
deceit, and/or misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation;
(5) violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et
seq.; and (6) unjust enrichment.

Defendants PTR LLC and PTR Global have moved pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that
neither company purposefully directs any activity into California,
the Plaintiffs' claims do not arise from either the Defendant's
activities in California, and haling them into court in California
would be unreasonable.

As to PTR LLC, the Plaintiffs argue that it is subject to personal
jurisdiction in California for two reasons: First, PTR Labs'
website clearly stated that website users interact with and
contract with PTR LLC (via Terms of Service and privacy agreement
on the website).  Second, PTR LLC purposefully availed itself of
the benefits and protections of California law by settling a
separate, unrelated case in this forum, when PTR Labs and PTR LLC
were called on to pay civil fines for failure to provide health and
safety warnings pursuant to Proposition 65 for a sunscreen sold in
California.

As to PTR Global, the Plaintiffs argue that it is subject to
personal jurisdiction in California because PTR Labs acts as an
agent for PTR Global.

Judge Alsup finds that the jurisdictional questions arising from
the supposed "typographical mistake" of naming PTR LLC on PTR Labs'
website are enough to hold the subject open for jurisdictional
evidentiary discovery.  The Plaintiffs will have 75 days to conduct
jurisdictional discovery.  Thereafter, both sides may file
supplements due two weeks later.

He also finds that the Plaintiffs cannot establish personal
jurisdiction over PTR LLC based solely on the argument that PTR LLC
purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protection of
California law by settling a Proposition 65 case in this forum.

As to whether PTR Labs' California connections may be attributed to
PTR Global under an agency theory for the purpose of establishing
personal jurisdiction, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs fail to
show that PTR Global has minimum contacts with California.  The
connection of an address shared by PTR LLC and PTR Global fails to
show control over PTR Labs.

Finally, as to whether the Plaintiffs may have limited
jurisdictional discovery, the Judge finds that the question of
whether the presence of PTR LLC on PTR Labs' website was a
typographical mistake or reflected some other connection between
the two companies that would confer jurisdiction over PTR LLC in
the action is serious enough to hold PTR LLC in for the present
purpose of jurisdictional discovery regarding facts related to the
website.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' request for a continuance to
conduct further jurisdictional discovery against PTR LLC is
granted.

While the Plaintiffs allege in their opposition that PTR Global is
in a principal-agent relationship with PTR Labs, they only provide
conclusory allegations, not facts.  Conclusory allegations are
unsupported and fail to make a prima facie showing that the
exercise of jurisdiction is proper.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs'
request for a continuance to conduct further jurisdictional
discovery against PTR Global is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Alsup denied Defendant PTR LLC's
motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' request for a continuance to
conduct further jurisdictional discovery against PTR LLC is
granted, with 75 days of jurisdictional discovery, to end on June
20, 2019.  Thereafter, both sides may file supplements due July 2,
2019.  The Judge granted Defendant PTR Global's motion for
dismissal.  The Plaintiffs' request to conduct further
jurisdictional discovery against PTR Global is denied.

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

Kari Miller, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated &
Samantha Paulson, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony J. Patek, Gutride
Safier LLP, Seth Adam Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride
Safier LLP, Adam Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride
Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio -- Kristen@gutridesafier.com
-- Gutride Safier LLP, Kyle Wayne Wilson & Todd M. Kennedy --
todd@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, pro hac vice.

Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, Peter Thomas Roth Global, LLC & Peter
Thomas Roth Labs LLC, Defendants, represented by Brad Michael
Scheller, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Herling -- djherling@mintz.com --
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Nicole V. Ozeran --
NVOzeran@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo,
P.C. & Nada I. Shamonki -- nshamonki@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn
Ferris Glovsky Popeo.


PLS FINANCIAL: Seeks Fifth Circuit Review of Vine Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants PLS Financial Services, Incorporated and PLS Loan Store
of Texas, Incorporated, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Lucinda Vine, et al. v. PLS Financial Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-CV-450, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman.

The appellate case is captioned as Lucinda Vine, et al. v. PLS
Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-90010, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents LUCINDA VINE, on behalf of themselves and
for all others similarly situated, and KRISTY POND, on behalf of
themselves and for all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Howard Mark Burck, Esq.
          Daniel Raymond Dutko, Esq.
          HANSZEN LAPORTE, L.L.P.
          14201 Memorial Drive
          Houston, TX 77079
          Telephone: (713) 522-9444
          E-mail: mburck@hanszenlaporte.com
                  dutko@hanszenlaporte.com

               - and -

          Ryan Kees Higgins, Esq.
          RUSTY HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          1401 McKinney Street
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 652-9000
          E-mail: rhiggins@rustyhardin.com

               - and -

          M. Mitchell Moss, Esq.
          SCOTTHULSE, P.C.
          201 E. Main Street
          El Paso, TX 79901
          Telephone: (915) 546-8217
          E-mail: mmos@ScottHulse.com

Defendants-Petitioners PLS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, and
PLS LOAN STORE OF TEXAS, INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          J. Austen Irrobali, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Patton, Esq.
          TILLOTSON LAW
          1807 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 382-3041
          E-mail: airrobali@tillotsonlaw.com
                  patton@tillotsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Mark Tillotson, Esq.
          TILLOTSON LAW
          750 N. Saint Paul Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 382-3040
          E-mail: jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com


PNC BANK: Minor et al. Seek to Certify Collective FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CASEY MINOR and ALEXIS YARBROUGH,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, NA, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00114-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for
entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA
      class;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice
      of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail,
      e-mail and text message) to:

      "all current and former Customer Service & Support
      Representatives who worked for PNC Bank, NA
      ("Defendant") at any of its call center facilities at
      any time on or after February 12, 2016 through
      judgment; and

   3. requiring Defendant to identify all putative collective
      action members by providing a list of their names, last
      known addresses, dates and location of employment,
      phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and
      importable format within 10 days of the entry of the
      order.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class
Members:

          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com

POSCO: Massive Class Action Expected to Demand Payment From State
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jang Yee-ji, writing for The Hankyoreh, reports that government
investigation findings attributing a 2017 earthquake in Pohang,
North Gyeongsang Province, in South Korea, to drilling and water
pumping by the Pohang Geothermal Energy Power Plant has the legal
community focusing on the scale and scope of state compensation for
the unprecedented "manmade" seismic disaster.  In view of the large
number of residents affected, some are predicting an "astronomical"
sum when the compensation decision comes.  A court appraisal of the
government investigation cited variables including the scope of
government employee responsibility.

Prior to the government's publication of its findings, a group of
1,156 Pohang residents -- including members of the group
Pan-Citizen Headquarters for Countermeasures in Response to the
Pohang Earthquake -- requested a suit demanding compensation from
the state, the geothermal power company Nexgeo, and Korean steel
maker POSCO, which invested facilities and funding.  A similar suit
was filed in October 2018 by 71 residents.  The number of residents
taking part in lawsuits appears likely to grow substantially in the
wake of the government investigation report on the earthquake's
cause.

Affected residents claim the government was at fault from the stage
of selecting a site for the geothermal power plant.  The complaint
filed by the residents with the court stressed the state's
responsibility, claiming that the "construction of a geothermal
power plant in Heunghae Township in Pohang's Buk (North) district,
which has the potential for triggering earthquake due to an active
fault, was planned at the state level as part of a new and
renewable energy project implemented under the Lee Myung-bak
administration."

Issue of whether government was aware of active fault line and
ignored it.

A judge said on March 21, 2019,, that factors such as
cause-and-effect relationships, deliberateness, and unlawfulness
are typically considered when deciding compensation.

"In court, the determination of government fault will focus on
whether they knew ahead of time about the active fault's presence
and predicted the possibility of an earthquake," the judge said.
This suggests the battle will focus on whether the government was
aware of the active fault line's presence in the first place,
whether it knowingly disregarded it, and, if it was aware, whether
it had an objective basis for concluding it presented a low risk
when it proceeded with the project.

The findings published by the government do not in themselves offer
immediate proof of the government's responsibility for
compensation.

"They would also need to debate the credibility of the
investigation findings in court. We'll have to wait and see how the
government responds to these findings going ahead," said a second
judge.

A third judge said, "The announcement is beneficial from the
standpoint of the affected residents filing the suit in terms of
gaining an early advantage."

"If the project did go ahead despite government employees
predicting the possibility of the earthquake, a high level of
liability could be recognized," the judge predicted.

Incident constitutes environmental pollution

Given the unprecedented nature of the legal battle over an
artificially induced earthquake, the residents' lawyers are working
overtime to develop their argument. The position of the attorneys
equates the earthquake with its vibrations and the resulting
damages. Their argument holds that if the earthquake was triggered
by shock waves (vibrations) affecting the fault in the process of
pumping water in and out at high pressures, this constitutes an
incident of environmental pollution.

In particular, they note that the Act on Liability for
Environmental Pollution Damage, which was enacted in December 2014,
defines damages resulting from "vibrations" as a form of
environmental pollution.

The legal representatives are also claiming that POSCO "abetted"
the activity.

"POSCO was part of the consortium for the Pohang Geothermal Power
Plant," explained Seoul Central Law Firm attorney Lee Gyeong-woo,
Esq. who is one of the lawyers tasked with the case.

"Having invested geothermal plant equipment and billions of won in
funding for pump rental and other costs, they bear responsibility
for compensation," Lee said. [GN]


PRATT LLC: Chavez Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nathaniel M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case, JUAN CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. PRATT (ROBERT
MANN PACKAGING), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00719-NC (N.D.
Cal.), to the Monterey County Superior Court.

Chavez worked for Pratt as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from
August current and former California employees of Pratt, consisting
of 263 hourly employees and 1,183 temporary workers.  Chavez and
the putative class members are residents of California.  Pratt is
an LLC; its parent company was incorporated in Delaware and its
principal place of business is in Georgia, so Pratt is a citizen of
Delaware and Georgia for jurisdictional purposes.

Chavez alleges that Pratt failed to compensate him and other class
members for all hours worked, missed meal periods, and missed rest
breaks.  This failure to compensate included not receiving overtime
wages, not receiving at least minimum wage, not receiving an
additional hour of pay when a meal period or rest period was
missed, not paying wages owed at discharge or resignation, not
creating complete and accurate wage statements, and not keeping
complete and accurate payroll records.

When he started working at Pratt, Chavez signed an arbitration
agreement.

Chavez filed suit in Monterey County Superior Court with eight
causes of action: (1) violation of California Labor Code Sections
510 and 1198 - unpaid overtime; (2) violation of California Labor
Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a) - unpaid meal period premiums; (3)
violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 - unpaid rest
period premiums; (4) violation of California Labor Code Sections
1194 and 1197 - failure to pay minimum wage; (5) violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 - failure to pay wages
owed upon discharge or resignation; (6) violation of California
Labor Code Section 226(a) - failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements; (7) violation of California Labor Code
Sections 2800 and 2802 - failure to reimburse for necessary
expenditures; and (8) violation of California Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200 — unlawful business practices.
Chavez seeks attorneys' fees and punitive damages as well as the
statutory damages applicable to the violations alleged.

Pratt removed the action to the Court under CAFA.  Because the
Court's jurisdiction should be determined first and foremost, the
Order addresses the motion to remand before addressing the motion
to compel arbitration.

Pratt's notice of removal alleges that (1) the class includes over
100 members, (2) minimal diversity is satisfied, and (3) the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million.   Chavez does not challenge that
the class size is over 100 members or that minimal diversity is
satisfied.  The first two requirements for CAFA are therefore met.
Chavez opposes Pratt's calculation of the amount in controversy, so
the question before the Court is whether Pratt has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

To meet its burden to show that the amount of controversy is over
$5 million, Pratt provides a calculation of approximate meal and
rest period penalties, unpaid final wages, wage statement
penalties, unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, and attorney's
fees totaling $5,007,640. The data used in these calculations is
established in a declaration of its Human Resources Manager, Dalia
Quintero.  Chavez challenges most of Pratt's calculations, but does
not submit any evidence of his own to show that different
calculation.

Judge Cousins finds that the total amount placed in controversy in
Pratt's notice of removal and supporting evidence is
$4,620,387.50:

     Meal and Rest Period Penalties      $1,189,812
     (1 each per employee per week)  

       Unpaid Final Wages (100%          $2,060,400
          violation rate)

          Unpaid Overtime                  $446,098
   (20 minutes per employee week)

         Attorney's Fees (25%)             $924,077

                Total                    $4,620,387

As this is below the $5 million threshold required for original
federal court jurisdiction under CAFA, the Judge finds that it does
not have jurisdiction to hear the case.  Therefore, he granted
Chavez's motion to remand to the Superior Court of Monterey County.
The Clerk of Court is ordered to remand the case promptly to the
Superior Court.

Because she has resolved the jurisdictional question above and
determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the case, the Judge does
not address the motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qyWJ6l from Leagle.com.

Juan Chavez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
J. Park -- dpark@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation &
Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation.

Pratt (Robert Mann Packaging), LLC, a Delaware Company, Defendant,
represented by Michael Neil Westheimer --
michael.westheimer@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C. & Jared Lee Palmer --
jared.palmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C..


PRATT ROBERT: Chavez Appeals N.D. California Decision to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Pratt (Robert Mann Packaging), LLC, filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Juan Chavez v. Pratt (Robert
Mann Packaging), LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00719-NC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Chavez v. Pratt (Robert
Mann Packaging), LLC, Case No. 19-80049, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JUAN CHAVEZ, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          410 Arden Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

Defendant-Petitioner PRATT (ROBERT MANN PACKAGING), LLC, a Delaware
Company, is represented by:

          Michael Neil Westheimer, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          E-mail: michael.westheimer@ogletree.com


PREMIERE CENTER: Bush Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE BUSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PREMIERE CENTER FOR COSMETIC SURGERY OF
TAMPA, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-21584-MGC (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019) seeks to secure
redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the
complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant is a plastic surgery center that offers a variety of
cosmetic treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


RACK ROOM: Goldschmidt Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MAXWELL GOLDSCHMIDT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RACK
ROOM SHOES, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-21220-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class with respect to his claim related to
      Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer
      Protection Act:

      "all persons within the United States who created a
      Rack Room Rewards account at the point-of-sale at a
      Rack Room store and either provided their cellular
      telephone number in person at that time or subsequently
      through Defendant's website, and who were then sent a
      Rewards Program Message, using the SalesForce Marketing
      Cloud platform, containing the same language as the
      text messages received by Plaintiff on June 19, 2017,
      August 4, 2017, November 22, 2018, or February 8, 2018,
      to said person's cellular telephone number";

   2. designating himself as class representative; and

   3. designating law firms of Hiraldo P.A., Edelsberg Law,
      P.A., and Beaumont Costales LLC as class counsel.

Rack Room operates shoe stores nationwide. As part of a
comprehensive marketing strategy, Rack Room launched a "rewards"
program designed to encourage repeat business. To promote the
rewards program. At issue here are the following four Rewards
Program Messages Plaintiff and the Class received on June 19, 2017,
August 4, 2017, November 22, 2018, and February 8, 2018.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          2875 NE 191 st ST, No. 703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Kirkland, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: 504-534-5005
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com

RIPPLE LABS: Token Purchasers File Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP said that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of purchasers of Ripple Labs Inc. ("Ripple")
tokens ("XRP") during the period between July 3, 2015 through the
present (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in California
Superior Court, San Mateo County, and subsequently removed to the
Northern District of California. The action is captioned In re
Ripple Labs Inc. Litig., Case No. 18-cv-06753.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased XRP during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the purported class, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action,
receive a copy of the complaint, or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Brian O'Mara of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bomara@rgrdlaw.com.

The complaint charges Ripple, Ripple's wholly owned subsidiary, XRP
II, LLP, and certain of Ripple's controlling senior executives and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933
("Securities Act"). The complaint alleges that defendants sold
unregistered securities to investors in violation of Sections 5,
12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act. Defendants are liable in
their capacities as issuers, statutory sellers, and/or direct or
indirect offerors of XRP. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on
behalf of all purchasers of XRP during the Class Period (the
"Class").

         Contact:
         Brian O'Mara, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone; 800/449-4900
                    619/231-1058
         Email: bomara@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


RIPPLE: Class Suit Still at Federal Court; May 21 Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Akash Girimath, writing for AMBCrypto, reports that Ripple's
long-pending class action lawsuit has taken a step further as the
courts have denied the plaintiff's motion to move the case to the
state courts and asked the plaintiffs to appoint a lead
plaintiff/class representative.

There are four cases against Ripple that allege that XRP is a
security and that Ripple violated state and federal laws by failing
to register it as a security. The four cases were brought forward
by Zakinov, Oconer, Coffey, and Greenwald.

Jake Chervinsky, Esq. -- jake.chervinsky@kobrekim.com -- a lawyer
at Kobre & Kim LLP, tweeted the developments: "Last month, the
federal court denied the plaintiffs' motions to return to state
court, so the case will now stay federal.

At the time, I called this a "minor but meaningful" victory for
Ripple. It's a battle they fought hard to win, but a small one at
the start of a long war."

The judgment on the class action suit as explained by Jake
Chervinsky is binding on the whole class. If Ripple resolved one
class action, it would mean that XRP wouldn't be labeled as
"security" for all the plaintiffs.

The court has set a schedule for the litigation this year and the
next phase of litigation include appointing a lead plaintiff,
re-filing a consolidated complaint, and responding to the
complaint. The court has provided the plaintiffs until May 20,
2019, to appoint a lead plaintiff and select a counsel for
representing the class lead plaintiff.

Jake Chervinsky explained the next step in his tweet: ". . . after
lead plaintiff & lead counsel are appointed, the Court's order
gives them 45 days to file a new consolidated complaint asserting
every legal violation that the class believes Ripple committed. At
the very earliest, the consolidated complaint will be due in
July."

Ripple will be provided 45 days to respond to the consolidated
complaint by the lead plaintiff, and it could take until September
2019 for Ripple to come up with a response on the matter. As
suggested by Chervinsky, Ripple could also respond to the complaint
by motion to dismiss, giving Ripple 30 additional days to reply.
[GN]


RIUTEL FLORIDA: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RIUTEL FLORIDA, INC.
The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, Lanie Quarterman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RIUTEL FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-21644-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2019).

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

Riutel Florida, Inc. filed as a Domestic for Profit Corporation in
the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


ROTHMANS BENSON: Class Suit Ruling Forces PM Unit to Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
MercoPress reports that Philip Morris International Inc. on March
22, 2019, said its Canadian unit, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc
(RBH), was granted creditor protection, following a tobacco class
action ruling in Quebec.

Morris International said it would deconsolidate RBH from its
financial statements, and it cut its full-year 2019 diluted
earnings per share forecast to at least US$4.90 at prevailing
exchange rates, from at least US$5.28 in the forecast it made on
March 4, shortly after the ruling in Quebec.

The Court of Appeal of Quebec upheld the bulk of a 2015 decision
that awarded around CUS$15 billion (US$11.19 billion) to smokers in
the Canadian province, a blow to several big tobacco companies,
including RBH.

On an adjusted basis, the current forecast for full-year 2019
represents earnings per share growth of at least 8% over last year,
the Marlboro cigarette maker said.

The deconsolidation, which will not have an impact on the company's
current annualized dividend rate, will result in an estimated
one-time non-cash charge of about US$ 0.10 per share, it said.

The operating cash flow for full-year 2019 is now estimated to be
about US$ 9.5 billion, down from "at least US$ 10 billion" in the
forecast it made on Feb. 7.

The creditor protection process, granted by the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, will allow RBH to carry on its business in the
ordinary course, Philip Morris added. [GN]


ROUND ONE: Wilson Seeks Penalties for Missed Meal, Rest Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT WILSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ROUND ONE ENTERTAINMENT INC. and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV14492 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., April 25, 2019) is a class action lawsuit seeking
unpaid wages and interest thereon for Defendants' failure to
provide meal periods and rest 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; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code costs; and interest brought
on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to count Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees' "on duty" meal periods as hours
worked. In addition, Defendants failed to provide meal period
premium wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
to compensate them for workdays they did not authorize or permit
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to take duty-free meal
periods.

The Defendants also maintained a policy, practice, and/or procedure
that failed to provide premium wages to Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees to compensate them for workdays they did not
receive legally-compliant duty-free rest periods as required by
California law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly non-exempt
employee from on or about August 2016 through January 2019.

CONTINENTAL CURRENCY is authorized to do business within the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Lavi, Esq.
     Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
     LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
     8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 432-0000
     Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
     Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
            vgranberry@lelawfirm.com


SHARP GROSSMONT: Admits Recording of Gynecological Procedures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ephrat Livni, writing for Quartz, reports that the Sharp Grossmont
Hospital in San Diego, California and Sharp HealthCare are terribly
sorry.

Yes, admits Sharp president and CEO Chris Howard in an April 4
letter, hospital authorities did secretly record numerous private
gynecological procedures in three "Women's Center" rooms. But they
didn't mean to do it. They promise that all the recordings are
locked away in a safe and that they won't do it again.

The letter comes after a series of lawsuits made the hospital's
error a matter of public knowledge. In 2016, patients sued Sharp
HealthCare and Sharp Grossmont Hospital, alleging privacy
violations and negligence stemming from the video recordings, as
Buzzfeed News reported in March. But a court denied the plaintiffs'
request to be heard in a class action lawsuit. So in March, 81
women signed on to a similar suit; the plaintiffs argue that, from
July 2012 to June 2013, the healthcare provider secretly recorded
everything from births to hysterectomies to sterilizations and more
without warning patients. The plaintiffs only knew that they had
been covertly recorded because a third-party administrator told
them, their lawyer tells WBAL TV.

Now, Sharp says it wants to address the "community" directly and
explain what actually happened. Since lawsuits are pending,
however, Sharp isn't actually saying that much. What it did reveal
in its letter is that the company began the secret recordings,
using motion sensor cameras in computers, as part of an internal
drug investigation.

After receiving reports of missing equipment and drugs in the
anesthesia carts in the three rooms serving women, the hospital
authorities interviewed personnel and tried to find the culprit
because "[u]nauthorized removal or misuse of medication by a doctor
or other medical professional can present a threat to patient
safety," the letter explains. "We would never want to put our
patients at risk for this kind of harm," Howard writes.

When the investigation yielded no information, Sharp installed
cameras on the carts, intending only to record what was happening
in the carts' immediate vicinity. Things didn't go as planned,
though. It turned out that the cameras were recording extremely
private procedures of hundreds of women over nearly a year.
According to the complaint, patients were "at their most
vulnerable." The women captured on video (paywall) were "conscious
and unconscious, partially robed on operating room tables,
undergoing medical procedures and communicating with their doctors
and medical personnel."

The complaint, filed in California state court, alleges that Sharp
not only violated patient privacy by using the secret cameras, but
was also negligent in handling the recordings. Videos were stored
on computers in hospital rooms and weren't password protected.
There's no log to document who might have viewed them. Allison
Goddard, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told CNN. "It's horrifying
to think that, especially in today's day and age of the ubiquity of
videos on the internet, if one of those videos were to get in the
wrong hands, there's no controlling it. It takes your own medical
care outside your own control." [GN]


SINEMIA: Faces Class Action Following Customer Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Heater, writing for TechCrunch, reports that when Sinemia
first came across our radar, the company was happily riding the
wave of anti-MoviePass publicity. With its chief competition in the
midst of what looked to be a historic collapse, Sinemia happily
grabbed headlines as a what looked to be like a more stable
alternative for movie ticket subscriptions.

Last July, at the height of MoviePass' meltdown, we asked Sinemia
co-founder and CEO Rifat Oguz how he planned to avoid a similar
fate. "By not providing unlimited tickets. But providing two
tickets for $9.99 with more flexible options and features, we might
not have grown as fast as MoviePass, but we've grown more
sustainably," he answered, happy to contrast the two companies.

Another key difference between the two competitors is that Sinemia
isn't public, so any struggles it's had over the past year have
largely been out of the public eye. Not entirely, however. Not in
the age of social media. As I noted in a piece, every Sinemia story
that's run on this site, no matter how minor, has been bombarded
with a deluge of Twitter criticism.

It's a wide-ranging laundry list of complaints at first glance.
Sinemia's Twitter support team appears to be working overtime to
address them, but the sheer number of critical responses is unlike
anything I've seen doing this job.

The primary complaints generally fall into three separate, but
sometimes overlapping, categories.

   1. Hidden fees
   2. Cancellations without refunds
   3. Widespread app problems

Earlier, we spoke to Oguz about the service's ongoing issues. It
was a short call, squeezed between meetings the executive was
running to at CinemaCon in Las Vegas.

"As CEO, I can say, we're still learning," he said in a humble
tone. "I think we're learning in a way.

As we spoke, Sinemia issued a press release noting the launch of
"two new customer service websites." It's not the kind of
announcement companies tend to brag about in PR emails, but it
seems clear the sheer volume of negative feedback has caused
Sinemia to be more proactive in highlighting the steps it's taking
to address its very vocal, angry subscribers.

It echoes a move made by the company, when it sent its announcement
of a new $15-a-month Always Unlimited plan accompanied by a lengthy
"Account Termination Media Alert" that outlined its aggressive
moves in March to cancel accounts over "fraudulent activity and/or
misuse of the service."

Like MoviePass before it, Sinemia began a process of terminating
accounts en masse for violations of terms and generally gaming the
system. In a statement, the service gave the following reasons as
cause for potential account termination.

   -- Unauthorized use of the Sinemia card/cardless outside of its
intended purposes, resulting in fraudulent financial activity. For
example, this could be purchasing concessions at the theater
instead of a movie ticket.
   -- Using multiple Sinemia accounts on the same device.
   -- Not checking in at the theater before or after your movie.
   -- Seeing the same movie more than three times.
   -- Creating multiple Sinemia accounts for the same person.
   -- Sharing one's Sinemia membership to buy tickets for other
people. This includes not only people buying tickets and selling to
others but also people sharing their own tickets with friends and
family members.
   -- Manipulation of location data resulting in deceptive ticket
purchases. For example, faking GPS data on a phone.
   -- Reasonable suspicion of fraud and/or abuse.

But while cancellation complaints do appear to have accelerated in
March, the truth is that negative feedback against the service
dates back further. In late February, Pennsylvania law firm
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith filed a class action
suit in Delaware (not to be confused with the on-going patent
dispute with MoviePass), the state in which the now largely Los
Angeles and Turkey-based company was incorporated.

The 50-page filing doesn't mince words, with statements like,
"Sinemia fleeces consumers with an undisclosed, unexpected, and
not-bargained-for processing fee each time a plan subscriber goes
to the movies using Sinemia's service."

Benjamin F. Johns, a partner and plaintiff in the case against
Sinemia, told TechCrunch that the firm has received more than 2,000
complaints from current or former Sinemia subscribers.

"I'll be very transparent about our litigation strategy: we want to
certify a class consisting of all of the Sinemia consumers who were
harmed in the same way by the same defective conduct, and then get
the case in front of a jury as quickly as possible," the lawyer
said in a statement to TechCrunch. "We think our clients and the
thousands of others like them have compelling stories to tell, and
we look forward to having an opportunity to present it in court."

Asked whether the 2,000 number sounded high, Oguz simply responded,
"No. It's a small number if you compare it with our user base."
Because it's not a publicly traded company, Sinemia is not required
to disclose such numbers, and the executive didn't offer much in
the way of specifics, only saying that it has "grown almost 50
percent month over month for the last 15 months."

Oguz did address growing customer complaints around Sinemia's app.
Like many of the other ongoing issues with the service, complaints
run the gamut. The most commonly cited, however, involve things
like double charges, error messages and frequent pop-ups explaining
that the app is "down for maintenance."

According to users, these kinds of issues have the tendency to pop
up when trying to purchase tickets to popular features like Captain
Marvel and Us. Oguz discussed the maintenance issues in a recent
interview with IndieWire that the publication describes as, "at
times[…]contentious," adding that he "express[ed] surprise" upon
hearing some of these complaints read back to him.

The tone of our own conversation was ultimately a bit less
combative than that interview, with Oguz admitting that Sinemia's
app has been experiencing issues. "Yeah," he answered, agreeing to
the premise that the app's problems appear to be "pretty
widespread."

It's for that reason, he explained, that Sinemia is launching two
independent service websites to address the problems with the app
and account terminations. "We are taking it seriously," he
insisted. "We are looking at every comment. We didn't found the
company a year ago. It started about five years ago. We are taking
every negative comment very seriously."

At the very least, a pending lawsuit and months of wall-to-wall
customer complaints on Twitter and Reddit do appear to have moved
the needle somewhat. Just how much and how Sinemia will approach
disgruntled users going forward remains to be seen. But like
MoviePass before it, it's hard to shake the notion that so much
negative publicity has left an irreparable mark on the company just
as it started to make a name for itself -- not to mention a sea of
irate consumers in its wake.

Fittingly, Oguz's comments echo those of Ted Farnsworth. In our
recent interview, the CEO of MoviePass parent Helios and Matheson
suggested that the service was a victim of its own success, growing
the service faster than its staff could ultimately manage.

Similarly, Oguz told us, "Our subscriber numbers have grown more
than expected. Even after last August, we weren't expecting to go
that much, that fast. When we're growing, we're also improving
ourselves, and we're trying to find a way to maintain and to
sustain."

But as difficult as managing that success may have been for the
company, its greatest challenge is still ahead of it: convincing
thousands of disgruntled fans -- and possibly a courtroom -- that
its worst days are behind it. [GN]


SITO MOBILE: Kahn Swick Probing Executives
------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into SITO Mobile,
Ltd. (NasdaqCM: SITO).

On January 3, 2017, the Company disclosed negative quarterly
results for the quarter ending December 31, 2016 that were
"negatively affected this year by restrained advertising spending
during a period of heightened and elongated media focus on this
year's U.S. election."  The results contradicted positive
statements made previously by the Company's Chief Executive Officer
Jerry Hug on November 14, 2016 regarding revenue growth with "a
very positive outlook for the remainder of this year and throughout
2017" and that there would not be a significant drop off from the
election.

Thereafter, the Company and certain of its executives were sued in
a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information, violating federal securities laws.
Recently, the court presiding over that case denied the Company's
motion to dismiss in part, allowing the case to move forward.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether SITO's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to SITO's shareholders or
otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of SITO shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn ( lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com ), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqcm-sito/ to learn more.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Website:  www.ksfcounsel.com.     
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


SNAP: Kessler Topaz to Remain in Charge of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge Stephen Wilson of Los Angeles ruled on April 2 that a group
of Snap investors should serve as the lead plaintiff in a
securities class action claiming the company failed to disclose
discouraging user data in advance of its March 2017 IPO. The judge
picked the coalition of five shareholders over two candidates with
bigger losses, including the New Mexico State Investment Council.
His ruling means that Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, which
represents the newly appointed Snap investor group, will remain in
charge of a case it has been litigating since May 2017.

Scratching your head over why a lead plaintiff was just appointed
in a case that has been under way for two years? It's a complicated
story, as I'll explain, but one that I suspect will be increasingly
familiar as institutional investors step back from securities class
actions and leave leadership of the litigation to individual
investors. The Snap lead plaintiff drama is a precautionary tale.

Kessler Topaz first won appointment to serve as lead counsel in the
Snap class action back in September 2017, representing an investor
who lost about $300,000 during the period of time allegedly tainted
by Snap's inadequate disclosures. The firm sank thousands of hours
into the case, developing evidence that last year prompted the
Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to
subpoena Snap about its IPO disclosures.

Snap has said that it is cooperating with the government inquiries.
It contends its IPO disclosures were "accurate and complete" and
that the shareholder fraud class action is meritless. Snap counsel
Boris Feldman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati declined comment
for this story.

By last summer, Kessler Topaz had survived Snap's motion to dismiss
and was set to litigate a motion to certify the class. The case
even had a scheduled trial date. But there was a snag: The
court-appointed lead plaintiff didn't want to stay in the case
because of health concerns.

Kessler Topaz offered a solution. It had already proposed
additional shareholders as class representatives. Snap had even
deposed them. So Kessler Topaz suggested swapping in those
shareholders as lead plaintiffs. The substitution, it said, would
allow the class action to move ahead efficiently, with new lead
plaintiffs who were fully up to speed on the case.

Snap's lawyers at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati cried foul,
arguing that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
explicitly prohibits lawyers from driving shareholder fraud cases.
Judge Wilson put Kessler Topaz's client in charge, not the law
firm. So if the client wants to drop out, Wilson Sonsini said, the
judge should reopen the process of selecting a lead plaintiff.
Judge Wilson agreed. In January, he said new shareholders -- and
new plaintiffs' lawyers -- could bid to take over the litigation.

The competition was brisk -- hardly a surprise since the case was
already poised for class certification. Faruqi & Faruqi filed a
motion for a single Snap investor who claimed to have lost nearly
$1.7 million. Labaton Sucharow asked for the New Mexico fund, with
claimed losses of about $1.1 million, to be appointed. Kessler
Topaz moved for the appointment of five newly emerged Snap
shareholders who lost a total of about $500,000. Three other
candidates with smaller losses also threw in their hats.

As you know, judges typically look first at the investor with the
biggest losses when they're picking plaintiffs to lead securities
class actions. Faruqi's client, therefore, was the presumptive
lead. But Judge Wilson had already passed him over back in 2017
when he selected Kessler Topaz's former client instead. Faruqi
lawyers argued that the judge should consider their client anew
because of tweaks to the proposed class period. Kessler Topaz and
the New Mexico fund countered that regardless of the class period,
Faruqi's client bought a large percentage of his Snap shares after
revelations of the alleged fraud. If he were to be appointed lead,
the opposing briefs said, Snap would argue that a class can't be
certified because Faruqi's client didn't rely on its alleged
misrepresentations when he made the decision to buy Snap shares.

The New Mexico fund had the next-biggest losses. And under the
PSLRA, institutional investors have an edge over individual
shareholders in lead plaintiff contests because Congress was of the
view that pension funds are more likely than small shareholders to
be independent decisionmakers. But as other lead plaintiff
candidates pointed out to Judge Wilson, the New Mexico fund had
cashed out of Snap before the end of the class period – and then,
like Faruqi's client, bought additional shares after the alleged
fraud was revealed.

Kessler Topaz and its client also took a bashing in opposition
briefs from other candidates. Faruqi and Labaton argued that the
Snap shareholder group was an ad hoc contrivance, concocted by
Kessler Topaz solely to secure a lead role for the law firm.

In the end, Judge Wilson decided the Kessler group was the best of
his options. Faruqi's client, he said, wasn't an optimal class
representative, despite his big loss, because of Snap's potential
arguments based on his purchase of shares after the alleged fraud
was exposed. The New Mexico fund had the same problem, the judge
said, in addition to potential standing issues from uncertainty
about which state officials can authorize the fund to sue. It could
well be that the fund would eventually beat Snap defense arguments,
Judge Wilson said, but the shareholder class should not bear the
cost of litigating them.

That left the Kessler group. The judge acknowledged that ad hoc
groups aren't ideal, but said there's plenty of precedent holding
that they are "not necessarily inadequate." In this case, he said,
Kessler's clients had submitted a joint declaration promising to
exercise the requisite oversight of their lawyers but also to make
sure the case moves quickly to a resolution. Judge Wilson did not
say so explicitly, but he seems to have taken into account Kessler
Topaz arguments that the class would suffer if a new shareholder
firm took over with the case on the cusp of class certification.

Reuters' Ms. Frankel mailed Thomas Dubbs and Francis McConville of
Labaton, who represent the New Mexico fund; Richard Gonnello of
Faruqi, who represents the individual investors with the biggest
Snap losses; and Sharan Nirmul of Kessler, who has been leading the
litigation against the company. None of them responded.

"I said above that I believe we're going to see more of the kind of
lead plaintiff drama that played out in the Snap case. According to
Cornerstone Research, institutional investors have been retreating
from leadership of securities class actions since about 2012.
Individual shareholders were appointed to be in charge of about 60
percent of the shareholder fraud cases filed in 2018. Unlike
pension funds and other institutions, individuals develop health
issues, like the lead plaintiff in Snap, or post dumb things on
social media, like the court-appointed lead plaintiff in a San
Francisco federal court class action against the cryptocurrency
enterprise Tezos," Ms. Frankel said.

"That case, as I've written, is following the same path as the Snap
litigation, with plaintiffs' lawyers asking U.S. District Judge
Richard Seeborg to allow them to substitute different investors for
the shareholder he originally appointed. Judge Seeborg held a
hearing on the motion, which is opposed by other plaintiffs' firms,
in March but hasn't yet ruled. I suspect the judge will talk about
the Snap case when he issues his opinion." [GN]


SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Exclusion of Moores Testimony in Ulibarri Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ULIBARRI and WHITE RIVER ROYALTIES, LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHLAND ROYALTY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant.
Consolidated for purposes of class certification with: GERALD
ULIBARRI, Plaintiff, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case Nos. 1:16-cv-215-RB-JHR, 1:18-cv-294-RB-SCY (D. N.M.), Judge
Robert C. Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico denied Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of
Terry A. Moores.

In the dispute over the calculation of natural gas royalty
payments, the Plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a
putative class of similarly situated leaseholders.  Southland holds
the lessee's interest in numerous lease agreements under which it
produces natural gas from "gas only" wells in New Mexico.  The
Plaintiffs hold the lessors' interests in several such lease
agreements.  They allege that, since Jan. 1, 2015, Southland has
consistently underpaid royalties it owes on the sales proceeds of
natural gas and related products produced under these lease
agreements by not basing payments on the actual sale proceeds of
the natural gas products.  Instead, they argue, Southland
undervalues the natural gas products and consistently deducts
"post-production costs," like treatment and processing, from their
royalty payments.  The Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to their
lease agreement language, their royalty payments are meant to be
calculated solely based on sale proceeds and not adjusted for the
cost of post-production processing.

The Plaintiffs seek to bring the action on behalf of a putative
class including all individuals and entities who have been paid
royalties by Southland at any time since Jan. 1, 2015, and hold a
lessor's interest in a lease agreement that contains one of four
different types of royalty payment provisions.  The four types of
royalty provisions that delineate the proposed class include:
"proceeds royalty provisions," "gross proceeds royalty provisions,"
"greater of market value or gross proceeds royalty provisions," and
"gross proceeds without deduction of post-production costs royalty
provisions."

The Plaintiffs subsequently retained Mr. Moores to conduct the
title examination work which Southland stated was necessary in
order to properly identify the persons who have been lessors of
record under each of the 325 Lease Agreements.  Mr. Moores is a
landman who currently works as a managing member of SandStoneLand,
LLC -- an independent landman firm specializing in the four corners
region and Wyoming.  He has decades of similar experience
performing title examination and land work contracting services for
various clients.

As of the date of his initial report, Mr. Moores had identified
approximately 320 persons or entities that have held and/or
currently hold the lessor's interests under the applicable oil and
gas leases.  Since then, he has updated the summary with newly
identified leaseholders three times and provided Southland with
additional title documents "purportedly supporting the chain of
title" eight times.

Using Mr. Moores' lists of identified leaseholders, the Plaintiffs'
counsel has made a comparison of persons identified by Mr. Moores
as being lessors after Jan. 1, 2015 under 253 of the 325 Leases to
persons identified in royalty accounting data produced by
Southland.  Similarly, the Plaintiffs' counsel also compared
Southland's royalty accounting data to the individuals and entities
identified as original lessors in the relevant lease agreements, as
well as some of their heirs.  Through this process, the Plaintiffs'
counsel had identified 497 putative class members on Feb. 1, 2019.

Southland argues that Mr. Moores' testimony and report should be
excluded for three reasons.  First, because the Plaintiffs failed
to comply with the Court's expert deadlines with respect to the
disclosure of Mr. Moores' expert report and supporting facts and
data.  Second, Southland argues that Mr. Moores' opinions are
unreliable.  Finally, Southland argues that Mr. Moores's report is
not relevant to the class certification issue because it fails to
link the royalty owners paid by Southland to the owners identified
from his title examination and thus is irrelevant to a
determination as to the members of the proposed class.

Judge Brack denied the Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude
Testimony of Terry A. Moores.  He finds that (i) Mr. Moores is
qualified as a title examination expert and his testimony is
relevant; (ii) Mr. Moores' report is sufficiently based on reliable
data, methods, and principles; and (iii) the supplements to Mr.
Moores' report are not new opinions.

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

Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman,
Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton --
gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. &
Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George
sA. Barton, PC.

Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford
C. Berge -- bberge@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP &
Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- Holland &
Hart LLP, pro hac vice.

Energen Resources Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by
Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice, Bradford
C. Berge, Holland & Hart LLP & Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland &
Hart LLP.

Gerald Ulibarri, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons, Counter Defendant, represented by A. Michael
Chapman, Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton, Law Offices
of George Barton, P.C. & Stacy Burrows, Law Offices of George A.
Barton, PC.


SPORTS RESEARCH: Capaci Sues Over Product's Misleading Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK CAPACI on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440 (C.D. Cal., April
26, 2019) challenges Defendant's misleading weight loss claims
relating to their product, alleging violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), and False Advertising Law ("FAL").

The Defendant Sports Research Corporation markets "Sports Research
Garcinia Cambogia" a dietary supplement that Defendant falsely
claims is an effective aid in "weight management" and "appetite
control", despite the fact that the Product's only purportedly
active ingredients, Hydroxycitric Acid ("HCA") and extra virgin
organic coconut oil, are scientifically proven to be incapable of
providing such weight-loss benefits. Plaintiff read and relied upon
Defendant's claims when purchasing the Product and was damaged as a
result, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Frank Capaci purchased Garcinia Cambogia supplements for
personal and household use and not for resale at a GNC store.

Defendant develops, manufactures, promotes, markets, distributes,
and/or sells the Products across the United States, including to
hundreds of consumers in California and New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     RONALD A. MARRON, ESQ.
     MICHAEL T. HOUCHIN, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
            mike@consumersadvocates.com


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Student Linked to Bribery Scandal Expelled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Woo, writing for The Stanford Daily, reports that Stanford has
rescinded the admission of a female student whose application was
linked with the bribery scandal rocking college admissions
nationwide, the University announced on April 2.

The former student included fabricated sailing credentials in her
application, which is grounds for expulsion according to University
practice. Though she was accepted through the standard process and
not as a recruited athlete, her admission was followed by a
$500,000 contribution to Stanford's sailing program paid through
former head coach John Vandemoer, who was fired after agreeing to
plead guilty for accepting donations in exchange for recommending
non-sailors as recruited athletes.

The student, who has not been publicly identified, is no longer on
Stanford's campus, and her credits have been vacated by the
University, the April 2 press release states.

News of her expulsion comes just four days after Stanford admitted
its newest class. Although the University no longer releases
admissions statistics, President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost
Persis Drell wrote that no members of the Class of 2023 applicant
pool -- and no other currently enrolled students -- are associated
with the admissions scandal, the largest ever prosecuted by the
Department of Justice.

The multi-million dollar scheme was masterminded by William Rick
Singer, the founder of a college preparatory business known as the
Key Worldwide Foundation. Singer, who pleaded guilty to multiple
charges, charged parents -- including 11 Bay Area parents and
Stanford affiliates -- thousands of dollars to artificially inflate
their children's standardized test scores. In some cases, Singer
also bribed athletic directors, including Vandemoer, to recommend
clients' children as recruited athletes.

On March 12, Vandemoer pleaded guilty to accepting $270,000 in
bribes linked to two students who did not ultimately attend the
University. He has not yet faced charges for the $500,000
associated with the expelled student's acceptance.

Amid a national reckoning on meritocracy and the college admissions
system -- and a class action lawsuit accusing Stanford and seven
other universities implicated in the scandal of fraudulent
admissions processes -- the scandal has set in motion a cascade of
changes at the University.

Varsity recruits proposed by coaches will now undergo a separate
background check by a Stanford Athletics executive. Previously,
only the recommending coach was responsible for reviewing such
credentials. Stanford confirmed the pre-admittance athletic
biography of all recruits since 2011 after learning of the bribery
scheme.

Additionally, the University plans to conduct a "comprehensive
external review" of procedures surrounding athletic recruitment and
financial contributions to athletic programs.

"We know that this episode has jarred the trust of many Americans
in the college admissions process, and it has prompted many
questions from the Stanford community," Tessier-Lavigne and Drell
wrote. "We are determined to take the right steps at Stanford to
ensure the integrity of our process and to work toward rebuilding
that trust." [GN]


SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Thompson TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17 C 3607 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Ruben Castello of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's renewed
motion to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a putative class of
individuals who allegedly received unsolicited telephone calls,
brings the action against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"
).  The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the Northern
District of Illinois and allegedly received unsolicited phone calls
from the Defendant, a New York corporation headquartered in
Pittsfield, New York, that AT&T Services, Inc. contracted with to
call AT&T customers.

The Plaintiff registered for AT&T's U-verse Internet service and
accepted the accompanying terms of service in March 2016.  The
terms of service provide that "AT&T and you agree to arbitrate all
disputes and claims between you and AT&T."  "AT&T" is defined in
the terms of service to include "AT&T Corporation" and all local
entities that provide AT&T U-Verse Internet service, which for the
Plaintiff -- who resided in Illinois -- was Illinois Bell Telephone
Co.  

Michael Shannon Barker, AT&T's Vice President of Service Delivery,
declares that AT&T hired the Defendant to make phone calls to AT&T
customers as part of AT&T's proactive churn management ("PCM")
program.  The services under the program were carried out in
accordance with a "Call Center Master Service Agreement" ("MSA")
and a separate work order ("PCM Order").  Under the PCM Order, the
Defendant was to provide English and Spanish customer service
support over the telephone to AT&T customers for the purpose of
reducing AT&T customer churn by, among other things, proactively
troubleshooting and resolving customer connectivity, home computer,
and network issues.  Pursuant to the PCM program, the Defendant
made three calls to the Plaintiff on Dec. 24, 2015.  The Defendant
placed these calls because the Plaintiff had registered for AT&T's
U-Verse service but had not yet installed the necessary equipment.

Kristina Carter, AT&T's Lead Product Marketing Manager, declares
that AT&T retained control over both the manner and means of the
Defendant's calls on AT&T's behalf, and that AT&T required
Defendant to hold itself out as AT&T when making calls to AT&T
customers.

On May 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against AT&T
alleging violations of the TCPA.  He amended his complaint twice,
and the second amended complaint, filed on May 10, 2018, is the
operative complaint.  It advances one count for violation of the
TCPA against AT&T, Illinois Bell, and the Defendant for the
allegedly unsolicited calls that he received.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and a putative
class consisting of persons who received phone calls from the
Defendant on or after May 12, 2013, and persons who received a
pre-recorded message from the Defendant.  On June 19, 2018, the
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed AT&T and Illinois Bell from the
action without prejudice.

On June 15, 2018, the Defendant moved to compel arbitration.  The
Court denied the Defendant's motion without prejudice, finding that
the U-Verse terms of service are enforceable and rejecting the
Plaintiff's argument of unconscionability.  It concluded, however,
that the Defendant had failed to provide sufficient evidence that
it was AT&T's agent so as to warrant the arbitration agreement's
application in the case.  As a result, the Court permitted the
Plaintiff to take discovery on the relationship between the
Defendant and AT&T to test whether Defendant was AT&T's agent.

On Jan. 11, 2019, after discovery concluded on the agency issue,
the Defendant filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration.  It
argues that it acted as AT&T's agent when it made calls to the
Plaintiff, thereby making the arbitration agreement enforceable as
to any dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.  In support
of its motion, the Defendant presents declarations from AT&T
employees and the contract between the Defendant and AT&T.

The Defendant argues that the evidence shows it was AT&T's agent
because AT&T retained significant control over how the Defendant
was to carry out its obligations.  The Defendant also contends that
it had actual authority to affect AT&T's legal relationships.  It
argues that, as a result, any disputes between it and the Plaintiff
are covered by the arbitration agreement in the U-Verse terms of
service.

The Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that no enforceable
arbitration agreement exists between the parties.  In his view, the
calls at issue arose before he accepted the online terms of service
containing the arbitration provision.  He also argues that the
Defendant has no right to enforce his arbitration agreement with
AT&T because the Defendant is neither a party to that contract nor
an intended beneficiary under the contract.  He contends that the
arbitration agreement is between the Plaintiff and Illinois Bell
and Illinois Bell's agents, not between AT&T and its agents.  Thus,
according to him, it does not matter if the Defendant was AT&T's
agent because the arbitration agreement only covers Illinois Bell's
agents.  Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant was not
an agent of AT&T but instead hired by AT&T as an independent
contractor.

Judge Castello finds that the arbitration agreement in the U-Verse
terms of service identifies the class to which the Defendant
belongs -- Illinois Bell's "affiliates."  There is also a clear
intent in the arbitration agreement to benefit Illinois Bell's
affiliates and provide them the legal right to dispute claims with
the Plaintiff in arbitration.  Thus, the Defendant can enforce the
arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary because it is an
affiliate of Illinois Bell.  Accordingly, whether under a theory of
agency, third-party beneficiary, or simply the Defendant being a
party to the arbitration agreement, the Defendant has the right to
enforce the arbitration agreement against the Plaintiff.  The
Judge, therefore, compels arbitration and stays the case.

Because AT&T exerted significant control over the Defendant, the
Judge finds that AT&T's control over Defendant can be grouped into
two categories: (1) control over the Defendant's customer calls,
and (2) control over employment decisions and supervision of the
Defendant's work.  He rejects the Plaintiff's arguments challenging
the agency relationship between the Defendant and AT&T.  Because
the case involves marketing calls to the Plaintiff, the Defendant
acted as AT&T's agent and not an independent contractor.

In addition, Illinois agency law requires courts to rely on the
facts of each case to determine whether an agency relationship
exists regardless of contractual labels.  A written contract is not
conclusive of the relationship between the alleged agent and the
alleged principal.  Thus, even if the agreement between AT&T and
the Defendant had exclusively labeled Defendant as an "independent
contractor," Illinois agency law requires the Court to look beyond
that provision and find that the Defendant is AT&T's agent because
the evidence shows AT&T had control over the Defendant and that the
Defendant could affect AT&T's legal relationships.  Accordingly,
the Judge grants the motion to compel arbitration.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Castello granted the Defendant's
renewed motion to compel arbitration.  He stayed all further
proceedings in the matter until the parties have completed
arbitration of the dispute.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/h7DDEZ from Leagle.com.

James Thompson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke --
aburke@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC & Daniel J.
Marovitch -- dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Sutherland Global Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark E.
Shure -- mshure@em3law.com -- Edwards Maxson Mago & Macaulay, LLP &
Susan A. Stoddard -- stoddard@em3law.com -- Edwards Maxson Mago &
Macaulay, LLP.


SWEPI LP: Walney Appeals Class Decertification Order to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rodney A. Bedow, Sr. and Thomas J. Walney filed an
appeal from the District Court's order decertifying the class in
their lawsuit titled Thomas Walney, et al. v. SWEPI LP, et al.,
Case No. 1-13-cv-00102, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
contend that class members were promised the bonus monies as an
incentive for signing their Leases, but the bonuses were never
paid.  In their operative pleading, they asserted claims for breach
of contract, among other things.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Walney, et al. v. SWEPI
LP, et al., Case No. 19-8013, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners THOMAS J. WALNEY and RODNEY A. BEDOW, SR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Joseph E. Altomare, Esq.
          700 Rockwood Drive
          Titusville, PA 16354
          Telephone: (814) 657-0350
          E-mail: jaltomar@msn.com

Defendants-Respondents SWEPI LP and SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP LLC are
represented by:

          Daniel M. McClure, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney Street
          Fulbright Tower, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5159
          E-mail: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Mercer, Esq.
          PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
          6 PPG Place, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 235-1491
          E-mail: jmercer@porterwright.com


TIDAL BASIN HOLDING: Nelson Seeks OT Premium Pay
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tidal Basin Holdings,
Inc. and Vanguard Emergency Management for failing to compensate
Plaintiff Adam Nelson and other house inspectors at the rate of
time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek as required under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). The case is captioned ADAM NELSON, on Behalf of Himself
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TIDAL
BASIN HOLDING, INC. and VANGUARD EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 5:19cv00030 (W.D. Va., April 17, 2019). Plaintiff
Adam Nelson accuses the Defendants of violating the FLSA by
misclassifying him and other housing inspectors as independent
contractors instead of as employees.

Tidal Basin Holdings, Inc. is a Virginia for-profit corporation.
The company owns, controls, and operates Vanguard Emergency
Management. Headquartered in Virginia, Vanguard provides housing
inspection services for those individuals whose homes have been
damaged by a natural disaster. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com

             - and -

     Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com

             - and -

     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 621-2277
     Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net


TRAILER BRIDGE: Diaz Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISSETTE M. DIAZ, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. TRAILER BRIDGE, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00470
(M.D. Fla., April 25, 2019) is an action to recover money damages
for unpaid overtime wages  pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours every week period and she
was paid a salary, but she was not paid for overtime hours, asserts
the complaint. Plaintiff's duties were non-exempted in nature and
did not qualify to meet the requirements of any FLSA overtime
exemption and Plaintiff was entitled to be paid overtime hours at
the rate of time and one half her regular rate, the complaint
says.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from April 03, 2000 to April
01, 2019.

TRAILER BRIDGE is full-service Ocean Carrier, specializing in
imports, exports, freight consolidation and logistics
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TURTLE CREEK: Ochoa Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turtle Creek Assets,
Ltd. The case is styled as Daniel Ochoa on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Turtle Creek Assets,
Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00348-Y (N.D. Tex., April 27,
2019).

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

Turtle Creek Assets Ltd is a legal services company based out of
1010 Turtle Creek Blvd St, Dallas, Texas, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael S. Agruss, Esq.
     Agruss Law Firm LLC
     4809 N. Ravenswood Ave, Suite 419
     Chicago, IL 60640
     Phone: (312) 224-4695
     Fax: (312) 253-4451
     Email: michael@agrusslawfirm.com


UBS FINANCIAL: Hsu Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Darru K. Hsu filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Darru Hsu v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., Case No.
3:11-cv-02076-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The lawsuit alleges violations of securities laws.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
accuses UBS Financial Services of using illegal "hedge clauses" in
its investment-adviser agreements to limit its liability and waive
its fiduciary duties.

The appellate case is captioned as Darru Hsu v. UBS Financial
Services, Inc., Case No. 19-15756, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant DARRU K. HSU, Individually and as Trustee of
the Darru K. Hsu and Gina T. Hsu Living Trust U/AO5/O5/03;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AKA
Ken, of San Jose, California, appears pro se.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 15, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 14, 2019;

   -- Appellant Darru K. Hsu's opening brief is due on July 24,
      2019;

   -- Appellee UBS Financial Services, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on August 26, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., is represented
by:

          David C. Powell, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-1970
          E-mail: dpowell@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          E-mail: ashively@reedsmith.com


UCLA HEALTH: Terms of $7.5MM Cyber Attack Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class-action litigation arising from a cyber attack announced in
July 2015 by UCLA Health has been settled by mutual agreement of
the plaintiffs and The Regents of the University of California. On
February 21, 2019, the judge overseeing the case granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, which provides
long-term protection for the current and former patients whose
personal information was in the attacked computer network.

Under the proposed settlement, UCLA Health admits no wrongdoing. It
maintains that it was not liable for the cyber attack and that,
following an extensive investigation, there continues to be no
evidence that the cyber attackers actually accessed or acquired
personal or medical information. The parties are entering into this
agreement to avoid the expense of further litigation and to provide
benefits to the individuals whose information was maintained in
UCLA Health's computer network.

The proposed settlement terms include:

Two years of free credit monitoring, identity protection services,
an insurance package and related benefits available to all
settlement class members even if they previously obtained the
one-year credit monitoring package offered by UCLA Health in 2015.
A $2 million fund that will be used to reimburse settlement class
members who incurred costs seeking to protect against, or remedy,
identity theft.

$5.5 million beyond currently budgeted spending -- plus any money
remaining in the claims reimbursement fund -- for the purpose of
expediting and implementing cybersecurity enhancements to the UCLA
Health computer network.

An independent settlement administrator will manage the settlement
and claims process overseen by the judge. The administrator has set
up a website -- www.UCLAHealthCyberSettlement.com -- as well as a
customer service line at 1-888-262-4479, to provide information
regarding the settlement, including how to register for credit
monitoring and identity protection services and how to submit
claims for reimbursement.

Protecting patient privacy is essential to UCLA's mission.
Maintaining data security requires constant vigilance, and UCLA
Health applies extensive resources and works with leading experts
to enhance preparedness and combat the ongoing threat of cyber
attacks.

         SOURCE:
         Superior Court, County of Los Angeles [GN]


UNITED HEALTHCARE: 10th Circuit Appeal Filed in Fedor FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dana Fedor filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:17-CV-00013-MV-KBM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico - Albuquerque.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks overtime pay, pre- and post-judgment interest for attorneys'
fees, costs and disbursements and additional relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Wage Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Fedor v. United Healthcare,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-2066, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DANA FEDOR, and all others similarly situated,
is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

Defendants-Appellees UNITED HEALTHCARE, INC. and UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC. are represented by:

          J. Mark Ogden, Esq.
          Cory Glen Walker, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-4242
          Telephone: (602) 474-3600
          E-mail: mogden@littler.com
                  cgwalker@littler.com


UNITED STATES: Ct. Addresses Discovery Dispute in Veterans APA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut has issued an order addressing a dispute
about pretrial discovery in the case, TYSON MANKER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and NATIONAL VETERANS
COUNCIL FOR LEGAL REDRESS, on behalf of itself, its members, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD V. SPENCER,
Secretary of the Navy, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-372
(CSH) (D. Conn.).

The Plaintiffs are veterans of the United States Navy and Marine
Corps.  The Defendant is Secretary of the Navy.  The Plaintiffs,
who were discharged from the service with less than honorable
discharges, allege that they were denied discharge upgrades by the
Naval Discharge Review Board ("NDRB") in a manner violative of the
APA and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that they had diagnoses of
post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), traumatic brain injury
("TBI"), or PTSD-related conditions at the time of discharge,
attributable to their military service.  That circumstance, the
Plaintiffs assert in the action, entitle them to discharge upgrades
which the NDRB has wrongfully withheld.  They condemn the NDRB's
denial of discharge upgrades as arbitrary and capricious, the
hallmark of liability for violating the APA.

When the complaint was first filed, there were two named
Plaintiffs, asserting claims on behalf of themselves and also as
representatives of a purported class.  In an opinion reported at
Manker v. Spencer, the Court certified a class consisting of all
Navy, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve veterans
of the Iraq and Afghanistan Era who had comparable discharge
histories.

The counsel for the parties conducted a planning conference and
submitted a Report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), from which a
stark and dramatic dispute emerges with respect to the permissible
scope of pretrial discovery.

The Defendant Secretary takes the position that since the
Plaintiffs claim an APA violation, there is no need for a Local
Rule 26(f) report, initial disclosures, or discovery in the case.
The Defendant concludes that because judicial review under the APA
is confined to the administrative records, it follows that
discovery would be limited to the administrative record of the two
lead Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs' position is that since they have alleged systemic
and systematic failures to properly implement existing law and
guidance, which are not reflected in any agency decision record, it
follows that discovery will be needed on all matters related to the
causes of action and the defenses raised in the pleadings,
including an encyclopedic list of the Defendant's policies,
procedures, and practices related to discharge upgrade
applications; training of NDRB personnel and board members;
incidence of PTSD, TBI and other related mental health conditions
within the veterans; and the Department of Defense, Navy and Marine
Corps personnel involved in NDRB policy, practice, or review.

Stated briefly, discovery is visualized by the Plaintiffs into
practically everything and by the Defendant into almost nothing.
The Court conducted an early hearing to explore these extremes.
The counsel for the parties reiterated their conflicting
contentions about pretrial procedures.  That question had not been
previously briefed.  The Court directed briefing.  The counsel
exchanged main briefs.  The briefs are well-structured,
comprehensive, and replete with citations to case law.

The Order determines what will happen next in the sensitive and
important case.

Judge Haight concludes that the suggested time of 90 additional
days for the limited production is excessive, given the exigencies
of the case and the limited amount of production contemplated.  It
is not plausible to think that the Navy requires 90 days to locate
and produce the NDRB administrative records for these two veterans.
During the hearing, the Court benefitted from the telephonic
presence and assistance of Lieutenant Commander Jonathan Dowling,
"Agency Counsel," who had confirmed in a previous conversation with
Mr. Nelson that the Secretary could produce the full administrative
records "within 90 days."  It was Mr. Nelson who proposed that
amount of time amount to Lt. Cdr. Dowling, id., who presumably
would also have answered affirmatively if Mr. Nelson had specified
"three years," and whose given answer stopped short of claiming
that the Navy would require the full 90 days, an assertion the
Court would have questioned if made.  Upon consideration, the Judge
will enter an Order that will require production of the documents
specified on or before May 20, 2019, which is 45 days from the date
of the Order.

The Judge thinks it right to make clear that the full scope of
permissible discovery in the case remains for decision by the
Court.  That is and remains the underlying question.  Nothing in
his Memorandum or accompanying Order is intended to decide or
intimate the Court's view with respect to the underlying question.
The purpose of the Order is to expedite the production of the
relevant administrative records of the two lead Plaintiffs in the
class action. That production will permit the Court to answer the
underlying questions about discovery, not answer them.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Haight directed the Defendant to
produce to the counsel for the Plaintiffs by May 20, 2019, the full
administrative records of the two lead Plaintiffs in this action
relating to the application of those Plaintiffs for discharge
upgrades.  In addition to the records referred to, the Defendant is
directed to produce to the counsel for the Plaintiffs, by May 20,
2019, the documents referred to in the Defendant's brief.

If any party wishes any document referred to in the Order to be
filed under seal or otherwise held in confidence, the parties are
directed to agree upon an appropriate order and submit it to the
Court, or failing agreement, apply to the Court for resolution of
the issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/CjZ0uR from Leagle.com.

Tyson Manker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & National Veterans Council for Legal Redress, on behalf
of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica A. Martinez , Jenner & Block
LLP, Michael J. Wishnie -- michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org -- Jerome
N. Frank Legal Services, Jeremy M. Creelan -- jcreelan@jenner.com
-- Jenner & Block, LLP, Jeremy H. Ershow -- jershow@jenner.com --
Jenner & Block LLP, Nicole Taykhman -- ntaykhman@jenner.com --
Jenner & Block LLP & Susan J. Kohlmann -- skohlmann@jenner.com --
Jenner & Block LLP.

Richard V Spencer, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant, represented by
David Christopher Nelson, U.S. Attorney's Office.


UNITED STATES: Identification of Separated Families to Take 2 Yrs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Carbone, writing for Fox News, reports that it could
take the United States government up to two years to identify
thousands of additional children separated from their parents by
the authorities at the border with Mexico, according to a new court
filing.

The White House outlined on April 5 how it plans to identify which
family members might have been separated by examining thousands of
records using data analysis, statistical science and manual review,
reports Reuters.

A judge in San Diego expanded the number of migrant families that
the U.S. may be required to reunite as part of a class-action
lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Earlier this year, the Office of Inspector General at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services reportedly said the agency
had identified far more children in addition to the 2,737 initially
included in the suit.

"Defendants estimate that identifying all possible children ...
would take at least 12 months, and possibly up to 24 months," the
government wrote in the April 5 filing, according to Reuters. It
added that the time frame would be affected by the efficacy of its
predictive statistical model, the manpower it can dedicate to the
manual review, and any follow-up meetings required.

In a statement on April 6, the ACLU's lead attorney for the case,
Lee Gelernt, told Reuters that the group strongly opposed the
government's proposed plan and accused it of not treating the
separations with the necessary urgency.

President Trump seemed to back off on his threat to completely shut
down the southern border, saying he was pleased with steps that
Mexico had taken.

"Let's see if they keep it done," he said of Mexico. "Now, if they
don't, or if we don't make a deal with Congress, the border's going
to be closed, 100 percent." He also said that he might only close
"large sections of the border" and "not all of it." He added that
his posturing was "the only way we're getting a response." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Prelim Injunction in Immigrant Rights Suit Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YOLANY PADILLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. US IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-928 MJP
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), detained asylum
seekers who are determined by Defendant ICE to have a credible fear
of persecution are entitled to request release from custody during
the pendency of the asylum process.  The initial decision of
whether the detainees may be released is made by Defendant
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and the asylum seekers may
request review of the DHS determination before an immigration judge
("IJ") by means of a bond hearing.

The agencies' own guidelines and regulations reflect a recognition
of the significance of the deprivation of liberty and the need for
expeditious processing of these requests.  The DHS regulations
allow for bond hearings even prior to the agency filing immigration
charges.  The critical nature of the interest at stake is reflected
in an underlying theme calling for hearings of this nature to be
held as expeditiously as possible.

Despite this mandate, the Plaintiffs have submitted a plethora of
declarations reflecting a practice by Defendant Executive Office
for Immigration Review ("EOIR") of delaying bond hearings for
members of this class for weeks, even months, following a hearing
request.

The members of the Bond Hearing class face other obstacles to
securing their freedom.  At the bond hearing, the IJ bases his or
her decision on an evaluation of whether the asylum seeker poses a
danger to the community and is likely to appear at future
proceedings.  Unique among civil detention hearings, however, EOIR
places the burden of establishing these factors on the detainees
instead of the government.

An asylum seeker denied bond can appeal the IJ's decision to the
Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") or seek another bond hearing
in front of the IJ based on a material change in circumstances.
But the potential appellant must make the decision of whether to
appeal without the aid of a record of the initial bond proceeding
or a written decision detailing the reasons for the ruling.  There
is no requirement that immigration courts record their proceedings
or provide a transcript thereof, and the IJs do not release a
written decision unless an administrative appeal of the bond
decision has already been filed.

In addition to the deprivation of liberty, detainees face a number
of other hardships attendant upon their incarceration: separation
from their families, substandard conditions, subpar medical and/or
mental health care, and decreased access to legal assistance and
the other resources required to pursue their goal of asylum
(leading to a decreased likelihood of success).  The stakes are
high, and the obstacles to success can loom even higher.

Pending before the Court are (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction; (ii) the Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and (iii) the
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Judge Pechman concludes that the Plaintiffs of the Bond Hearing
Class have succeeded in establishing all the requisite elements for
a granting of their request for injunctive relief: a likelihood of
success on the merits, irreparable harm if their relief is not
granted, a balance of equities in their favor, and that the public
interest will be benefited by the relief they seek.  Accordingly,
she granted the requested relief and ordered that Defendant EOIR
institute the following procedural safeguards within 30 days of
theOrder:

     1. Conduct bond hearings within seven days of a bond hearing
request by a class member, and release any class member whose
detention time exceeds that limit;

     2. Place the burden of proof on Defendant Department of
Homeland Security in those bond hearings to demonstrate why the
class member should not be released on bond, parole, or other
conditions;

     3. Record the bond hearing and produce the recording or
verbatim transcript of the hearing upon appeal; and

     4. Produce a written decision with particularized
determinations of individualized findings at the conclusion of the
bond hearing.  

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all the
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/fPiF7u from Leagle.com.

Yolany Padilla, Ibis Guzman, Blanca Orantes & Baltazar Vasquez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Leila Kang -- leila@nwirp.org --
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Matt Adams -- matt@nwirp.org --
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice & Aaron Korthuis, NORTHWEST
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as, US
Department of Homeland Security, also known as, US Customs and
Border Protection, also known as, United StatesCitizenship and
Immigration Services, also known as, Thomas Homan, Acting Director
of ICE, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K. McAleenan,
Acting Commissioner of CBP, L Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS,
Marc J Moore, Seattle Field Office Director, ICE, Executive Office
for Immigration Review, Lowell Clark, Warden of the Norwest
Detention Center in Tacoma, Charles Ingram, Warden of the Federal
Detention Center in SeaTac, Washington, David Shinn, Warden of the
Federal Correctional Institute in Victorville, CA & William P Barr,
United States Attorney General, Defendants, represented by Joseph
A. Darrow, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Lauren C. Bingham, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Sarah S. Wilson, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

James Janecka, Warden of the Adelanto Detention Facility,
Defendant, represented by Sarah S. Wilson, US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Watts Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Fidelity
LP. The case is styled as Richard Watts on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Universal Fidelity LP,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02494 (E.D. N.Y., April 28, 2019).

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

Universal Fidelity LP, also known as UFLP, provides billing,
collection, and call center services for companies; and federal,
state, and local governments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net


VIRGINIA TAN: Judge Certifies $30MM Ponzi Scheme Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that a judge has
certified a class action lawsuit against a West Vancouver woman at
the centre of an alleged $30 million Ponzi scheme.

The B.C. Supreme Court has certified a class-action lawsuit against
a West Vancouver woman allegedly involved in a $30-million Ponzi
scheme.

In April 2017, in a settlement agreement with the B.C. Securities
Commission, Virginia Tan admitted that she had fraudulently raised
at least $30 million from investors in a scheme that ran from
2011-2016.

She agreed to pay $3 million to settle the matter and was ordered
to cease trading in any securities or exchange contracts.

A number of lawsuits were filed after the settlement with Jastram
Properties Ltd., (JPL), one of the investors, filing a class-action
suit against Tan, her husband Patrick, her son Marcus and their
related companies.

The class-action suit alleges that Virginia and Patrick Tan
operated an investment scheme that involved soliciting and
receiving investments in a non-existent enterprise in exchange for
promissory notes that they failed to honour.

It's alleged that the funds received by them were fraudulently
diverted to Marcus Tan and used to purchase assets and properties
in his name or for his benefit.

The properties include six properties at a condo development in
Surrey and 24 properties in Fort St. John.

A trustee in the bankruptcy proceedings for Virginia and Patrick
Tan informed JPL that 240 investors with the scheme had been
identified, with 165 of those investors receiving less money back
from the couple than the principal amount they invested.

Court heard that between May 2012 and March 2015, JPL claimed it
had invested $6.6 million with Virginia Tan through a series of
instalments.

When the scheme was exposed in 2016, JPL claims it only got back
about $1.8 million on its investments, leaving $4.8 million
outstanding.

"Based on a generous review of the notice of civil claim, I am
satisfied that if the facts stated by JPL are true, the pleadings
disclose causes of action in fraud, fraudulent conversion and
fraudulent conspiracy," B.C. Supreme Court Justice Joyce
DeWitt-Oosten said in a ruling released April 3.

The judge concluded that JPL had shown that as a representative
plaintiff it had the capacity to fairly and adequately represent
the proposed class of 165 investors and that "judicial economy"
would be enhanced by a class-action proceeding.

A lawyer for the couple told the judge that he intended to withdraw
as their counsel before the hearing and had no instructions on the
certification application.

The judge said in her view that the couple had been given
sufficient notice of the application and she considered it
appropriate to proceed with the matter. [GN]


VITAL PHARMA: Imran & Madison Suits Over False Ad Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated the cases, ISMAIL IMRAN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, KUUMBA
MADISON, Plaintiff, v. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, Case
Nos. 18-cv-05758-JST, 18-cv-06300-JST (N.D. Cal.).

In their operative first amended complaint, the Imran Plaintiffs,
Imran and Zach Hess, allege that VPX misrepresented the contents
and effects of its line of BANG energy drinks.  Based on these
representations, the Plaintiffs assert putative class claims for
(1) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); (2) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL");
(4) deceptive acts or practices under New York law; (5) false
advertising under New York law; (6) breach of express warranty; (7)
unjust enrichment; and (8) fraud.

Plaintiff Madison likewise alleges that VPX's marketing of the BANG
drinks is deceptive and false.  Like the Imran Plaintiffs, Madison
also brings putative class claims for (1) violations of the UCL;
(2) violations of the FAL; (3) violations of the CLRA; and (4)
breach of express warranty.  In addition, Madison asserts claims
for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and for a
declaratory judgment.

The parties have identified Imran and Madison as two out of five
false advertising class actions brought regarding BANG energy
drinks.  The Imran action was filed first, on Sept. 19, 2018.  On
Oct. 12, 2018, Plaintiff Terrell Barker filed a similar putative
class action in the Northern District of Illinois -- Barker v. Vita
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  Three days later, on Oct. 15, 2018,
attorneys from those same three firms representing Barker filed the
Madison action in the district.  Two more actions were subsequently
filed in the Southern District of Florida -- St. Fort-Nwabuku v.
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed on Nov. 19, 2018, and Nguyen
v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed Jan. 30, 2019.

On Nov. 26, 2018, the Court granted Madison's motion to relate the
two cases.  VPX then filed motions to transfer Imran, Barker, and
Madison to the Southern District of Florida.  Barker voluntarily
dismissed his claims without filing an opposition to the transfer
motion.

As for Imran and Madison, the Court continued the hearings on the
respective motions to the same date.  Pursuant to the schedule set
by the Court, the Imran and Madison Plaintiffs then filed a motion
to consolidate the two cases and to appoint the interim lead class
counsel.

Based on the Plaintiffs' uncontested plausible allegations, the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these actions under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") because the putative
class includes at least 100 members, the parties and class members
are minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.

Judge Tigar explains that transfer is permissible only if the
action could have been brought in the Southern District of Florida.
A district court is one in which an action could have been brought
originally if (1) it has subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the
defendants would have been subject to personal jurisdiction; and
(3) venue would have been proper.  He finds that the factors
favoring transfer do not outweigh Madison's choice of forum and the
benefits of retaining his California law claims.  Nor has VPX
provided a convincing reason to deviate from the preference for the
first-filed forum.  Accordingly, he denies VPX's motion to transfer
venue in Madison.

As to VPX's motion to transfer venue in Imran, the Judge finds that
VPX offers additional reasons why the Imran Plaintiffs' choice of
forum deserves less weight.  First, VPX notes that Imran resides in
the Eastern District of California, while Hess resides in the
Southern District of New York.  Second, VPX suggests that the
Plaintiffs' counsel filed in this district to avoid an unfavorable
ruling in Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a Southern
District of Florida court denied class certification in a different
action against VPX involving "a dietary supplement called VPX
Meltdown Fat Incinerator.  Finally, while VPX emphasizes that Imran
includes a New York plaintiff and New York causes of action, Imran,
these facts do not significantly weaken the California interests
involved.  Nor do they make a stronger case for Florida's interest
in the controversy.  Accordingly, the Judge also denies VPX's
motion to transfer venue in Imran.

Given that the Imran and Madison Plaintiffs have moved to
consolidate, Imran and VPX argues that the cases should be
transferred to Florida for consolidation, there is no dispute that
consolidation is appropriate.  In light of the overlapping nature
of the factual allegations and the legal claims, the Judge agrees
as well.  VPX's only argument in opposition to thie motion is that
consolidation is premature until the Court resolves the motions to
transfer.  Because that point is now moot, the Judge grants the
motion to consolidate.

The Plaintiffs propose that the Court appoint three firms as
co-interim class counsel.  Two firms, Nathan & Associates and
Bursor & Fisher, P.A., currently represent Imran and Hess.  The
third, Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC, is one of four firms
representing Madison.  The Judge concludes that approval of this
proposal is premature.

First, the Plaintiffs do not indicate that these appointments are
required to resolve any rivalry between the involved firms, nor any
uncertainty as to their respective roles.  Second, the Plaintiffs
suggest that appointment is necessary because there is
'uncertainty' about who is acting on behalf of the putative class
because this action has spawned two copycat cases in Florida.
Finally, if the Court were to appoint interim lead counsel, it
would be unlikely to appoint three different firms for that role.
The Judge therefore denies the Plaintiffs' motion to appoint
interim counsel.

In sum, Judge Tigar (i) denied VPX's motions to transfer, (ii)
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate, and (iii) denied
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to appoint the interim
class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XzVw4y from Leagle.com.

Ismail Imran & Zach Hess, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Reuben D. Nathan --
rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com -- Nathan & Associates, APC, Joel
Dashiell Smith -- jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. &
Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A.

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendant,
represented by Michael D. Kanach -- mkanach@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani LLP, Holly L.K. Heffner -- hheffner@grsm.com --
M.D. Scully -- mscully@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani,
LLP & Timothy K. Branson -- tbranson@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani LLP.

Kuumba Madison, Movant, represented by Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.


WARREN COUNTY, OH: Ct. Certifies Class in Adoption Assistance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, issued a Report and Recommendation granting
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class in the case captioned
ADOPTIVE FAMILY #1 AND THEIR DAUGHTER A, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WARREN COUNTY, OHIO/WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-179. (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs Adoptive Families #1, #2, and #3 are families who have
adopted children with special needs after serving them as foster
parents. They seek to represent a class of all current and
potential adoptive parents, and their adopted children, who are
eligible to receive subsidies under Title IV-E of the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act and who fall under the
jurisdiction of Warren County Children Services. The Plaintiffs
allege that Warren County denies eligible children adoption
assistance to which they are entitled and obstructs families'
access to such assistance in violation of the United State
Constitution and Title IV-E. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief against Warren County for these alleged
violations.

The Plaintiffs move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and (b)(2). They seek to represent a class consisting of all
current and potential adoptive parents and their adopted children
who are eligible to receive subsidies under Title IV-E of the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act who fall under the
jurisdiction of Defendant Warren County, Ohio and/or Warren County
Public Children's Services Association.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable. There is no strict numerical test
for determining numerosity.  

There are 160 adoptive families in Warren County and the putative
class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable. Warren
County has not argued that the proposed class does not meet the
numerosity element. The Court therefore concludes that plaintiffs
have satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) mandates the existence of questions of law or fact
common to the class.  

There are questions of fact and law common to all of the proposed
class members. Warren County has alleged a common defense in this
case: that plaintiffs do not have an enforceable right to adoption
assistance payments under 42 U.S.C. Section 673 because payment of
the subsidy is within the discretion of the State administering
Title IV-E funds. Warren County contends that states have the
discretion in determining when and in what amounts to provide
adoption assistance subsidies. Whether adoptive families have an
enforceable right to adoption assistance subsidies under the
federal statute is a question shared by all adoptive families in
Warren County.

Warren County's arguments relate to the merits of the underlying
case as to whether Warren County has a policy or practice that
limits adoption assistance subsidies in a way that violates federal
law. The Court's task is not to resolve the merits of plaintiffs'
claims or Warren County's defenses at this juncture but to assess
whether plaintiffs have raised common questions of fact or law that
meet the Rule 23 requirements for class action certification. While
the specific amount of the adoption assistance subsidy may vary
from family to family, the factual issues concerning the policies
and practices Warren County follows in setting adoption subsidies,
the criteria used and the types of expenses it will consider in the
adoption subsidy process will be the same for each class member.
Resolution of plaintiffs' claims will advance the litigation as a
whole and affect each member of the class. The common questions of
fact and law outlined above meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2).


Therefore, the Court finds the commonality requirement is
satisfied.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the
representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the
class. A claim is typical if it arises from the same event or
practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of
other class members, and if his or her claims are based on the same
legal theory.

Warren County argues that class certification is inappropriate
because the named plaintiffs' claims are atypical of the putative
class members. First, Warren County asserts that the named
plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the class claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief. Second, Warren County argues that the named
plaintiffs' claims are not typical of the proposed class.

To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he or
she has suffered an injury (2) the injury is traceable to the
defendant's conduct and (3) a federal court decision is likely to
redress the injury.  

There is no question that all three named Adoptive Families had a
live, actionable claim for injunctive relief at the time they filed
suit. At the time of the filing of the amended complaint, none of
the Adoptive Families had renegotiated their adoption assistance
subsidy agreements. In addition, all of the named Adoptive Families
were subject to the policies and practices challenged in this case
at the time their original adoption assistance subsidies were
determined.

Warren County also argues that the claims of the named class
representatives are not typical of the putative class because
Adoptive Families #1 and #2 have renegotiated their adoption
subsidies for amounts that meet or exceed the amounts they were
receiving for foster care maintenance payments, and Adoptive Family
#3 has voluntarily disengaged from the adoption assistance process.


Warren County essentially reiterates the same arguments it made
regarding standing, which for the reasons discussed above do not
render the claims of the named Adoptive Families #1 through #3
atypical of the putative class. Plaintiffs challenge the process
used by Warren County in negotiating adoption assistance subsidies
and will be subjected to the very same process at each
renegotiation of such subsidies. The named plaintiffs' interests
are aligned with those of the putative class, and the injunctive
and declaratory relief sought will inure to the benefit of all
class members.

The Court concludes plaintiffs have established that the proposed
class meets the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3).

Adequacy of Representation

Under Rule 23(a)(4), plaintiffs must demonstrate that the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The Sixth Circuit has "articulated two
criteria for determining adequacy of representation: 1) the
representatives must have common interests with unnamed members of
the class, and 2) it must appear that the representatives will
vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified
counsel.

The named plaintiffs challenge Warren County's policies and
practices in determining adoption assistance subsidies that apply
to all adoptive families and there is no indication that the
interests of Adoptive Families #1, #2, and #3 are antagonistic to
those of the putative class members. The Court concludes that
plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class. With regard to the qualifications of counsel, plaintiffs
allege their counsel is qualified, experienced and able to conduct
the instant litigation, and Warren County does not argue that
plaintiffs' counsel is unqualified.

Based on plaintiffs' representations and Warren County's lack of
opposition, the Court finds the final Rule 23(a) requirement is
met.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Report
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5mjvm86
from Leagle.com.

Adoptive Family #1 and Their Daughter A., Individually and on
behalf of class of similarly situated children and parents,
Adoptive Family #2 and Their Children B. and C., Individually and
on behalf of class of similarly situated children and parents &
Adoptive Family #3 and Their Children D. and E., Plaintiffs,
represented by Barbara Thornell Ginn, Jennifer Lynn Branch,
Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Mary Caroline Hyatt, Gerhardstein &
Branch Co LPA & Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Gerhardstein & Branch
Co. LPA.

Warren County, Ohio/Warren County Board Of Commissioners,
Defendant, represented by John Stephen Teetor, Isaac Wiles
Burkholder & Teetor, LLC, Kathryn M. Horvath, Warren County
Prosecutor's Office & Aaron Michael Glasgow, Isaac, Wiles,
Burkholder & Teetor, LLC.


WASHINGTON: Settles CRT Antitrust Class Action for $39MM
--------------------------------------------------------
If You Are a Washington Consumer Who Bought a Television or Monitor
Between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007 That Contained a
Cathode Ray Tube You May Be Eligible to Participate in a
Settlement.

The Washington State Attorney General reached a settlement in an
antitrust lawsuit involving the price of cathode ray tubes ("CRTs")
incorporated into televisions and computer monitors. A CRT is a
vacuum tube that was used to display images in televisions and
monitors before LCD, Plasma, and LED display technologies became
popular.

Who is included in the settlement?

The settlement benefits Washington consumers (individuals and
businesses) and Washington state governmental entities that
purchased one or more CRT television(s) or CRT monitor(s) between
March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007:

Washington consumers: You are eligible to participate in the
settlement if you or your business:

   -- purchased a CRT television or CRT monitor between March 1,
1995 and November 25, 2007; and
   -- resided or had headquarters in Washington at the time of
purchase; and
   -- purchased the CRT television or CRT monitor from a retailer
(or someone other than the manufacturer of the CRT component part);
and
   -- purchased the CRT television or CRT monitor for your own use
and not for resale.

Washington state governmental entities: The Washington State
Attorney General also settled claims on behalf of the state
governmental entities that participated in the lawsuit.

What do the settlements provide?

The settlements total more than $39 million. More details are in
the Settlement Agreements and other documents available at
www.crtsettlement.atg.wa.gov. The cost of administering the
settlements, as well as the Washington State Attorney General's
attorney fees and costs, will come out of the Settlement Fund. A
portion of the Settlement Fund will be distributed to the state
governmental entities that participated in the lawsuit. Claims from
individual and business consumers in Washington will be paid out of
the remainder of the Settlement Fund.

The amount you or your business could expect to receive will vary
depending on the number of CRT television(s) and/or CRT monitor(s)
purchased, up to a maximum of $20 per CRT monitor and $6 per CRT
television. However, your recovery could be a smaller amount than
the maximum because there is a limited amount of money in the
Settlement Fund. The amount paid per CRT television and CRT monitor
and the number of claims allowed per consumer will depend on the
number of claims submitted. It is also possible that all or a
portion of the fund will be distributed to charities, governmental
entities, or other beneficiaries depending on the number of claims
submitted.

How can I get a payment?

You must submit a Claim Form to get a payment. You can submit a
Claim Form online or by mail. The deadline to submit a Claim Form
is May 16, 2019. Claim forms are available at
www.crtsettlement.atg.wa.gov or by calling 1-800-332-9084. You do
not need to pay a fee to participate in this settlement. Claims
must be filed by the claimant, and not by a third-party, with
payments to go directly to the claimant.

For More Information:   1-800-332-9084
http://www.crtsettlement.atg.wa.gov/[GN]


WATKINS AND SHEPARD: Watkins Stayed Pending Sampson, IBT Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOM DOTY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WATKINS AND SHEPARD TRUCKING,
INC., a Montana corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-05236-RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Washington, Tacoma,
has issued a stipulate order staying the case pending (i)
Washington Supreme Court's resolution of certified question in
Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc.; and (ii) the Ninth
Circuit's decision in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local
2785 v. FMCSA.

On Feb. 25, 2019, Plaintiff Doty filed the operative putative Class
Action Complaint for Unpaid and Wrongfully Withheld Wages in the
action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for
Pierce County.  On March 28, 2019, Defendant Watkins removed the
Plaintiff's state court action to the Court, invoking the subject
matter jurisdiction of the Court under the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA").

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that in
Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., the Washington Supreme Court held that
employers who pay agricultural workers on a piece-rate basis must
compensate the workers on a separate hourly basis for time spent
performing activities that are outside the scope of the piece rate
picking work, and that the Defendant's piece-rate compensation
system is virtually indistinguishable from the piece rate scheme in
Carranza.

He further alleges that, in Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc.,
the court recognized that while non-productive time claims were
previously denied class certification, and the grounds that such
claims were not cognizable under Washington law, the court's prior
holdings were called into question by the Washington Supreme
Court's recent ruling in Caranza.

Based upon Plaintiff's interpretation of Carranza and Sampson, the
Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) Violations of RCW
49.46.020, 090 for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage for All Hours
Worked, (2) Violation of RCW 49.52.050(2) for Failure to Satisfy
Wage Obligations Assumed Through Contract, and (3) Double Damages
for Willful and Intentional Withholding of Wages Pursuant to RCW
49.52.050, 070 stemming therefrom .

The district court in Sampson concluded that the law underlying the
Plaintiffs' on duty, not driving claim is not clearly determined,
and that the Washington Supreme Court is in a better position than
the Court to answer the question, and therefore certified the
following question to the Washington Supreme Court: "Does the
Washington Minimum Wage Act require non-agricultural employers to
pay their piece-rate employees per hour for time spent performing
activities outside of piece-rate work?"

The briefing on the district court's certified question in Sampson
has been completed in the Washington Supreme Court as of Dec. 21,
2018, and the Washington Supreme Court has scheduled Sampson for
oral argument for May 16, 2019, and has not rendered its decision
in that proceeding.

The parties agree that the Washington Supreme Court's resolution of
the question certified in Sampson could directly impact the
disposition of the Plaintiff's claims asserted in the action, which
assert an on-duty, not driving time unpaid wages claim similar to
that asserted by the plaintiffs in Sampson.

In his Complaint, and relying on Demetrio v. Sakuma Bros., Inc.,
the Plaintiff also alleges that, under Washington law, employers
paying employees on a piece-rate scheme must pay workers for rest
periods separate and apart from the piece.  

On Dec. 21, 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
("FMCSA") issued an Order granting the American Trucking
Associations' and the Specialized Carriers and Rigging
Association's petition requesting a determination that California's
meal and rest break rules are preempted under 39 U.S.C. Section
31141 as applied to property-carrying commercial motor vehicle
("CMV") drivers, which differed from an earlier decision it had
made in 2008 that: FMCSA cannot entertain the petition.  Because
the California meal and rest break rules are not regulations on
commercial motor vehicle safety, the Agency has no authority to
preempt them under 49 U.S.C. 31141.  The FMCSA's Dec. 21, 2018
Order also noted that 20 States in addition to California regulate,
in varying degrees, meal and rest break requirements, including
Washington.

On Dec. 27, 2018, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
("IBT") filed a Petition for Review of the FMCSA's Dec. 21, 2018
Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
requesting the court review and reverse the FMCSA's preemption
decision, which matter has since been consolidated with three other
pending appeals against the FMCSA and the U.S. Department of
Transportation ("DOT") involving the FMCSA's preemption decision by
joint motion of the parties.  Pursuant to that same Joint Motion,
the parties' in the consolidated actions have agreed that
petitioners' opening briefs will be filed on April 29, 2019, and
the FMCSA and DOT will file their answering briefs on May 28,
2019.

The parties agree that the FMCSA's Dec. 21, 2018 Order's validity,
significance, potential application to other states, and
prospective versus retroactive applicability are all disputed legal
issues, some of which may be resolved through the Ninth Circuit's
resolution of IBT's Petition for Review, including without
limitation the parties' disputed issues of whether and to what
extent the FMCSA's Dec. 21, 2018 Order is applicable and/or its
temporal effectiveness in relation to Washington's rest break laws,
and whether and to what extent Washington's rest break laws are
preempted by the FMCSA's hours of service regulations.

The Plaintiff, on the one hand, and the Defendant, on the other
hand, stipulated and agreed, and Judge Leighton approved, that:

     1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action
under CAFA;

     2. The dates set forth in the Court's Order Regarding Initial
Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement and all
other deadlines currently set in the action be vacated, including
without limitation the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class
certification under LCR 23(i)(3);

     3. The action be stayed, in its entirety and for all purposes,
pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision on the certified
question in Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc., Wash. S.Ct.
Case No. 96264-2, and the Ninth Circuit's decision International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. FMCSA, 9th Cir. Case No.
18-73488, on the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' Petition
for Review of the FMCSA's Order granting a determination of
preemption;

     4. Within 14 days of the Washington Supreme Court's decision
in Sampson and/or the Ninth Circuit's decision in IBT, whichever
decision is issued first, the parties will file a joint status
report with the Court that (1) informs the Court regarding that
court's decision and (2) sets forth the parties' respective and/or
collective positions as to whether the stay should remain in effect
pending a decision in the other action;

          a. If the parties agree that the stay should be lifted
after the first-issued decision, the parties' joint status report
will also provide the Court with agreed-upon and/or proposed
deadlines for [i] the Defendant to respond to the complaint by
answer, motion, or otherwise; [ii] the Plaintiff to move for class
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and [iii] initial
disclosures and submission of the parties' Joint Status Report and
Discovery Plan.

          b. If the parties agree that the stay should not be
lifted after the first-issued decision, the parties' joint status
report will be submitted within 14 days following the second-issued
decision and will provide the Court with agreed-upon and/or
proposed deadlines for [i] the Defendant to respond to the
complaint by answer, motion, or otherwise; [ii] the Plaintiff to
move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and [iii]
initial disclosures and submission of the parties' Joint Status
Report and Discovery Plan.

     5. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court in response to the
parties' joint status report as referenced above, (a) the
Defendant's 21-day deadline to respond to the complaint by answer,
motion, or otherwise, and (b) the Plaintiff's presumptive deadline
under LCR 23(i)(3) to move for class certification, will commence
running upon the Court lifting the stay of the action.  In the
event the Stipulated Motion is not granted by the Court, then those
deadlines will commence running upon the Court's entry of its Order
to that effect.

     6. By entering into and submitting the Stipulated Motion, the
parties fully reserve, and do not waive or limit, their respective
rights, claims, remedies, defenses, and positions in this action,
including as to the issues recited.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UwE18l from Leagle.com.

Tom Doty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Walter Denlinger,
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C., Craig Ackermann, ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF
PC & India Lin Bodien.

Watkins and Shepard Trucking Inc, a Montana Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kasey D. Huebner -- khuebner@millsmeyers.com --
MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING.


WAYFAIR LLC: Hamilton Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as LIONESHA HAMILTON, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WAYFAIR LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19006990 was removed
from the Superior Court for the County of Alameda to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 26, 2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02291-JCS.

Plaintiff alleges that "she and the other class members have been
personally injured by Defendants' unlawful business acts and
practices" and that "she and the other class members are entitled
to restitution of the wages withheld and retained by Defendants
during a period that commences four years preceding the filing of
this Complaint".[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jon D. Meer, Esq.
     Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Phone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com
            bpelliconi@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Paul J. Leaf, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
     Phone: (213) 270-9600
     Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
     Email: pleaf@seyfarth.com


WEBB & GERRITSEN: Violates Wisconsin Wage Laws, Klahn Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN KLAHN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. WEBB & GERRITSEN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00605-WED (E.D. Wis., April 25, 2019)
is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief
the Court may deem appropriate.

The complaint says the Defendant operated (and continues to
operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived current and
former Sales Service employees of their wages earned for all
compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek. Defendants improperly classified said employees as
"exempt" for compensation purposes under the FLSA and WWPCL. In
reality, Plaintiff and all other current and former Sales Service
were "non-exempt" employees under the FLSA and WWPCL and legally
entitled to an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Sales Service employee n
approximately November 2014.

Webb & Gerritsen, Inc., is a food and beverage wholesale
distribution company headquartered in New Berlin, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Walcheske, Esq.
     Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
     David M. Potteiger, Esq.
     WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
     15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
     Brookfield, WI 53005
     Phone: (262) 780-1953
     Fax: (262) 565-6469
     Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
            sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
            dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


WELLS FARGO: Rogers Sues over Credit Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. for alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
The case is captioned WYLIE S. ROGERS, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02596 (N.D. Ill., April 17,
2019).  Rogers seeks redress from Wells Fargo's actions in
knowingly obtaining Plaintiff's credit report without a permissible
purpose, in violation of the FCRA. Wells Fargo had obtained his
credit report from Experian on Sept. 6, 2017, after Plaintiff's
bankruptcy discharge. Defendant's misrepresentation and false
certification that it had a permissible purpose to access
Plaintiff's credit report resulted in Experian releasing highly
confidential and sensitive personal information concerning
Plaintiff to Defendant. Consequently, Plaintiff has suffered
damages in the form of invasion of privacy and fear that he may be
a victim of identity theft.

Wells Fargo is a national banking institution, mortgage lender, and
mortgage servicer. Its principal place of business is located at
101 N. Phillips Avenue, Sioux Falls, SD. Wells Fargo regularly
furnishes consumer credit information to the major reporting
agencies, including Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
     Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
     SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD
     2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Telephone: (630) 575-8181
     E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
             mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com


WESTJET: Unions Slow to Address Sexual Assault Case
---------------------------------------------------
Alex McKeenStar, writing for The Star, reports that the former
flight attendant who launched a class-action lawsuit against
WestJet after she alleged sexual assault by a pilot says the unions
now representing pilots and flight attendants have been slow to
take up the cause.

Those unions say they believe sexual harassment in the airline
industry needs to be addressed but argue there's little they can do
for Mandalena Lewis' case because she is not a member of either
organization.

"The fact of the matter is (sexual assault in the airline industry)
has been a historic and systemic problem that has not yet been
uprooted," Lewis said in an interview on April 5. "They've been
hiding; straight up, the unions have been hiding."

Court documents filed in 2016 in B.C. Supreme Court say Lewis was
on a stopover in Hawaii in January 2010 when an unnamed WestJet
pilot allegedly pulled her onto a hotel bed and proceeded to kiss
and grope her. The allegations have not been tested in court.

The court document says that after she reported the alleged
incident, the Calgary-based company changed Lewis' work schedule to
avoid overlap with the pilot, which left her with fewer working
hours. It also alleges she was instructed to keep quiet out of
respect for the pilot's privacy.

Lewis was subsequently fired for insubordination.

She proposed a class-action lawsuit in 2017 on behalf of current
and former female flight attendants at WestJet, which she said has
failed to implement anti-harassment programs. WestJet has denied
that allegation.

Lewis then made extensive efforts to raise awareness about the case
on Twitter and by demonstrating at YVR airport in support of other
former flight attendants facing similar battles.

She hoped the new unions could help with those efforts to raise
awareness.

At the time of her alleged assault, neither WestJet pilots nor
flight attendants were unionized. Lewis herself was part of an
effort to get employee representation for the flight attendants.

They are represented now. As of last summer, flight attendants are
backed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the
largest public-sector union in the country. The pilots got
certification with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the
world's largest pilot union, in 2017.

Lewis has contacted CUPE and pilot representatives about her
alleged assault -- expecting on the recommendation of her unionized
friends and family that they could help her raise awareness about
the case and the problems of sexual harassment in the industry.

Since her employment was terminated before the CUPE union drive,
Lewis was not a CUPE member.

CUPE offered general words of support to Lewis in February, when
approached by the Star following news that an appeal court would
allow the certification of her class action to go forward.

"What happened to Mandalena Lewis should not have happened, and she
has the support of CUPE," said Lou Arab of the Canadian Union of
Public Employees Alberta, where the flight attendants' union is
based, in a previous interview. "As a union of flight attendants,
obviously we are very concerned about the issue. We think WestJet
employees need more significant protection."

But Lewis said that was the first time she heard a public statement
from CUPE on her case -- which, as a class action that proposes to
capture both current and former WestJet flight attendants, could
directly involve their members.

Lewis has reached out repeatedly to CUPE employees over Facebook
messenger asking for advice and, especially, public support for her
cause. She's received sympathy and well-wishes but little else.

"The fact that it takes someone to come forward, to go through what
I'm going through, to be begging them for help," she said. "What I
would have done is show up the next day, have a protest, have a
rally, have signs ready."

A CUPE spokesperson reached on April 5 said Arab's comments still
stand and that the union won't get involved in the class action.

Lewis told a pilot who is now a WestJet ALPA executive member what
happened to her in the summer of 2016 -- before the pilots had
unionized.

"When I initially called him I thought he was going to react like
my partner when I told him. Like we need to react right now and get
organized," Lewis said. He listened to her, Lewis said, but hasn't
heard from him since.

In a statement to the Star, ALPA spokesperson Robert Lynch said
"ALPA takes any claims of assault or harassment extremely seriously
and we encourage all flight crews to report instances of harassment
so that they can be addressed appropriately."

The union does not appear to have an anti-sexual harassment policy
on its website and did not respond on the record to questions about
why it has not made a statement on Lewis' case.

With files from Jenny Peng [GN]


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Ct. Junks Objections to Discovery Master's Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Order overruling Plaintiffs'
objections and Defendant's objections to the discovery master's
report and recommendation in the case captioned TOBY SCHECHNER, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No.
2:16-cv-12409. (E.D. Mich.).

The litigation is a putative class action in which Plaintiffs
allege that Whirlpool's marketing and advertising for its ovens
with AquaLift self-cleaning technology (AquaLift ovens) were false,
deceptive, and misleading because the ovens did not clean as
effectively as advertised.

Defendant's Objection Regarding Mr. Weir's Conjoint Analysis

The Defendant argues that Mr. Weir's conjoint analysis failed to
take into account supply-side considerations such as the effect
that marketplace competition among manufacturers and retailers had
on the price retailers might have charged for AquaLift
partial-clean' ovens, regardless of what consumers might have been
willing to pay for them. Defendant argues that Mr. Weir's use of
real world price points does not reflect the interplay of supply
and demand absent the alleged self-cleaning misrepresentation.

Prices are set by supply and demand. To be reliable, then,
Plaintiffs' analysis of prices must cover both supply-side and
demandside considerations.

Here, Mr. Weir's conjoint analysis sufficiently considered
supply-side considerations. He analyzed the prices for
self-cleaning ovens and partially selfcleaning ovens and the price
premiums between the two. Allegedly, Defendant supplied partially
self-cleaning ovens instead of fully self-cleaning ovens. The price
premium for partially self-cleaning ovens captured the differential
for partially cleaning ovens as allegedly supplied.

Mr. Weir's exclusion of additional supply-side factors goes to the
weight of his opinion, not its admissibility. The Court therefore
overrules Defendant's objection regarding supply-side
considerations in Mr. Weir's conjoint analysis.

Defendant's Objection Regarding Mr. Weir's Hedonic Regression
Analysis

Defendant argues that Mr. Weir's hedonic regression analysis could
not isolate the impact of only AquaLift ovens' disputed cleaning
performance on customer preference. Defendant points out that
AquaLift ovens also include cleaning benefits and non-cleaning
benefits, such as a larger window and cavity and improved cooktop
performance.

Defendant therefore objects to Mr. Sharkey's statement that it is
not the Court's role to determine facts related to which alleged
features an AquaLift Oven may contain or which alleged features are
important to consumers.  

A preponderance of the evidence shows that Mr. Weir's hedonic
regression analysis is verifiable and comports with established
scientific principles. Defendant does not dispute that hedonic
regression is a valid statistical tool. And the analysis is
relevant to the issues in the case, as it attempts to identify a
price premium associated with the self-cleaning label at issue. The
alleged deficiencies that Defendant identifies in Mr. Weir's
hedonic regression analysis namely, the failure to consider
non-cleaning benefits of AquaLift Ovens— goes to the strength of
his opinion, not its reliability.   

The Court therefore overrules Defendant's objection regarding Mr.
Weir's hedonic regression analysis.

The Defendant's Objection to Mr. Sharkey's Statement about Whether
Mr. Weir's Fixed-Percentage Price Premium Approach Needed to
Undertake Highly Individualized Inquiry

The Defendant next objects to Mr. Sharkey's conclusion that an
individual damages inquiry is not required at the admissibility
stage because Plaintiffs pursue a benefitof-the-bargain theory of
recovery. Defendant concedes that Mr. Sharkey's finding that Mr.
Weir's fixed-percentage price premium approach was relevant to
prove Plaintiffs' benefit-of-the-bargain theory was sufficient to
deny Defendant's motion under Rule 702.  

The Defendant's objection takes Mr. Sharkey's statement out of
context. As Defendant recognizes, the Court appointed Mr. Sharkey
to address the admissibility of expert opinions. Mr. Sharkey was
observing Plaintiffs' characterization of their damages theory for
the purposes of determining whether Mr. Weir's analysis was
relevant and reliable enough to be admissible. Mr. Weir's fixed
percentage price premium approach is sufficiently relevant and
reliable to be admissible.

The Court therefore overrules Defendant's objection regarding Mr.
Sharkey's statement about individualized inquiry.

Plaintiffs' Objection Regarding Dr. Simonson's Conclusions About
Consumer Expectations

The Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Simonson was not qualified to
conclude that consumers had unrealistic or inaccurate perceptions
of self-cleaning effectiveness because he does not have a technical
background and did not conduct any technical tests about the ovens'
self-cleaning ability. They criticize Dr. Simonson for relying on
too few documents in determining that there was a discrepancy in
consumer expectations of ovens' self-cleaning effectiveness.

Dr. Simonson has extensive expertise in consumer behavior and
consumer research. He is therefore qualified to measure and observe
consumers' perceptions and expectations about the effectiveness of
ovens' self-cleaning feature.

But, in forming his opinion, Dr. Simonson not only reviewed another
manufacturer's manual for its pyrolytic self-cleaning oven but also
studied Defendant's documents detailing the process of cleaning an
AquaLift oven.   Dr. Simonson thus based his opinions upon
sufficient facts and data his survey results and Defendant's
product user guides and instructions. The documents are
sufficiently reliable and relevant to his opinions about consumer
expectations. His opinions about a discrepancy in consumer
expectations of ovens' self-cleaning effectiveness are therefore
admissible.

The Court will overrule Plaintiffs' objection.

Plaintiffs' Objection Regarding Dr. Simonson's Assumption that
AquaLift Self-Clean is Not a Standalone Product Feature

The Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Simonson failed to consider evidence
that AquaLift self-clean is an isolated product feature. They
criticize him for relying on the deposition of Defendant's general
manager and a small subset of documents.  

Dr. Simonson based this statement on deposition testimony and
pertinent product-related documents.

Dr. Simonson's assumption, then, is rooted in sufficient facts and
data to be reliable.
Admissibility of Dr. Simonson's opinion does not turn on whether
the AquaLift self-clean feature is actually isolatable as an
economic matter.

The Court will overrule Plaintiffs' objection.

Plaintiffs' Objection Regarding Dr. Simonson's Use of a Modified
Home Depot Advertisement and Dr. Simonson's Survey of "Pyrolytic
Self-Clean Technology" Instead of "Self-Clean"

The Plaintiffs renew their arguments that Dr. Simonson's opinions
are unreliable because his survey used a modified Home Depot
advertisement and because it asked respondents the meaning of
pyrolytic self-clean instead of "self-clean" technology.

First, Plaintiffs argue that the modification of the advertisement
which added AquaLift before self-cleanhanged the prominence of the
terms in the advertisement.  

Dr. Simonson's modification of the advertisement was minor and was
not so removed from reality as to render his opinions unreliable.
Dr. Simonson left most of the advertisement unchanged.  

Second, Plaintiff's argue that Dr. Simonson's testing of the
meaning of pyrolytic self-cleaning did not capture consumers'
understanding of self-cleaning, because testing the meaning of
pyrolytic self-cleaning (1) was irrelevant to the case or
Plaintiffs' allegations and (2) confused respondents.  

Testing the meaning of pyrolytic self-cleaning is not irrelevant to
the case or Plaintiffs' allegations. Pyrolytic self-cleaning is a
more traditional form of selfcleaning that is not present in
AquaLift ovens. Dr. Simonson found that consumers had unrealistic
expectations of self-cleaning features. Testing whether consumers
misunderstood pyrolytic self-cleaning was therefore relevant to
whether consumers misperceived the AquaLift self-cleaning feature
specifically or self-cleaning features generally.

The Court therefore overrules Plaintiffs' objections to Mr.
Sharkey's conclusions regarding Dr. Simonson's opinions. It will
deny Plaintiffs' motion to strike the opinions of Dr. Simonson.

Plaintiffs' Objection Regarding Dr. Ugone's Opinion on the
Isolatability of the AquaLift Feature

The Plaintiffs object that the Report did not address their
arguments regarding Dr. Ugone's conclusion that the AquaLift
feature was not isolatable.  

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' arguments that attack Dr.
Ugone for ignoring Defendant's advertisements which suggest that
AquaLift was a standalone feature.  Dr. Ugone did not opine that
AquaLift and other benefits were never marketed together; instead,
he opined that they were positively correlated and had a positive
impact on oven prices.  Dr. Ugone concluded that Mr. Weir's
coefficient on AquaLift captured the additional value attributable
to the cleaning features and the additional value attributable to
the non-cleaning features for which Named Plaintiffs are not
claiming damages. The existence of webpages marketing AquaLift and
other benefits together does not render Dr. Ugone's conclusion
unreliable.

Dr. Ugone relied upon sufficient facts and data in concluding that
Mr. Weir failed to isolate AquaLift from other benefits. His
opinion is therefore admissible.

Plaintiffs' Objection Regarding Dr. Ugone's Conclusion that
Individual Inquiry is Necessary

Plaintiffs object that the Report did not explicitly analyze their
argument that Dr. Ugone's conclusion that individualized inquiry
was needed should be stricken as a legal conclusion. They take
issue with Dr. Ugone's conclusion that the individual inquiries
such as consumer expectations, purchase drivers, and consumers'
satisfaction with AquaLift's cleaning ability are needed to
quantify the consumers' injuries.  

A witness may not testify to a legal conclusion. But an opinion is
not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. An
expert testifying about factual issues may state opinions that
suggest the answer to the ultimate issue.

Dr. Ugone made an economic conclusion, not a legal conclusion,
about whether individualized inquiry was necessary. Mr. Weir had
calculated an average price premium across the putative class. Dr.
Ugone criticized Mr. Weir for assuming that all individuals in the
group experienced the effect captured by the average. He opined
that Mr. Weir's calculated average did not account for real
economic variations among individual consumers. The Court will not
strike Dr. Ugone's opinion that individualized inquiry is needed.

Plaintiffs' Objection Regarding Dr. Ugone's Bias

Plaintiffs object to Mr. Sharkey's conclusion that Dr. Ugone's
alleged bias was not disqualifying, arguing that the Report
understated Dr. Ugone's bias.  

Whether Dr. Ugone is unlikely to embrace classwide damages does not
render his testimony inadmissible. Allegations of an expert's bias
go to credibility, not admissibility. Dr. Ugone did not
unquestioningly oppose classwide damages. Instead, Dr. Ugone's
response to Mr. Weir's testimony applied his educated understanding
of economic principles to the facts and theory of the case. Dr.
Ugone has an extensive background in economics, so he has
sufficient specialized knowledge to assist the finders of fact in
deciding the issues of the case. Plaintiffs' attacks on Dr. Ugone
for his predisposition against classwide damages go to the weight
of his opinions.

The Court will overrule their objection.

Plaintiffs' Objections Regarding Absence of Conjoint Analysis by
Dr. Ugone

Plaintiffs object that Dr. Ugone could not testify as to his
expertise in surveytaking and market simulation and therefore could
not opine pertaining to conjoint analysis.  

But Dr. Ugone's response to Mr. Weir's price premium calculation
presented essentially economic criticisms. Dr. Ugone is qualified
to testify about economics, so his economic critiques of Mr. Weir's
opinions are admissible. For example, Dr. Ugone criticized Mr.
Weir's methodology for failing to account fully for supply-side
factors, such as including competitors' products, and to predict
market prices.  

Dr. Ugone relied upon the software documentation to conclude that
Mr. Weir measured willingness-to-pay and not price premium and that
Mr. Weir interpreted his market simulation as market equilibrium.
Dr. Ugone thus provided fundamentally economic observations about
Mr. Weir's conclusions and methodology. Dr. Ugone's lack of direct
experience in conducting consumer surveys or utilizing Sawtooth
software goes to the weight of his opinions and not their
admissibility.

The Court will overrule Plaintiffs' objection and deny their motion
to strike Dr. Ugone's opinions.

Plaintiffs' Objection Regarding Dr. Rauschenberger's Methodology

Plaintiffs' arguments about Dr. Rauschenberger's use of the stripe
test go to the weight, not the admissibility, of his conclusion.
The stripe test is sufficiently scientifically reliable. It is a
standardized and reproducible method of measuring the cleaning
performance of ovens and simulates reasonable levels of soiling
with different foodstuffs that the average consumer may encounter
when cleaning his or her oven.

Even though he did not use the Consumer Reports method, he did
utilize monster mash soil material in his stripe test. In any
event, Dr. Rauschenberger is not required to use every available
testing method for his conclusions to be admissible. The Court will
overrule Plaintiffs' objection on this ground.

Plaintiffs' Objection Regarding Dr. Rauschenberger's Expertise

Plaintiffs' argument that Dr. Rauschenberger lacks sufficient
expertise to render his third conclusion is not convincing.
Plaintiffs have already acknowledged that Dr. Rauschenberger's
comparison test was meant to determine what a consumer would do
with different ovens under naturalistic circumstances.  

The test and Dr. Rauschenberger's third conclusion is therefore
tied to his expertise in humanfactors psychology and is relevant to
Dr. Rauschenberger's other conclusions interpreting Defendant's
materials about AquaLift technology.

Dr. Rauschenberger has valid psychological expertise and his
testimony can assist the trier of fact. The value of his
human-factors expertise and asserted lack of cleaning experience in
a cleaning experiment goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of
his opinion. The Court will overrule Plaintiffs' objection and deny
Plaintiffs' motion to strike Dr. Rauschenberger's opinions.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' objections and the Defendant's
objections to the discovery master's report and recommendation are
overruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y3z4lnwc from Leagle.com.

Morley Witus, Special Master, represented by pro se.

Toby Schechner, Barbara Barnes, Kathryn Limpede, Mary Ellen Thome,
Richard Thome, Louise Miljenovic, Laura Bliss, Beverly Simmons &
Candace Oliarny, Plaintiffs, represented by Jonah H. Goldstein,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Down LLP, Lucas F. Olts --
lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Mark
Samuel Reich -- mreich@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Down
LLP, Martha J. Olijnyk – mjo@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm,
Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C.,
Stuart Andrew Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The
Miller Law Firm.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Howard B. Iwrey
– hiwrey@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, James P. Feeney –
jfeeney@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Jessica G. Scott --
scott@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Julian Richard
Ellis, Jr., Wheeler, Trigg, O'Donnell, LLP, Laura J. McNabb --
mcnabb@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell & Michael T.
Williams -- williams@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP.


WHITE DOVE: Cooper Seeks Correct Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
MARK COOPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WHITE DOVE MATTRESS LTD., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00931 (N.D. Ohio, April 25, 2019) is a case challenging
the policies and practices of Defendant that violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the Ohio wage-and-hour
laws, and Ohio Revised Code which requires prompt payment of earned
wages.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to include the
non-discretionary attendance bonuses in Plaintiff's regular rate
for purposes of computing overtime pay due to Plaintiff, thereby
underpaying Plaintiff's overtime pay.

Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as an hourly non-exempt employee
in one of Defendant's Ohio offices in this district and division.

Defendant is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of
business in Cuyahoga County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
     Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216.230.2955
     Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com
            jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com


WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE: Bid to Certify Class in Walker Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN WALKER, LISA WALKER, C.G., a minor child, ROY
PROVOST, AMY PROVOST, and J.P. a minor child, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WILDERNESS
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL, INC., a Montana Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 4:18CR3006 (D. Mont.), Judge Donald W. Molloy of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, (i)
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and (ii)
granted Wilderness' Motion to Deny Class Certification.

Plaintiffs John Walker, Lisa Walker, and their minor son C.G.,
along with Roy Provost, Amy Provost, and their minor son J.P.,
represent a putative class challenging the marketing practices of
Defendant Wilderness, a residential addiction treatment center in
Marion, Montana.

C.G. and J.P.'s parents sent them to the Wilderness Alternative
School for treatment in April 2018.  John Walker claims he spoke
with Wilderness employee Chase Sewall about concerns that C.G.
would attempt to run away if sent to the program.  According to
Walker, Sewall responded that Wilderness was a suitable place for
C.G. and that there was "nowhere to run."  Similarly, Roy and Amy
Provost claim they spoke with Wilderness employee Ben Dorrington
about concerns that J.P. was a flight risk. (Id. at 9, ¶ 29.) They
claim Dorrington assured them that J.P. would be unable to escape.
Both the Walkers and Provosts claim they relied on these assurances
in deciding to send their sons to Wilderness.

C.G. arrived at Wilderness on April 13.  J.P. arrived on April 18.
On April 19, J.P. broke into multiple Wilderness buildings,
apparently looking for cigarettes.  The next day, J.P. and another
resident left Wilderness, purportedly by hitchhiking, and were
later returned by police.  On April 23, 2018, C.G. and J.P. left
together in a truck owned by Wilderness.  The Plaintiffs claim
Wilderness left the truck's keys unsecured, which allowed the boys
to escape.  Wilderness denies leaving the keys unsecured and
responds that C.G. and J.P. committed a criminal act in taking the
truck.  In any event, C.G. and J.P. did not return to Wilderness
after leaving in the truck on April 23.

On Sept. 5, 2018, the Plaintiffs sued Wilderness for fraud in the
inducement, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and violations of the Montana Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act.  The crux of the Complaint
is that Wilderness falsely represented it would provide a safe
place for C.G. and J.P.  

The Plaintiffs sought to represent a putative class of all United
States persons who have purchased Services from WTC and persons who
have been provided Services from the applicable limitation
period(s), through the filing date of the Complaint.

The Court's Dec. 5, 2018 Scheduling Order set a March 6, 2019
deadline for class certification motions to be fully briefed.
Wilderness filed a motion to deny class certification on February
19.  On February 27, the Plaintiffs received an extension of the
March 6 deadline.  They filed a motion for class certification on
March 11, 2019.

Their motion amends the class definition to all United States
persons who have purchased Services from WTC and persons who have
been provided Services who were misled by WTC regarding the nature
and extent of WTC's services, were induced into purchasing Services
from WTC in reliance on WTC's misrepresentations and did not
receive the promised Services.

Judge Molloy finds that the proposed class fails to meet the
numerosity and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 (a).  Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish
the prerequisites to class certification under Rule 23(a), the
Judge need not address the requirements of Rule 23(b).
Accordingly, he (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification; and (ii) garnted Wilderness' Motion to Deny Class
Certification.

Because subject matter jurisdiction in the case is premised only on
the Class Action Fairness Act, and the Plaintiffs have not pled an
alternative basis for jurisdiction, the Judge dismissed the case
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

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

John Walker, Lisa Walker, C.G., a Minor Child, Roy Provost, Amy
Provost & J.P., a Minor Child, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Keith L. Gross --
keith@grosslaw.com -- GROSS LAW GROUP & Timothy M. Bechtold --
tim@bechtoldlaw.net -- BECHTOLD LAW FIRM.

Wilderness Alternative School, Inc., a Montana Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Justin K. Cole -- jkcole@GARLINGTON.COM
-- GARLINGTON LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP & Robert C. Lukes --
rclukes@GARLINGTON.COM -- GARLINGTON LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP.


YALAHA BAKERY: Berrios Seeks Regular and Overtime Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MADELINE BERRIOS, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. YALAHA BAKERY LLC, HEINZ JUERGEN KLUMB, and ANNE
MARIE KLUMB, individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00208 (M.D.
Fla., April 25, 2019) is a cause of action brought by Plaintiff as
a collective action to recover from Defendants regular wages,
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of herself and all other current
and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff who worked in
excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after January
2018, without being properly compensated.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours
every week period. However, she was not paid for overtime hours.
Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants were able to track the
hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.
Therefore, during the relevant period of employment, Defendants
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of
time and one-half her regular rate for every hour that she worked
in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff MADELINE BERRIOS was employed by Defendants as a
full-time non-exempt employee from approximately January 28, 2018
to March 27, 2019.

YALAHA BAKERY LLC is a Florida corporation, having place of
business in Lake County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZESTFINANCE INC: Faces Turner et al. Suit over Usurious Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against ZestFinance, Inc.,
BlueChip Financial, doing business as Spotloan, and Douglas Merrill
for violations of state and federal laws for the usurious interest
and fees they charged to their borrowers. The is captioned DIANNE
TURNER, LULA WILLIAMS, RENEE GALLOWAY, MARKETA BASS, JOHN GLATT,
GWENDOLYN BECK, ANASTASIA SHERMAN, SHEILA BURNS, STANIE HAGGINS,
KEISHA HAMM, DAVID HAWKINS, SHEILA SIMMONS, FAITH THOMAS, DASHAWN
HUNTER, TONEKIA SHOWELL, SONJI GRANDY, REGINALD JONES, AND SUSIE
ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ZESTFINANCE, INC., BLUECHIP FINANCIAL d/b/a
Spotloan, and DOUGLAS MERRILL, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00293-REP (E.D. Va., April 17, 2019). Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants are engaged in rent-a-tribe scheme to make online
short-term loans (commonly called "payday loans") that carry
triple-digit interest rates, often exceeding 400%.

In a rent-a-tribe scheme, the payday lender--which does most of its
lending over the internet--affiliates with a Native American tribe
to attempt to insulate itself from federal and state law by
piggy-backing on the tribe's sovereign legal status and its general
immunity from suit under federal and state laws. In this case,
non-tribal entities ZestFinance and Douglas Merrill provided the
capital, marketing, underwriting, and other resources for BlueChip
Financial dba Spotloan ("BlueChip"), a purportedly tribal entity in
North Dakota that makes usurious loans to persons located
throughout the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and the class members, seek to recover damages and
penalties under state and federal law.

ZestFinance, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Los
Angeles, California. BlueChip Financial dba Spotloan is a
purportedly tribal corporation located in Belcourt, North Dakota,
and incorporated under the laws of the Turtle Mountain Band of
Chippewa Indians. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
     Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
     Casey S. Nash, Esq.
     KELLY GUZZO, PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Telephone: (703) 424-7572
     Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
     E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
             aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
             asey@kellyguzzo.com

            - and -

     Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
     Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
     Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
     CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Telephone: (757) 930-3660
     Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
     E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
             elizabeth@clalegal.com
             craig@clalegal.com

             - and -

     E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
     John G. Albanese, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
     Minneapolis, MN 55414
     Telephone: (612) 594-5999
     Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
     E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
             jalbanese@bm.net

             - and -

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
     Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Telephone: (206) 816-6603
     Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
     E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
             jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
             eadams@terrellmarshall.com

             - and -

     Matthew Wessler, Esq.
     GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
     1735 20th Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20009
     Telephone: (202) 888-1741
     Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
     E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***