CAR_Public/190521.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 101

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Cousino Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ADT LLC: Fitzhenry Sues Over Unauthorized Pre-Recorded Calls
ALABAMA: Sutton Files Civil Rights Class Action
ALISAL UNION: Bid to Dismiss Suit on Blood Test Needles Reuse Nixed
ALLSTATE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Stacking Benefits Class Action

AMYRIS INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
APPLE INC: iPhone Users Sue Over Defective Audio
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Leave to Refile Class Certification Bid Nixed
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Borden Ladner Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
AUBURN MAIN JAIL: Footage Released After $1.4MM Lawsuit Settlement

BILLINGS, MO: Appeals Class Action Status of Residents' Suit
BOEING CO: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
BOEING CO: Thornton Law Firm Probing Securities Laws Violations
BRUNSWICK COUNTY: D.R. Horton Files Class Suit Over Water Fees
CALIFORNIA PROTECTION: Blumenthal Files Suit for Security Guards

CALIFORNIA: More Women Prison Workers Come Forward in New Suit
CAPITAL OF HARRISBURG: Epperson Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
CAPTAINS HOUSE: Andrews Suit Alleges ADA Violation
CAPTAINS MANOR: Andrews Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
CHEETAH MOBILE: Masterson Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

CHEETAH MOBILE: Still Defends Marcu Class Action in New York
CHINA ZENIX: Continues to Defend New Jersey Class Action
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Suit in New York Still Ongoing
CONAGRA BRANDS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Fraud Class Action
CORRECTIONS CORP: Tenn. Shareholder Class Action Certified

CROTHALL LAUNDRY: Does not Provide Rest Periods, Villacana Says
DAVITA INC: Kahn Swick Probing Securities Law Violations
DETROIT, MI: ACLU Files Class Action Over Bail System
DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Action Over Obsolete Motor Oils Certified
DR. JAMES GOYDOS: Facing 160 Charges in Class Action Suit

FALLSBURG, NY: Pere Files Tort Class Suit in New York
FANNIE MAE: Baltimore Files Major Antitrust Lawsuit
FERDINAND MARCOS: Martial Law Victims Challenge Lawyers' Fees
FIAT CHRYSLER: Car Owners Get $3K in 3.0L Ecodiesel Settlement
FIRST HAWAIIAN: Final Approval in Suit v. Unit Set for Aug. 6

FLORIDA: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of PDN Services Suit
FORD MOTOR: Drake Sues Over Inaccurate Fuel Economy Ratings
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Agreement in Fernandez-Cryer Suit Pending
FTD COMPANIES: Figueroa Alleges Violation Under ADA
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit

GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in A&M Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Corvette Owner Sues Over Defective Wheels
GLEN MILLS: Former Students File Class Action Over Abuse
GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
GREEN TREE INN: Knowles Asserts Breach of ADA in Illinois

GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Calif. Ct.
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit
HELIUS MEDICAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
INTEL CORP: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
INTEL CORP: Still Defends Security Vulnerabilities-Related Suits

IOOF HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New South Wales
JONES DAY: Responds to Gender Discrimination Class Action
KERN RIDGE: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Calif. Ct.
LA CARETTA: Diners File Class Action Lawsuit Over Norovirus
LET'S EAT OUT: Settlement in Cope Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval

LION BIOTECH: Allocation Plan of Net Rabkin Settlement Fund Granted
LION BIOTECH: Rabkin Securities Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
LOGMEIN INC: Continues to Defend Wasson Class Suit
M.J. BROTHERS: Hearing on Rodriguez Deal Prelim Approval Vacated
MAGNUM REAL ESTATE: Fischler Asserts Breach of ADA

MARKEL CORP: Reveals Internal Review Findings Amid Class Action
MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Consolidated Class Suit
MATTEL INC: Faces Class Suits Related to Fisher-Price Sleeper
MATTEL INC: Wyatt Class Action Ongoing
MDL 2286: Reconsideration of Arbitration Order in TCPA Suit Denied

MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Halford Files Insurance-related Class Action
MULTICARE HEALTH: Cadiz Denied Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
NATIONAL IMAGING: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Mauthe TCPA Suit
NCAA: Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Suit Settlement/Fee Award Affirmed

NEW ENGLAND FITNESS: Summary Judgment in Kauffman Suit Reversed
NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows Claims in Special Education Suit
NEW YORK WHEEL: Gilbane Building Co Files Class Suit in New York
NIO INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL: Cary Hits Illegal Discharge

NORTHLAND GROUP: George Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
ONECOIN LTD: Silver Miller Files Class Suit Over Pyramid Scheme
OVERHILL FARMS: Zamora Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
P.F. CHANG'S: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
PARTS EXPRESS: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

PERSONALIZATIONMALL.COM: Figueroa Files Class Suit Under ADA
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Ex-Mayor Files Class Suit Over Tax Increases
PONZIOS RD: Summary Judgment Bid in Casco Wage Suit Partly Granted
QUIXOTE VENTURES: Pa. Super. Affirms Summary Judgment in Klein Suit
ROBIN INDUSTRIES: Byerly Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work

RYB EDUCATION: Consolidated Qian & Wang Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
RYB EDUCATION: Qian Class Action Remains Stayed
RYB EDUCATION: Says Zhang Class Suit in Preliminary Stages
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Filing of 2nd Amended Lil' Man Suit Denied
STATE FARM: Court Dismisses Vang Suit without Prejudice

TELUS COMMS: Blake Cassels Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
TELUS COMMS: Davies Ward Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
TFI INT'L: Wins Court OK of $4.74MM Settlement in Flores FLSA Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Camry Air Con Smell Certified
TRICOR AMERICA: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Bid Denial in Velarde

TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CA: $450K Deal in Ferzich FLSA Suit Has Approval
U.S. XPRESS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
UBER: Glasgo Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
UBER: Has $132MM Earmarked for Settling Drivers' Suits
VALVE SOFT: Quinault Nation Sues Over CS:GO Skins Betting

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
VI DEVELOPMENT: Cuaya Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
VIRGINIA BEACH: Bid to Decertify Class in Andreana Suit Denied
VIRGINIA TAN: Class Suit Over $30MM Ponzi Scheme Certified
VISA INC: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in EMV Chip Suit Pending

VISALUS INC: Faces $925MM Damages in Robocall Class Action
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Chaves Hits Discrimination, Illegal Discharge
WALMART: Pontiac Retirees Set to Get Settlement Payout
WEINSTEIN CO: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Geiss RICO Suit
WINN MGMT: Uncashed Funds Distribution to Legal Aid at Work Granted

ZALE DELAWARE: Leos Suit Removed to E.D. California
ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Legal Action Over Co-Marketing Program
[*] Carlton Says Class Action Defense Spending Continues to Rise
[*] U.S. Chamber Institute Calls for TCPA Class Action Reform

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Cousino Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRADLY COUSINO, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01160 (D. Minn., May 1, 2019), seeks to
hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff 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:

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, 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
    

ADT LLC: Fitzhenry Sues Over Unauthorized Pre-Recorded Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ADT LLC, a Delaware company, and SAFE
STREETS USA LLC, a Delaware company, Defendants, Case No.
9:19-cv-80626-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2019) seeks to stop
Defendants from making unauthorized pre-recorded voice message
calls promoting ADT's home alarm services, and to obtain redress
for all persons similarly injured by its conduct.

This case is brought to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal statute
enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. It
challenges Defendants' practice of making unauthorized pre-recorded
voice message calls to consumers promoting ADT's home alarm
services.

ADT's contact with the general public is limited, and it instead
relies on a series of "Authorized Dealers," such as Safe Streets to
offer its goods and services. To increase its sales, and as part of
a general cold-call based marketing scheme, Safe Street markets
ADT's services using pre-recorded voice message calls to consumers,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Fitzhenry is a South Carolina resident.

ADT offers home alarm services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALABAMA: Sutton Files Civil Rights Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steve Marshall. The
case is styled as Lena Sutton, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Steve Marshall, in his official
capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Alabama,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00660-SGC (N.D. Ala, May 1, 2019).

The lawsuit arises under Civil Rights Act.

Steve Marshall is the Attorney General of the State of
Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Allan L Armstrong, Esq.
   ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER LLC
   2820 Columbiana Road
   Birmingham, AL 35216
   Tel: (205) 205-1529
   Fax: (866) 601-2692
   Email: armstrong.atty@gmail.com

      - and –

   Brian M Clark, Esq.
   WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
   The Kress Building
   301 19th Street North
   Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
   Tel: (205) 314-0500
   Fax: (205) 254-1500
   Email: Bclark@wigginschilds.com

      - and –
   Darrell L Cartwright, Esq.
   CARTWRIGHT LAW CORPORATION
   PO Box 383204
   Birmingham, AL 35238-3204
   Tel: (205) 222-5900
   Fax: (205) 823-5374
   Email: dcartwright@gmail.com


ALISAL UNION: Bid to Dismiss Suit on Blood Test Needles Reuse Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIO V., et al., Plaintiffs, v. HENRY ARMENTA, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00041-BLF (C.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, denied the separate motions of
Armenta and Diana Garcia to dismiss the operative second amended
complaint ("SAC") for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The putative class action arises from blood sugar testing done on
students at Dr. Oscar F. Loya Elementary School without the
knowledge or consent of the students' parents.  In the original
complaint, the Plaintiffs -- comprising the students who were
tested and their parents -- asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 and state law against the teacher who performed the testing,
Armenta; the school principal, Garcia; the school; and the Alisal
Union School District.  All the Defendants filed Rule 12(b) motions
to dismiss.  The motions were granted in part and denied in part,
after which the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint and
later, by stipulation, the operative SAC.

In the SAC, the Plaintiffs have dropped all but Claims 1 and 2 of
the original compliant, both asserted under Section 1983.  Claim 1,
which is asserted against both Armenta and Garcia, asserts a
deprivation of liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment, including parents' rights to make medical decisions
regarding their children and students' rights to be protected from
harm while at school.  Claim 2, which is asserted only against
Armenta, asserts a deprivation of privacy interests protected by
the Fourth Amendment.

Armenta and Garcia move to dismiss those claims under Rule
12(b)(6).  They both brought prior Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss.


Judge Freeman finds that Armenta could have, but did not, assert
that Claims 1 and 2 fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Instead, Armenta attacked only the state law claims in his first
Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  Garcia's first motion did argue failure to
state a claim with respect to Claim 1, but not on the grounds
currently asserted.  In her first motion, Garcia argued that Claim
1 was deficient because it did not allege precisely when Garcia
learned of Armenta's conduct.  The Court denied Garcia's motion to
dismiss Claim 1 on that basis.  Garcia now raises new grounds for
dismissal of Claim 1, which she could have raised in her first
motion.

The Judge declines to exercise its discretion to consider the
Defendants' successive Rule 12(b)(6) motions.  The Plaintiffs filed
their original complaint more than a year ago, and the Defendants'
first motions to dismiss were litigated more than eight months ago.
The issues now raised by Defendants could have, and under the
Federal Rules should have, been litigated then.  The Defendants
have not offered any explanation as to why they failed to raise
their current failure-to-state-a-claim defenses in their first
motions to dismiss, or why the Plaintiffs should be prejudiced by
potential delay in litigating those defenses at this late date.

Accordingly, Judge Freeman denied the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the SAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yHliQS from Leagle.com.

Mario V., Geraldine Julie B., I.G.V., A Minor by and through their
Guardian Ad Litem, Y.G., A Minor by and through their Guardian Ad
Litem, O.D.G., A Minor by and through their Guardian Ad Litem,
Christina G., Oscar G., Alicia P., Hugo P. & A.P.H., A Minor by and
through their Guardian Ad Litem, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
A. Bonner -- cbonner799@aol.com -- Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner &
Adam Cabral Bonner -- cabral@bonnerlaw.com -- Law Offices of Bonner
& Bonner.

Henry Amenta, Defendant, represented by Christopher Edward Panetta
-- CPanetta@FentonKeller.com -- Fenton & Keller A Professional
Corporation.

Diana Garcia, Defendant, represented by Eric James Bengtson --
ebengtson@davisyounglaw.com -- Davis and Young, APLC.


ALLSTATE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Stacking Benefits Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that in their first
salvo against a series of proposed class action lawsuits over
rejected stacking benefits, insurance companies have contested
whether the "seismic" decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
that led to those lawsuits can be applied retroactively.

Both Allstate and the Government Employees INsunrace Company
(GEICO) in March filed motions seeking to dismiss the class actions
that were brought against them in the wake of the state Supreme
Court's decision in Gallagher v. Geico.  That ruling determined
that using household exclusions to bar recovery of stacked benefits
violated the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law because the
clauses acted as "de facto waiver[s]" for the coverage.

The proposed class actions against Geico and Allstate, as well as
three other carriers, hinge on arguments that the insurance
companies improperly used household exclusions to bar stacked
coverage as far back as 1990.  But the companies, in motions to
dismiss filed recently, are pushing back, arguing that benefits
denied before the recent Gallagher decision were done so based on
established court precedent that specifically allowed the
practice.

"In issuing its policies and setting these premiums, Geico Casualty
relied on [Erie Insurance Exchange v.] Baker and the well-settled
law in Pennsylvania validating the household vehicle exclusion,"
Geico contended.  "To now hold Geico Casualty retroactively to the
new rule set out in Gallagher would require Geico Casualty to 'pay
on a risk it did not knowingly insure, or collect a premium to
underwrite.'"

In a motion to dismiss filed March 28, Allstate made similar
arguments.

"During the time period relevant to the claims alleged in the
complaint, Gallagher was not the law," Allstate contended. "On the
contrary, the argument that household exclusions violate the MVFRL
had been consistently rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,
the Third Circuit and other Pennsylvania courts."

In making their arguments, the carriers pointed to Baker, which was
decided in 2009, and Geico v. Ayers, which was decided in 2011,
both of which upheld the use of the household exclusion. The
decision in Gallagher, which the justices issued in January, split
with those rulings, but contended that its holding did not go
against principles of stare decisis because the court split evenly
in Ayers and the holding in Baker was a plurality.

Regardless of stare decisis issues, the defendants argued, the
decisions amounted to binding precedent, and the new holding
amounted to a rule change that should only affect litigation going
forward. The defendants further cited language in the Gallagher
decision that they contend indicates that the ruling was meant to
be read prospectively.

However, in a response filed in late March in the action against
Geico, lead plaintiff Francis Butta contended that Gallagher was
not a rule change, but rather was simply the first time a majority
of the court decided the issue.

"The decision in Gallagher merely interprets the stacking
provisions of the MVFRL vis a vis the household exclusion," Butta
said in the March 22 filing. "No new legal principal has been
established."

Butta further argued that, in the wake of additional Supreme Court
precedent, remediation for injured parties, rather than cost
containment for the insurance industry, should be viewed as the
overriding consideration regarding the applicability of the MVFRL.

Along with Geico and Allstate, Donegal Mutual Insurance Co.,
Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance Co. and USAA Casualty
Insurance Co. are also facing proposed class actions over their
rejection of stacking benefits.

USAA and Penn National have not yet filed substantive motions, and
Donegal filed a motion last month seeking to have the case
transferred from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to the
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.

In an emailed statement, Peter Speaker of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer,
who is representing Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance Co.,
said there is broad language in the Gallagher opinion, but not all
of that language speaks to the true holding in the case.

"The court was very careful to explain that it was deciding only
the precise issue before the court, which was whether the exclusion
was valid in a case where one insurance company covered all the
vehicles under stacked policies but unilaterally decided to put
them on separate policies. And the court was careful to explain
that the decision was not disturbing any of the Supreme Court's
prior decisions, several of which have upheld the household vehicle
exclusion and similar exclusions," Speaker said. "So, the true
scope remains to be determined."

Jim Haggerty, Esq. -- jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com -- of Haggerty,
Goldberg, Schleifer & Kupersmith and Scott Cooper, Esq. of Schmidt
Kramer are representing the plaintiffs. Haggerty did not return a
call for comment.

Kymberly Kochis, Esq. -- kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
--
of Eversheds Sutherland is representing Geico. Joseph Mayers, Esq.
-- jmayers@themayersfirm.com -- of The Mayers Firm is representing
Donegal Mutual Insurance. Mark Levin, Esq. --
LEVINMJ@BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- of Ballard Spahr is representing
Allstate. Kochis, Mayers and Levin each did not return a call for
comment April 3 afternoon.

When reached by phone, Jay Williams, Esq. --
jwilliams@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff Hardin, who is representing
USAA, said, "No comment." [GN]


AMYRIS INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Amyris, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AMRS) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 15, 2018
and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged
to contact the firm before June 3, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Amyris did not have appropriate resources
to accurately track and account transactions. The Company in fact
suffered from a material weakness of internal controls over
financial reporting. This weakness left the Company unable to file
its Annual Report in a timely manner. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Amyris, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Tel: 310-301-3335
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


APPLE INC: iPhone Users Sue Over Defective Audio
------------------------------------------------
Brianna Castelli, Karen Lyvers and Matthew White, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-03026, (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2019)
seeks all damages and appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory
relief for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.

Apple is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of cell
phones and related equipment and services throughout the world with
a large share of its business done in California.

Plaintiffs purchased iPhone 7 units whose speaker button "greyed
out" and became inoperable only after purchase. Since then, all
audio function ceased including making or receiving calls. The
Apple store refused to honor its warranty. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      William A. Ladnier, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
             rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
             will@gregcolemanlaw.co

             - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
             agold@tzlegal.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      1644 Bracken Rd.
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
      Tel: (313) 303-3472
      Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Leave to Refile Class Certification Bid Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY, INC., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS,
INC.; APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.;
CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY; and APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, PET FOOD EXPRESS LTD, and ALPHA POLISHING, INC. d/b/a
GENERAL PLATING CO., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNERWRITERS, INC.;
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.;
CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and APPLIED RISK SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 2:16-cv-158 WBS AC, 2:16-cv-1211 WBS AC
(E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California denied Alpha Polishing's Request
for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

Plaintiffs Shasta Linen, Pet Food, and Alpha Polishing initiated
these representative actions against Applied; Applied Underwriters
Captive Risk Assurance, Inc.; Applied Risk Services, Inc. and
California Insurance Co., Inc., alleging that the Defendants
fraudulently marketed and sold workers' compensation insurance
programs to California employers in violation of state and federal
law.

After consolidating the two actions for pre-trial purposes only,
the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs then filed an ex parte application requesting a
status conference.

On April 15, 2019, the Court held a status conference, which
addressed the following issues: (1) whether Plaintiff Alpha
Polishing should be granted leave to file a renewed motion for
class certification; (2) whether the Plaintiffs should be allowed
to communicate with putative class members to develop additional
evidence in support of such a motion; (3) possible modifications to
the scheduling order; (4) the possibility of separate trials; and
(5) whether the Court should set a settlement conference.  

Alpha Polishing argues that the Court should allow a renewed motion
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
because it has proposed a narrower class definition that it
believes resolves many of the Court's concerns regarding
certification.  Alpha Polishing's newly proposed class would
consist of all California participants in the Defendants' insurance
programs that paid more under the Defendants' Reinsurance
Participation Agreement than they would have under guaranteed cost
workers' compensation insurance policies issued by California
Insurance Co.  Alpha Polishing would seek class certification only
on its claim under the unlawful prong of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Judge Shubb finds that Alpha Polishing has not provided the Court
with any explanation for why it could not have pursued this
narrowed class definition in the initial motion for class
certification.  The Plaintiffs are pursuing certification in their
New York putative class action of essentially the same class as the
new one it now seeks to certify in the case, albeit under the state
law of a different jurisdiction.  Allowing Alpha Polishing leave to
bring arguments they could have raised earlier would place an undue
burden on the Defendants and waste the Court's limited resources.

Moreover, the newly proposed class does not resolve the Court's
concerns identified in the prior order denying class certification.
In that prior order, it denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on superiority grounds under Rule 23(b)(3).  The
Court found, in part, that each class member had a significant
interest in controlling its own litigation due to the large damages
at issue in this dispute.  That finding remains the same, even in
the context of the newly proposed class.

Where over 60% of potential class members have a significant
monetary interest in controlling their individual actions, a class
action is not a superior means of resolving this dispute.  Alpha
Polishing provides the court with no authority in support of this
assertion.

Lastly, the Judge believes that the newly defined class presents
many of the same manageability concerns that the Court confronted
in its previous order.  The newly proposed class definition
excludes all putative members who have pursued individual actions,
even those with claims outside of the scope of the proposed class.
The Judge would still have to determine which class members are
then excluded from the present action and craft an accurate and
appropriate class notice taking those findings into account.
Further, the existence of these other actions would still remain a
relevant factor in that there is still a risk that the putative
class action could result in a disposition inconsistent with those
other actions.

Basedon the foregoing, Judge Shubb denied Alpha Polishing's Request
for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
Because he denied Alpha Polishing leave to file a renewed motion
for class certification, the Judge denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
request to communicate with the putative class members to develop
additional evidence in support of the Motion.

The cases captioned Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied
Underwriters, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00158-WBS-AC and Pet Food
Express Ltd. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-0211-WBS-AC are consolidated for the purposes of trial.
Even though some evidence at trial may not be admissible as to all
the Plaintiffs, there is no risk of jury confusion or prejudice
because the cases will be tried as a bench trial.

These actions are referred to the court's Voluntary Dispute
Resolution Program ("VDRP").  Within 14 days of the Order, the
parties will contact the Court's VDRP administrator, Sujean Park,
at (916) 930-4278 or SPark@caed.uscourts.gov, to start the process
of selecting an appropriate neutral.  The parties will carefully
review and comply with Local Rule 271, which outlines the
specifications and requirements of the VDRP.  The parties will
complete the VDRP session no later than June 14, 2019.

Any party that objects to the referral to the VDRP will file its
objections within seven days of the Order.  Such objections will
clearly outline why that party believes that the action is not
appropriate for referral to the VDRP.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zCwYbb from Leagle.com.

Pet Food Express Ltd., a California corporation and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Glen L. Abramson --
-- Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, John Douglas Moore --
jmoore@hennetzel.com -- Law Office of John Douglas Moore, Kevin
Page, Cummings & Page, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter R. Kahana --
pkahana@bm.net -- Berger Montague, pro hac vice, Steven M. O'Connor
-- soconnor@oconnorlawfirm.com -- O'Connor Redd, LLP, pro hac vice
& Yechiel Michael Twersky -- mitwersky@bm.net -- Berger Montague,
pro hac vice.

Alpha Polishing, Inc., Doing business as, Plaintiff, represented by
Kevin Page, Cummings & Page, LLP & Glen L. Abramson, Berger
Montague PC, pro hac vice.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer Y.
Kook -- skook@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Amanda L. Morgan, DLA Piper LLP & Shand Scott Stephens --
shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y.
Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

California Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Applied Risk Services, Inc., Applied Underwriters Captive Risk
Assurance Company, Inc. & California Insurance Company, Defendants,
represented by Jeanette Barzelay, DLA Piper LLP, Travis R. Wall,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Amanda L. Morgan, DLA Piper LLP & Shand
Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance, Inc. & California
Insurance Company, Inc., Counter Claimants, represented by Spencer
Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Jeanette Barzelay, DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Pet Food Express Ltd., a California corporation and all those
similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Glen L.
Abramson, Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, John Douglas Moore, Law
Office of John Douglas Moore, Kevin Page, Cummings & Page, LLP, pro
hac vice, Peter R. Kahana, Berger Montague, pro hac vice, Steven M.
O'Connor, O'Connor Redd, LLP, pro hac vice & Yechiel Michael
Twersky, Berger Montague, pro hac vice.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. &
California Insurance Company, Counter Claimants, represented by
Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Alpha Polishing, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by John
Douglas Moore, Law Office of John Douglas Moore, Kevin Page,
Cummings & Page, LLP & Glen L. Abramson, Berger Montague PC, pro
hac vice.


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Borden Ladner Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Abadi, Esq. -- MAbadi@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that writing for the
majority of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal, Justice Green has
recently provided welcome elucidation of the ever-elusive "waiver
of tort" doctrine within the context of class action proceedings.
In Atlantic Lottery Corporation Inc. v. Babstock, the Court
addressed the intractable debate of whether "waiver of tort"
constitutes an independent cause of action or a remedy and,
incidentally, whether such determination can be made at the
certification stage of a class action without the benefit of a full
factual record.

In the past, other courts have been reticent to decide the issue at
a pleadings or certification stage, without the benefit of a full
factual record as it "involves matters of policy that should not be
determined at the pleadings stage" (see, for example, Serhan Estate
v. Johnson & Johnson, 85 O.R. (3d) 665 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal
to C.A. ref'd Oct. 16, 2006, leave to appeal to S.C.C. ref'd.
[2006] S.C.C.A. No. 494). According to the Newfoundland Court of
Appeal, the answer is that waiver of tort is a cause of action and
— apparently — that no full factual record is needed to make
that determination.

In Babstock, the claimants alleged that video lottery terminals
were deceptive. Among other causes of action, they alleged
negligence on the part of the gaming corporation that operated the
terminals, but did not claim any specific damages. Instead, they
claimed to "waive" the tort of negligence in favour of a claim to
"a remedy in restitution", so as to ensure that the appellant
Lottery Corporation "should retain no benefit from the breaches
pleaded." Additionally, the claimants pleaded waiver of tort as a
separate cause of action which, as the Court noted, in itself
attracts remedies of constructive trust, disgorgement, and
accounting. Justice Green concluded that the application judge did
not err in deciding not to strike the claims based on waiver of
tort (or, as Justice Green re-labelled them, "claims based on
unjust enrichment gained by alleged tortious wrongdoing"), as it
was not plain and obvious that such claims could not succeed (the
standard under the first requirement of the test for
certification).

Justice Green pointed out that the waiver of tort analysis "is in
some respects affected by terminological and conceptual confusion
and inconsistency, not only in the pleadings and in the arguments
that have been presented, but also in the case law and academic
writings in the area." Accordingly, Justice Green provided the
following definitions:

"[94] I propose therefore to limit the use of the term restitution
to situations where the remedy includes the reversal of a transfer
of wealth from the defendant to the claimant. I will use the term
disgorgement to describe the remedy that involves the award to the
claimant of a benefit acquired by the defendant from a source that
does not necessarily include a deprivation to the claimant. The
term unjust enrichment can describe any enrichment of the
defendant, however that enrichment is derived, and which a court
determines to be unjust, thus justifying either a restitutionary or
disgorgement remedy."

Justice Green further noted that "the law has progressed to the
point where it is reasonable to conclude that, depending on proof
at trial, a court could find on the facts as pleaded that a claim
for disgorgement is actionable . . . . based on unjust enrichment
of the appellant as a result of tortious wrongdoing." Such a claim,
where it is based on a claim of negligence, does not depend on
proof of damage to individual tort victims. Proving a breach of a
duty of care, i.e. the "wrong that forms the basis of the tort", is
sufficient.

Waiver of tort has often been described by legal commentators as an
oxymoron. In Babstock, Justice Green concluded that "waiver of
tort" "is now a misnomer" causing "much confusion in current
jurisprudence on the subject" and that it "does not depend on an
artificial concept of "waiver" (i.e. a giving-up of a fully
independently-actionable tort in favour of another claim), but on
separate wrongful conduct leading not to injury to the claimant but
to the unjust acquisition of a benefit." Accordingly, proclaiming
that the "time has come to jettison the terminology of waiver of
tort", Justice Green effectively moved to recognize waiver of tort
as a separate cause of action that allows for a restitutionary or
disgorgement remedy where certain defined circumstances apply.
[GN]


AUBURN MAIN JAIL: Footage Released After $1.4MM Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Matthews, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a
California jail was compelled to release footage of corrections
officers beating and tasing a mentally ill inmate after settling a
class-action lawsuit for $1.4M.

After abuse allegations led to three officials at Auburn Main Jail
in Auburn, California getting fired, a class-action lawsuit was
filed by 500 inmates filed by civil rights attorney Mark Merin,
Esq. -- mark@markmerin.com  The jail tried to keep records of the
abuse out of public view, but were unsuccessful.

A security video released as part of the lawsuit settlement shows
guards beating 28-year-old Beau Bangert who was on suicide watch at
the time.  The video shows Bangert adopting a fighting stance and
laughing before guards rush him and knock him into a wall.

As two guards hold Bangert's arms and another holds his neck from
behind, a fourth guard punches, kicks, and knees the inmate.  At
another point Bangert is punched and tased while one arm and is
neck are held.

The guard who punches and kicks Bangert places him in a choke hold
several times in the video.

As Bangert does not fight back or fall to the ground, four more
guards enter the cell and deliver more blows. Finally, the inmate
falls to the ground and an officer remarks, "There's blood, be
careful."

Later in the video Bangert is shown sitting in a safety chair and
wearing a white anti-spitting mask as he is medically examined.
Afterward he is wheeled back into the room on the chair and the
mask is removed while another officer records images of his face.

They demonstrated total insensitivity and it was clearly an abusive
gang attack on a defenseless individual,' attorney Merin said of
Bangert's treatment. 'And it showed absence of training and
malevolence on the part of the deputies who participated.'

Two deputies, Jeffrey Villaneuva and Robert Madden, and Sergeant
Megan Yawa were fired over the abuse allegations. Yawa was accused
of filing false reports, but her case was dismissed. Villaneuva and
Madden pleaded no contest to felony assault charges.

"We brought these alleged misdeeds to your attention when they
occurred in 2017, and to continue to be transparent," said Lt.
Andrew Scott for the Placer County Sheriff's Office in a video
statement.

"We wanted to be the first to release these videos to you as well
once litigation involving these incidents is over, however some of
that litigation is still unresolved."

The judge said that since the three criminal cases for the fired
officers were over, the video should be released because there were
"no ongoing civil cases whose jury pools might be tainted."

Bangert will receive $50,000 as part of the class action and
received a separate $250,000 settlement.

"We are auditing their response to claims of use of force and
excessive force, and I think that process will improve the response
of the jail personnel to the conduct of inmates," an attorney who
worked with Merin said. [GN]


BILLINGS, MO: Appeals Class Action Status of Residents' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Rogers, writing for Billings Gazette, reports that Billings,
Montana attorneys are appealing a district court decision that
classified a lawsuit against the city as a class action, a move
that opened the suit to thousands of city residents.

A ruling in April by Cascade County District Judge Gregory Pinski
allowed the suit in Yellowstone County District Court to move
forward as a class action lawsuit, which brings in every city
resident who paid a franchise fee on their water, wastewater or
solid waste disposal bill, a group of almost 35,000 people.

The fight started when a group of seven Billings residents sued the
city, arguing that the franchise fee was essentially an illegal tax
collected by the city and that by charging it, the city violated
their rights.

Billings started charging franchise fees in 1992; 4% for water and
wastewater services, and 5% for solid waste disposal services. The
city ended the practice last summer.

The class action designation last month moved the lawsuit one step
closer to a hearing and, depending on the final ruling, could mean
the city will be responsible for compensating nearly 35,000
residents who have been charged franchise fees.

The city filed its appeal against the class action designation with
state Supreme Court on May 9. [GN]


BOEING CO: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on April 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
The Boeing Company ("Boeing" or "the Company") (NYSE: BA) for
violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between January 8,
2019 and March 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 10, 2019.           

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Boeing's 737 MAX airplanes were not as
safe as past airplanes manufactured by the Company. Boeing
attempted to work around these safety deficiencies with engineering
"hacks" and "optional" safety add-ons to address concerns. Most
airlines did not purchase the safety options offered by the
Company. The FAA granted the Company its own oversight and
certification of the new Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation
Systems, a conflict of interest based on Boeing's rush to bring the
737 MAX to market. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Boeing,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- represents
investors around the world and specializes in securities class
action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.

CONTACT:

         The Schall Law Firm
         Brian Schall, Esq.,
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.,
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         info@schallfirm.com [GN]


BOEING CO: Thornton Law Firm Probing Securities Laws Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing shareholders who purchased or acquired Boeing stock (NYSE
ticker: BA) between Jan. 1, 2019 and May 10, 2019, and are
interested in learning about their potential rights to recover in a
securities class action lawsuit pending against Boeing, please
email the Thornton Law Firm at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call
617-531-3933.

Thornton Law Firm LLP is investigating a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders and investors who purchased the securities
of The Boeing Company (NYSE ticker: BA). The investigation involves
possible violations of the federal securities laws by Boeing.

According to the lawsuit, Boeing prioritized profitability ahead of
airplane safety. Boeing may have misled investors about the
sustainability of Boeing's core Commercial Airplanes segment by
maintaining that the Boeing 737 MAX was a safe airplane. Boeing
made these statements all while concealing the full extent of
safety problems caused by the placement of larger engines on the
737 MAX that changed the handling characteristics of the 737 MAX
from previous models. These handling characteristics included the
danger of the increased pitch-up tendencies. These changes required
special safety features, some of which Boeing installed only as
"extras" or "optional features."

As a result of Boeing's alleged misconduct, as the news about
Boeing's alleged misconduct was revealed, Boeing's (BA) stock
plunged nearly $70 per share, from approximately $440 a share to
$372 a share, the complaint alleges.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Boeing stock (BA) between
January 1, 2019 and May 10, 2019, you may have a claim for damages.
Please:

         Contact:
         Thornton Law Firm's shareholder rights team
         Email: shareholder@tenlaw.com,
         Phone: 617-531-3933 [GN]


BRUNSWICK COUNTY: D.R. Horton Files Class Suit Over Water Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johanna Ferebee, writing for Port City Daily, reports that D.R.
Horton, a publicly-traded company that calls itself "America's
Largest Homebuilder," filed a class-action federal lawsuit against
Brunswick County in March.

Asking for in excess of $5 million, D.R. Horton claims the county
collected illegal water and wastewater fees as a prerequisite to
providing utility service at its numerous residential projects.

The allegedly illegal fees cut into the company's profits, creating
greater expenses, according to the suit.

Impact fees

Referred to as impact, capacity, capital recovery or system
development fees, litigation surrounding the fees among builders
and municipalities has increased over the last two years. In fact,
D.R. Horton's suit -- filed March 5 in the United States District
Court -- is at least the third filed in the Cape Fear region
regarding allegedly illegal impact fees.

A North Carolina Supreme Court case found impact fees charged to
fund future service costs to be unlawful in 2016.  Then in 2017,
the General Assembly passed House Bill 436.  The bill legalized and
clarified the fees – now dubbed "system development fees" —
under certain conditions. Utility providers can't assess the fees
arbitrarily.  The fees must be based on a professional analysis,
used to recoup capital improvement costs to service new
development.

Last fiscal year, Brunswick County charged $1,150 in water and
$4,000 for wastewater connection for a three-bedroom unit in
"capital recovery fees."  During that time, the county issued 1,307
residential permits — with new construction valued at $459.1
million — according to its most recent permit report.  With five
months left in the current fiscal year, the county has already
issued 1,475 residential permits as of January.

Ann Hardy, Brunswick County's manager, said the county was served
about two weeks ago. She said the county intends to defend its
stance that the fees were charged lawfully.

"We have not yet filed a response," Hardy wrote in an email on
March 28. "We will defend the county's position that the county's
utility system development fees were appropriately charged and
collected."

Claims

D.R. Horton's class action claims Brunswick County charged these
fees with "deliberate indifference" to the company's constitutional
rights.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government is
prohibited from depriving property rights without due process.

This alleged constitutional violation, among other reasons, is
cited as grounds for the suit D.R. Horton filed the case in United
States District Court rather than Brunswick County Superior Court.

The suit argues Brunswick County was aware, or should have been
aware, that its actions violated both federal and state law.
Municipalities were warned in 1982, the suit states, when the North
Carolina Supreme Court cautioned local governments that they may
lack the power to charge for future services.

Brunswick County illegally collected in excess of $5 million
between June of 2015 and June 2018, the suit alleges.

D.R. Horton has filed a similar federal lawsuit against the City of
Charlotte and its water utility, Charlotte Water (formerly known as
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department). Filed on January 11
in the Western District of United States District Court of North
Carolina, the class-action suit also includes a half-dozen other
home builders as co-plaintiffs. In that suit, the companies claim
the same amount -- at least $5 million plus 6 percent interest --
is owed.

In mid-March, Charlotte's attorney filed a motion to dismiss the
case, but it is still currently pending.

Third case in Cape Fear region

When the law changed two years ago, it did not retroactively
authorize utility providers to charge the illegal fees.

With a three year statute of limitation, some builders that believe
they were assessed illegally between September 2015 and June 2018
are pursuing legal action to get their money back.

Mecklenburg-based J.A.C.K. Development, LLC, and Wilmington-based
Coastal Cypress Building Company, founded by Steve Swain, filed a
class action suit against Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
(CFPUA) in August 2018. The suit claims CFPUA's baseless collection
of fees -- charged with no concrete plan -- "shocks the
conscience." (D.R. Horton's suit also uses this same legal
jargon.)

That same month, the Town of Leland entered into a tolling
agreement with Bill Clark Homes Wilmington. The agreement preserves
Bill Clark Homes right to enter a lawsuit, of which it has not yet
filed. It precludes Leland from claiming statutes of limitations in
a future suit, and claims the company overpaid utility impact fees
for several years. Then, in September 2018, Wilmington-based
Plantation Building Company filed a class action suit against the
town, alleging the same thing.

Both Leland and CFPUA denied the builders' claims. According to the
lead attorney for plaintiffs that filed cases against Leland and
CFPUA, the firm Whitfield, Bryson & Mason LLP has filed several
similar suits across the state. [GN]


CALIFORNIA PROTECTION: Blumenthal Files Suit for Security Guards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The security services company is the target of a proposed class
action complaint filed by their California security guards who
allege the company failed to provide meal and rest periods to their
employees.

The Los Angeles labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against
California Protection and Investigation Services, Inc., alleging
that the company failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks
to its security guard employees. The California Protection and
Investigation Services, Inc., lawsuit, Case No. 19STCV14719, is
currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the
State of California.

According to the class action complaint's allegations, the
company's security guard employees were allegedly unable to take
off duty meal breaks due to their rigorous work schedules.
California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee
required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a
shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to
the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work and a second
uninterrupted meal break when employees are required to work ten
(10) hours. The complaint alleges that the company did not provide
their security guard employees who forfeited meal breaks additional
compensation under the law.

According to the lawsuit, California Protection and Investigation
Services, Inc., allegedly failed and continues to fail to
accurately calculate and pay employees for their overtime worked.
The class action lawsuit further alleges, in violation of the
applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the
requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage
Order, California Protection and Investigation Services, Inc., as a
matter of company policy, practice and procedure, intentionally and
knowingly failed to compensate its employees at the correct rate of
pay for all overtime worked.

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please
contact:

         Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
         Phone: (800)-568-8020
         Email: nick@bamlawca.com [GN]


CALIFORNIA: More Women Prison Workers Come Forward in New Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tori Cooper, writing for KERO 23ABC News, reports that in 2018,
Sarah Coogle, a California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) peace officer, filed a lawsuit against the
CDCR saying her job led to the death of her unborn baby.  Now, six
other women working for the CDCR have come forward with a new class
action lawsuit similar to hers.

Tehachapi State Prison guard Sarah Coogle said, "I can't go back to
work because It's incredibly difficult to put on that uniform, to
wear that badge knowing this department is what caused me to lose
my baby," Coogle said.

Ms. Coogle filed a lawsuit last April 2018 against the CDCR after
she said she was denied reasonable accommodations while she was
pregnant and eventually fell while responding to a prison fight in
July of 2017.  Coogle lost her unborn baby two months after the
fall in September of 2017.

Coogle's story sparked six other women across the state to also
come forward with similar claims hoping for similar outcomes in
other counties.  

"About 27 weeks pregnant I was asked to do a mandatory overtime
shift which would have resulted in an extra six hour shift on top
of the eight hour shift that I had already worked. I had informed
them at that time... that hey I'm about seven months pregnant I'm
having a hard time going up and down the stairs especially with my
duty belt and everything. They didn't really seem to care, told me
they were going to write me up for it," Angela Powell said.  Powell
works at the Vacaville Prison and is one of six women now filing
the class action lawsuit against the department.

The California Correctional Peace Officer's Association (CCPOA)
Union said, "The CCPOA team concluded that the old policy wasn't
broken and shouldn't be fixed. The CCPOA team disagreed with the
basic regulation change so strongly the CCPOA team chose not to put
the stamp of approval on the idea." [GN]


CAPITAL OF HARRISBURG: Epperson Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL OF
HARRISBURG, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00475-LJO-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (i) granted the
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis; and (ii)
struck from record the Plaintiff's complaint for being unsigned.  

On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff Epperson filed an unsigned complaint
along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis in the
action.  His application demonstrates entitlement to proceed
without prepayment of fees.  Notwithstanding the Order, the
Magistrate Judge does not direct that service be undertaken until
the Court screens the complaint in due course and issues its
screening order.

Magistrate Judge Boone holds that unsigned documents cannot be
considered by the Court, and the Plaintiff's complaint will be
stricken from the record on that ground.  Upon review of the
complaint, the Plaintiff is advised of the legal standards that
would appear to apply to his claims.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff's complaint is devoid
of any factual allegations.  The Plaintiff brings the action
against Benjamin Harrison, however Mr. Harrison died in 1791.  As
Mr. Harrison died more than 200 years ago, it is unclear how the
Plaintiff can state a claim against him in this action for monetary
damages.  However, since the complaint has been stricken from the
record as being unsigned, the Plaintiff will be provided the
opportunity to file a signed complaint.  Should his complaint fail
to include facts to state a plausible claim that he is entitled to
relief, the Court will recommend that the action be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff also cites 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, which limits the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to appeals of "final decisions
of the district court." "The final judgment rule would not provide
jurisdiction for this court to hear an appeal of the decision of
any court. Further, Plaintiff has not cited any case in which a
final judgment has issued, and, since Mr. Harrison died in 1791, an
appeal from any judgment in a case against him would appear to be
well beyond the time limit to file an appeal.

Finally, as the Plaintiff was recently advised in another case
before the Court, simply listing the parties and providing unclear
recitations of seemingly random terms is not sufficient.  He must
explain his case with specificity.  

Further, the previous order also advised that the Plaintiff cannot
bring a class action.  He is a non-lawyer proceeding without
counsel.  It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily
represent the interests of a class.  His privilege to appear in
propria persona is a privilege that is personal to him and he has
no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself. .

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Boone granted the Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis.  He struck from record
the Plaintiff's complaint for being unsigned.  Within 14 days of
the date of service of the Order, the Plaintiff will file a signed
complaint.  If he fails to file a complaint in compliance with the
Order or the complaint does not allege facts to demonstrate that he
is entitled to relief, the Court will recommend that the action be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/z4kucH from Leagle.com.

Chris Jonathan Epperson, Plaintiff, pro se.


CAPTAINS HOUSE: Andrews Suit Alleges ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Captains House Inn of Chatham, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Victor P. Andrews, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Captains House Inn of
Chatham, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11032 (D. Mass., May 1,
2019).

Captains House Inn of Chatham, Inc. is a 4-star hotel and offers an
on-site fitness center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr.
   New York, NY 10016-2555
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


CAPTAINS MANOR: Andrews Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
The Captains Manor Inn LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Victor P. Andrews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Captains Manor Inn LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11018 (D. Mass., April 30, 2019).

The Captains Manor Inn LLC is a premier cape Cod bed and breakfast
inn; a romantic B&B getaway in the national registry historic
district of Falmouth, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr.
   New York, NY 10016-2555
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com



CHEETAH MOBILE: Masterson Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheetah Mobile Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit
entitled, Michael Masterson v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., et al., hass
been voluntarily dismissed.

On November 8, 2017, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against our company and certain of our
officers: Michael Masterson v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:17-cv-08141-R-AFM (C.D. Cal.).

The action alleged that certain press releases and SEC filings made
by the company relating to its business and operating results
contained false or misleading statements in violation of the
federal securities laws. On June 27, 2018, the court granted the
motion to dismiss the case filed by our company and one of the
individual defendants.

On October 22, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case
against all remaining defendants without prejudice.

Cheetah Mobile Inc. operates as a mobile Internet company
worldwide. The company was formerly known as Kingsoft Internet
Software Holdings Limited and changed its name to Cheetah Mobile
Inc. in March 2014. Cheetah Mobile Inc. was incorporated in 2009
and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


CHEETAH MOBILE: Still Defends Marcu Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheetah Mobile Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company and certain
of its current and former officer continue to defend a class action
suit entitled, Marcu v. Cheetah Mobile Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-11184, filed on November 30, 2018 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in the
Company's ADRs between April 21, 2015 and November 27, 2018.

The action alleges that the Company made false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On February 8, 2019, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs in this action. On February 13, 2019, the court approved
a scheduling stipulation for the filing of the plaintiffs' amended
complaint and defendants' responsive pleadings. On March 28, 2019,
an amended complaint was filed.

Cheetah Mobile said, "The action remains at its preliminary stages.
We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend the
actions vigorously."

Cheetah Mobile Inc. operates as a mobile Internet company
worldwide. The company was formerly known as Kingsoft Internet
Software Holdings Limited and changed its name to Cheetah Mobile
Inc. in March 2014. Cheetah Mobile Inc. was incorporated in 2009
and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


CHINA ZENIX: Continues to Defend New Jersey Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
China Zenix Auto International Limited said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On October 31, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the company and certain of its officers alleging violations
of the federal securities laws with respect to the delisting of the
company's shares on the New York Stock Exchange. The action is in
its preliminary stages.

China Zenix said, "Other than the aforementioned action, we are
currently not a party to, and are not aware of any threat of, any
legal, arbitral or administrative proceedings, which, in the
opinion of our management, is likely to have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations. We may from time to time become a party to various
legal, arbitral or administrative proceedings arising in the
ordinary course of our business."

China Zenix Auto International Limited designs, manufactures, and
sells commercial vehicle wheels to aftermarket and original
equipment manufacturers in the People's Republic of China and
internationally.  China Zenix Auto International Limited was
founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Zhangzhou, the People's
Republic of China. China Zenix Auto International Limited is a
subsidiary of Newrace Limited.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: ERISA Class Suit in New York Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself from a putative class action suit involving its
Employees' Retirement Income Plan.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan (the
"Plan") did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

This action has been certified as a class action. The relief sought
includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees. The Company is contesting this action
vigorously.

Colgate-Palmolive said, "Since the amount of any potential loss
from this case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range
of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities
disclosed above does not include any amount relating to the case."

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

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Conagra
Brands, Inc. (NYSE: CAG) between June 27, 2018 and December 19,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers in
Conagra's secondary public offering of common stock (the
"Offering") on or about October 9, 2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Conagra securities during
the Class Period, including in the Offering, you may move the Court
for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than April 23, 2019.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any
recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of
whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff
Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions.

Conagra investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Conagra Securities Class Litigation

Conagra, headquartered in Chicago, manufactures and markets
packaged foods for retail consumers, restaurants, and institutions
and has a portfolio of well-known food brands such as Slim Jim and
Orville Redenbacher's. In June 2018, Conagra announced that it
would acquire Pinnacle, another food company with its own portfolio
of brands. To finance that transaction, Conagra announced a
secondary public stock offering in October 2018 to raise more than
$600 million.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Conagra and
certain of its senior executives misrepresented and failed to
disclose to the market that: i) Conagra performed inadequate due
diligence in connection with its acquisition of Pinnacle; ii) the
performance of Pinnacle's leading brands was not deteriorating due
to intensified competition, but rather to its own subpar innovation
and executional missteps; iii) Pinnacle's business was performing
so poorly that it had to push promotional deals to retailers to try
and boost sales; and iv) as a result of the foregoing, Conagra's
public statements regarding its acquisition of Pinnacle were
materially false or misleading when made.

The market began to learn of Conagra's alleged misconduct on
December 20, 2018, when the Company announced that net sales for
the Pinnacle segment of its business were "below expectations due
to weak performance across a range of significant brands." In a
conference call that same day, Conagra's Chief Executive Officer
and President, Sean Connolly, stated that there had been a
"deterioration in the legacy Pinnacle business over the course of
the calendar year 2018" as "growth stalled" for Birds Eye, Duncan
Hines, and Wish-Bones. Connolly stated that "Pinnacle overextended
new items in the same demand pools, favored high margins over
high-quality and highly competitive products and missed some major
consumer trends," and acknowledged that "the challenges that the
Pinnacle business face have been largely self-inflicted due to
subpar innovation and executional missteps." Following this news,
between the close on December 19 and December 24, 2018, Conagra's
stock price fell $8.13, or nearly 28%, to close at $20.96 on
December 24, 2018.

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
http://www.lieffcabraser.com.

         Contact: (for Media Inquiries Only)
         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Telephone: 1-800-541-7358
         Website: www.lieffcabraser.com [GN]


CORRECTIONS CORP: Tenn. Shareholder Class Action Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Solomon, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that
the question of whether New Hampshire needs to commit $26 million
immediately to the construction of a new secure forensic
psychiatric hospital has become a point of dispute in state budget
deliberations.

Gov. Chris Sununu included the funding in his budget proposal
submitted to the Legislature in February, but House budget writers
removed it, saying the project needs more study before funding.

While the issue works its way through the budgeting process, one
thing has become apparent: There is no shortage of private
companies interested in building and operating the facility, and
one of them is a contributor to the Sununu campaign who's hired a
lobbyist with links to the Sununu family.

The Department of Health and Human Services was already at work on
the project long before Sununu announced plans to include the $26
million in his budget. The department posted a request for
information from potential bidders last fall and got three
responses, all of which were made public earlier this year on the
DHHS website.

The three responses came from CoreCivic of Nashville, Tenn.;
Correct Care Recovery Solutions of Deerfield Beach, Fla.; and
NeuroInternational of Sarasota, Fla.

While Correct Care and NeuroInternational have origins as providers
of residential treatment for behavioral health, CoreCivic is the
rebranded version of Corrections Corporations of America (CCA),
which operates private prisons.

CoreCivic is not proposing to operate the secure forensic
psychiatric hospital, but is proposing a real estate-only solution,
in which it would own the hospital and lease it to the state. The
management and staffing of the facility would be carried out by the
government or contracted to another vendor.

CoreCivic does not currently own or operate any secure psychiatric
hospitals.

Class action lawsuit
CCA has been named in a number of lawsuits alleging unsafe
conditions that led to deaths.

On March 28, shareholders suing CoreCivic were granted class action
status by a U.S. District Court Judge in Nashville for a lawsuit
claiming the company inflated stock prices by misrepresenting the
quality and value of its services.

The lawsuit claims Corrections Corporation of America "ran unsafe,
low quality prisons that caused multiple deaths and did not save
money."

"The allegations made in lawsuits are not confirmed as fact until a
jury or a court renders a verdict," said a company spokesperson in
an email.

In the last gubernatorial campaign, Sununu's Democratic opponent,
former state Sen. Molly Kelly, called on Sununu to return campaign
contributions from for-profit prison companies involved in
immigrant detention, including $10,000 from CoreCivic.

The Secretary of State register of lobbyists shows that CoreCivic
also hired New Hampshire lobbyist Marc Brown. He confirmed on April
12 that he represents CoreCivic, but declined to comment further.

Brown has a connection to the Sununu family through his association
with principals in the Profile Strategy Group, based in Exeter, and
co-founded by Sununu's brother Michael Sununu.

The governor's campaign adviser Jamie Burnett, was a principal with
Profile Strategy, and until April of last year the president of
Advantage Government Affairs, where his partners included Marc
Brown.

Decades long struggle
New Hampshire has struggled since the 1980s with the fact that its
most challenging mental health patients have been housed at a
secure unit in the state prison. The push toward a secure unit
associated with the state's psychiatric hospital has been motivated
by a desire to get mental health patients out of the prison
setting.

Sununu has been a supporter of the effort to build a new SPU and
was well aware of the DHHS request for information when it went out
last fall.

"We've always said that's a key priority for us," said Sununu at
the time. "We have to find out what is best, whether it's building
a whole new unit or transferring those who are in the SPU into a
better facility. Whatever it is, the state has to do something.
This is one of those issues that has gone on long enough."

The DHHS made clear last fall that its posting of a request for
information was not intended to result in a contract or agreement,
but was designed only to help the state decide whether it would be
more efficient to build and run the facility on its own, or
contract with an outside firm.

"Before any contract is awarded, it is fully vetted by the
Department of Health and Human Services, and voted on by the
Executive Council, allowing for full public transparency," said
Sununu's spokesman Ben Vihstadt.

"Michael Sununu is not a registered lobbyist in the state of New
Hampshire and has had no contact with Gov. Sununu regarding the
SPU, and absolutely no organization or lobbyist that has business
before the state of New Hampshire receives preferential
treatment."

Political hot potato
The SPU has become a political hot potato as the House and Senate
passed amendments addressing its fate last on April 11.

The House did not go so far as to restore the full funding
requested by Sununu, but did pass an amendment appropriating $1.2
million for engineering and design studies.

At almost the same time, the Senate passed an amendment allocating
the full $26 million, but then tabled it for inclusion in budget
negotiations with the House and governor.

"The fact remains that Gov. Sununu included $26 million in his
budget to build a new, secure forensic hospital. The Democrats'
$1.2M plan fails to fund the new, secure forensic hospital that
Gov. Sununu proposed, which would have ended the emergency
department boarding crisis and ensured that mental health patients
have the support they need," said Vihstadt.

"These families have waited over 20 years for a solution to this
crisis." [GN]


CROTHALL LAUNDRY: Does not Provide Rest Periods, Villacana Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIANO VILLACANA, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CROTHALL LAUNDRY SERVICES INC.,
an active Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV16330 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 10,
2019) is a class action lawsuit arising out of the failure of
Defendant to provide rest periods at the proper intervals, to
provide legally compliant wage statements, and to pay all wages
owed to terminated or separated employees in a timely manner.

The Defendants had a consistent policy of failing to allow their
employees, including Plaintiff, rest periods for at least 10
minutes per 4 hours, or a major fraction worked, and failing to pay
such employees 1 hour of pay at their regular rate of compensation
for each workday that the rest period is not provided, or other
compensation, as required by California state and wage and hour
laws, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Villacana was hired around April 10, 2018 and terminated
on or about May 16, 2018.

Defendants offer laundry services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
     Haik Hacopian, Esq.
     MOORADIAN LAW, APC
     5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
     Calabasas, CA 91302
     Phone: (818) 876-9627
     Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
     Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
            haik@mooradianlaw.com


DAVITA INC: Kahn Swick Probing Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
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 DaVita Inc.
(DVA).

On December 25, 2016, an article by the New York Times highlighted
the relationship between the American Kidney Fund ("AKF"), a
charity that helps patients pay for kidney dialysis, and its
largest donors, including DaVita, suggesting that the AKF had
denied charitable premium assistance ("CPA") to patients of
dialysis companies who did not donate to it.  Then, on January 6,
2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Company had
received subpoenas from federal prosecutors seeking "the production
of information related to charitable premium assistance" in
connection with its ties to the AKF.

On February 1, 2017, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company alleging that it made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose its scheme to steer patients
into unneeded insurance plans in order to maximize profits, using
the AKF to facilitate the improper practices. Recently, the court
presiding over the case denied the Company's motion to dismiss,
allowing the case to move forward.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether DaVita's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to DaVita'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 DaVita 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/nyse-dva/ to learn more.

Contact:

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


DETROIT, MI: ACLU Files Class Action Over Bail System
-----------------------------------------------------
Aleanna Siacon, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a
lawsuit filed on April 14 in federal court claims the bail system
at the Michigan's largest district court discriminates against the
poorest of defendants who are left awaiting trial behind bars,
often for minor offenses, when they can't afford to pay bond.

The class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Michigan, the
national ACLU and the law firm Covington & Burling says the bail
system in place at the 36th District Court in Detroit should be
overhauled.

"A person's freedom should not depend on how much money they have,"
Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan deputy legal director, said in a
news release.

"Bail was originally intended to ensure a person returns to court
to face charges against them. But instead, the money bail system
has morphed into mass incarceration of the poor. It punishes people
not for what they've done but because of what they don't have."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of seven
black plaintiffs and argues that when someone's freedom depends on
their ability to pay bail, there is "a clear violation of due
process and equal protection," the ACLU said.

According to the news release, Michigan's court rules mandate
"meaningful inquiry into an arrested person's ability to pay bail,
and requires pretrial release without cash bail except in
extraordinary circumstances such as a truly severe flight risk or
danger to the community." In addition, defendants are supposed to
be provided attorneys to represent them while bond is being set.

"These requirements are blatantly violated in the 36th District
Court, where arraignments last only a few minutes, defendants
appear without counsel, ability-to-pay determinations are not
conducted, and 85% of those who are arraigned while under arrest
are required to pay cash bail in order to be released," the release
said.

Chief Judge Nancy M. Blount, the five magistrates who set bail at
arraignments in 36th District Court and Wayne County Sheriff Benny
Napoleon are named as defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks
"systemic reforms to Detroit's pretrial bail system," the ACLU
said.

The Free Press was unable to reach anyone at 36th District Court or
the Sheriff's Office for comment on April 14. The Sheriff's Office
said it "does not comment on matters of civil litigation in which
it is a named party."

"Detroiters deserve a justice system that is smart, fair, and works
for everybody," said Aaron Lewis, a partner at Covington, which is
co-lead counsel in the lawsuit. "The cash bail system is
devastating to families, it separates parents from their children,
it harms communities and businesses, and it wastes taxpayer dollars
keeping people locked in jail who should be at home."

The ACLU said it observed hundreds of court proceedings before
filing the lawsuit. The organization claims:

   * Most bail arraignments are done via video teleconference
between a 36th District courtroom and the Detroit Detention Center
Guards allegedly tell defendants off-camera that the only purpose
of the arraignment is to plead "not guilty" and to only answer the
judge's questions with "yes" or "no."

   * Arraignments typically last 2-4 minutes with bail set in less
than a minute, and defendants are not asked if they can pay bail,
allowed to ask questions or complain if they can't afford it.

   * The defendants in 95% of these cases do not have an attorney.


   * Arrestees who can afford to pay bail are routinely released
from custody upon payment. Arrestees who are otherwise identical,
but are too poor to purchase their release, remain in jail because
of their indigency.

The ACLU also noted that 62% of the the 1,600-plus people in Wayne
County jails are pre-trial detainees who usually cannot afford
bail, and these pre-trial detainees cost taxpayers an estimated
$164,000 per day.

People of color are also disproportionately impacted by the use of
bail and are more likely to be jailed due to an inability to pay,
the ACLU said.

"36th District Court's broken bail system is wreaking devastating
consequences in a city where the population is nearly 80 percent
African American," Twyla Carter, senior staff attorney with the
ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project said in the statement.

"In addition to being unconstitutional, this further impoverishes
people who are already facing extraordinary challenges and enduring
severe racial disparities in our criminal legal system."

One of the seven plaintiffs, Davontae Ross, was arrested on April
11 for failing to appear at a hearing over a minor ticket: staying
in a park after dark, according to the lawsuit. He's in jail,
unable to afford the $200 bail, the lawsuit says.

In February, Michigan Chief Justice Bridget McCormack announced an
effort to try to reduce jail costs by setting reasonable bonds.
Five courts are participating, but the Detroit court isn't among
them. [GN]


DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Action Over Obsolete Motor Oils Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Dollar
General oil lawsuit has been certified as a class action for
customers in 16 states who allege DG Auto SAE 10W-30, DG Auto SAE
10W-40 and DG Auto SAE 30 motor oils are obsolete.

A combination of at least 18 lawsuits, the multidistrict litigation
alleges Dollar General places the cheaper obsolete oil next to more
expensive oils manufactured by name-brand companies.

According to the plaintiffs, the oil lawsuit was filed because the
products can damage vehicles since the oil isn't for use in
modern-day engines.

Attorneys for Dollar General argue fine print on the oil bottles
clearly says DG Auto SAE 10W-30 and DG Auto SAE 10W-40 oils are
"not suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive engines
built after 1988" and "may not provide adequate protection against
the build-up of engine sludge."

In addition, DG Auto SAE 30 oil containers have small print that
says, "not suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive
engines built after 1930," and "use in modern engines may cause
unsatisfactory engine performance or equipment harm."

According to Dollar General, allegations made in the lawsuit aren't
sound because all the oils come with warranties, and the company
allegedly shouldn't be held responsible just because consumers
didn't read the warnings.

Dollar General also says it knew the motor oil was obsolete but
didn't see a problem because legitimate consumer markets allegedly
exist for the oil. In addition, the company says market research
shows many customers keep their vehicles up to 12 years.

The plaintiffs responded by arguing Dollar General had discussed in
a 2015 business meeting the possibility of updating the motor oil
from API SF to API SN, something that finally occurred between
October 2015 and February 2016.

The API SN motor oils are recommended for use in car engines
manufactured after 1988. The SF and SA motor oils were reduced in
price and moved to separate locations in the lawn and garden
sections.

But according to the plaintiffs, the damage was already done
because Dollar General sold millions of quarts of the obsolete oil
worth $156 million.

The plaintiffs say they suffered legal injuries as result of the
obsolete 10W-40, 10W-30, and SAE 30 DG oil and wouldn't have
purchased it if the labels wouldn't have been deceptive and if the
placement of the products wouldn't have been deceptive.

The judge ruled the plaintiffs proved their case for a class action
that now includes unjust enrichment and consumer protection claims
for customers in 16 states.

However, Judge Gary A. Fenner decided the plaintiffs failed in
their arguments for a nationwide class action over unjust
enrichment claims, multistate implied warranty claims and statewide
implied warranty claims.

The Dollar General oil lawsuit now includes consumers in the
following 16 states who purchased DG SAE 10W-30 or DG SAE 10W-40
for use in vehicles manufactured after 1988, or DG SAE 30 for use
in vehicles manufactured after 1930.

California: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
February 8, 2012.

Colorado: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
February 15, 2013.

Florida: All consumers who purchased the affected oil at any time.

Illinois: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since since
February 15, 2013.

Kansas: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since February
2013.

Kentucky: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
February 15, 2014.

Maryland: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
December 2011.

Michigan: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
February 2010.

Minnesota: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
February 15, 2010.

Missouri: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
February 15, 2011.

Nebraska: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
February 2012.

New Jersey: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
December 2009.

New York: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
December 2009.

North Carolina: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since
2010.

Ohio: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since 2011.

Wisconsin: All consumers who purchased the affected oil since from
May 8, 2011, to the present.

The Dollar General oil lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - IN RE: Dollar General Corp.
Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.

The multidistrict litigation includes the following cases:

Wait v. Dollar General Corporation, et al.
Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Brown v. Dollar General Corporation, et al.
Barfoot, et al. v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Solis v. Dollar General, et al.
Meyer v. Dollar General Corporation, et al.
Foppe v. Dollar General Corporation, et al.
Mccormick v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Gooel v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Sheehy v. Dollar General Corporation, et al.
Oren v. Dollar General Corporation, et al.
Harvey v. Dollar General Corporation, et al.
Flinn v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Gadson v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Fruhling v. Dollar General Corporation, et al..
Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Deck v. Dollar General Corporation
Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC [GN]


DR. JAMES GOYDOS: Facing 160 Charges in Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hoover, writing for NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, reports
that a woman employed at the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey
has sued a former top doctor there after he allegedly recorded her
and at least 28 others in the bathroom over a nine month period.

The civil suit comes after authorities brought 160 criminal charges
against Dr. James Goydos, a former professor of surgery and
melanoma treatment specialist at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School. The criminal counts ranges from invasion of
privacy, official misconduct, burglary, computer theft,
impersonation, wiretapping, falsely implicating another, coercion,
hindering, possession of an assault rifle and possession of a
prohibited device.

The woman, who is not identified in the lawsuit, filed the class
action complaint in Middlesex County Superior Court on March 22,
and an amended version was filed April 1. It comes after various
news articles, including reporting by NJ Advance Media, detailed
the indictment in February.

Goydos, 58, of New Brunswick, resigned from his $437,000 salaried,
tenured position in December, shortly after the indictment was
returned by a grand jury.

He maintains his innocence and contends he was framed by higher-ups
at RCINJ for speaking out against grant fraud and his claim that
the center sought to earn more money at the expense of patient
care. Last month, he pushed back against the charges with his own
civil suit slamming RCINJ, RWJ Barnabas health and several top
doctors.

The class action suit filed by the woman, who worked with Goydos
and used the bathroom in question, accuses him of "intentional
infliction of emotion distress," and "negligence."

The 26 women and three others, whose genders have not been
disclosed, were subject to "mental anguish, embarrassment and
severe emotional distress," according to the claim.

Steve Fearon, Esq. -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- an attorney of the
New York-based Squitieri & Fearon representing the woman, said the
firm has received calls from others who may have been filmed in the
bathroom, and he is working to determine how many of those who came
forward are on camera.

"We look forward to pursuing these claims for women who reasonably
expected privacy and a safe space when they used the women's room
at Rutgers but instead were recorded by Dr. Goydos," his firm said
in a statement.

The lawsuit filed by Goydos elaborated on the videotaping
allegations, saying he was accused of wiring a camera in the
bathroom to the office of Dr. Steven Libutti, director of the
Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Senior Vice President on
Oncology Services at RWJ Barnabas Health, in an attempt to frame
him.

In his suit, Goydos claims an elaborate set up to frame him after
Libutti deemed him a "troublemaker" for his whistleblower efforts.
Those included accusing Libutti of directing researchers to lie
while seeking grant funding in the ever-competitive field.

Goydos is expected back in court to face the criminal charges
against him May 20.

An attorney for Goydos did not immediately return a requests for
comment. [GN]


FALLSBURG, NY: Pere Files Tort Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town of Fallsburg.
The case is styled as Scott Brandler Pere, Josef Coates, Lisa
Lerman, Jacob Farkas, Arthur o/b/o themselves & all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Town of Fallsburg, Fallsburg
Waste Water Plant Department, Town of Fallsburg Department of
Public Works, Loch Sheldrake Wastewater Treatment Plant, Lochmor
Municipal Golf Course aka Lochmor Gold Course, Defendant, Case No.
369/2019 (N.Y. Sup., May 2, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Tort.

Fallsburg is a town in Sullivan County, New York, United States.
The town is in the eastern part of the county. The population was
12,870 at the 2010 census.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP
   19 WEST 44TH ST, SUITE 1500
   NEW YORK, NY 10036
   Tel: (646) 365-0347

The Defendant is represented by:

   FISHMAN DECEA & FELDMAN, Esq.
   84 BUSINESS PARK DR, SUITE 200
   ARMONK, NY 10504
   Tel: (914) 285-1400


FANNIE MAE: Baltimore Files Major Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Jenny Fulginiti, writing for WBAL Baltimore, reports that Baltimore
City is going after some big financial institutions in a class
action antitrust lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges price-fixing and conspiracy in the Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac bond market. City Solicitor Andre Davis said he's
bringing the suit to protect city taxpayer interests.

"We have focused on those inside the city and outside the city who
pose a risk of harm, financial harm or other harm, to the people of
Baltimore," Davis said.

Davis said the city has filed the class-action antitrust suit
seeking to recover damages for a price-fixing conspiracy in the
sale and purchase of debt issued by the Federal National Mortgage
Association, or Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corp., also known as Freddie Mac. They are referred to as "FFBs,"
short for Fannie and Freddie bonds.

"We have filed a lawsuit against Fannie Mae-sponsored banks,
including Citibank, Bank of America and a number of others who we
have firm evidence to show these banks conspired to increase the
cost of these FFBs," Davis said.

Defendants include Bank of America, Barclays, Citi, Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank, First Tennessee Bank, Goldman Sachs, Jefferies Group
LLC, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., UBS and
other unnamed co-conspirators.

Davis said in a statement that FFBs are favored by municipalities
because they are generally considered safe investments that provide
a high degree of liquidity.

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation
into price manipulation by bank traders in the secondary FFB
market. Davis said the city pursues recoveries when they learn that
large banks have colluded to increase prices on complex financial
instruments, overcharging the city by millions of dollars.

Davis said pharmaceutical companies have encouraged doctors to push
powerful drugs into the community. During the conspiracy period of
2009 though 2014, the city of Baltimore paid almost $1 billion for
108 FFBs, city officials said.[GN]


FERDINAND MARCOS: Martial Law Victims Challenge Lawyers' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Denise M. Chiu, writing for Philippine Daily Inquirer,
reports that complainants in the class action suit for human rights
violations against the estate of dictator Ferdinand Marcos have
registered their protest over what they call "exorbitant" lawyers'
fees that will be paid to American lawyer Robert Swift and his
colleagues.

In an interview with the Inquirer, Jake Almeda Lopez, a claimant
and member of the class action, said the work Swift and his
associates did should not be rewarded so handsomely, to the point
that they will get more than the claimants, or even the Philippine
government.

'Work much easier'

"The work of lawyers in a class suit is much easier than an
ordinary case, where all complainants have to be heard by the
court," Lopez said, adding that the Hawaii class action should be
"revisited."

However, lawyer Rodrigo Domingo, the local counterpart of Swift,
said that the case was "a complex one" that involved appearances in
three continents, and that the 30-percent fee was not exorbitant.

"The attorney's fees are not exorbitant because it is contingent on
Swift's winning the case, and he gets nothing if he loses," Domingo
said.

Earlier, a US court ordered the distribution of $13.75 million to
martial law victims who were part of the class action lawsuit.

Judge Real set the fees

The money was allocated for the victims in a settlement agreement
reached in January 2019 as their share of $32 million obtained from
the sale of four paintings, including a Monet, acquired by Marcos'
widow, Imelda.

Under the deal, the government was to receive $4 million and the
remainder to be split between Golden Buddha Corp. and the estate of
Roger Roxas, who reportedly discovered the so-called Yamashita
treasure.

According to Domingo, Judge Manuel Real, who presided over the
lawsuit in Hawaii against Marcos, set the 30 percent lawyers'
fees.

"Class notices were sent to qualified claimants and they were given
time to object," Domingo said.

'Fair, reasonable'

Domingo added that since there were no objections from members of
the class action, the fee was ruled "fair, reasonable and adequate
under US law."

However, Lopez argued that even though there were objections, it
was difficult for a protesting claimant to explain his position
before the court.

"Requiring a protesting claimant to personally appear in the Hawaii
court or to file a formal pleading which requires the services of a
US lawyer is expensive," Lopez said.

Another group of claimants, Samahan ng Ex-Detainees Laban sa
Detensyon at Aresto, said that they also felt that the lawyer's
fees were exorbitant. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Car Owners Get $3K in 3.0L Ecodiesel Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Murray, writing for HotCars, reports that owners of a Jeep
Grand Cherokee or Ram 1500 equipped with a 3.0-L EcoDiesel are
about to get a big payday.

Way back in 2017, Fiat Chrysler was sued by US and state regulators
over the 3.0-L EcoDiesel engine. Apparently, FCA engineers had
fitted certain vehicles equipped with those engine with software
that was designed to fib on emissions tests.

Allegedly, anyway. Fiat continues to deny the charges and is
admitting no wrongdoing even though they're sending out a lot of
money to pay fines and pay off a class-action lawsuit.

FCA reached a settlement with regulators in said class-action suit
earlier in January that saw the Italian/American carmaker set aside
$800,000 to pay off diesel owners and the feds. Now we've got
details on just how much everyone is going to get.

Owners of Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500 pickups equipped with a
3.0-L EcoDiesel engine built between 2014 and 2016 can expect a
cheque in the mail for $3,075. That represents the settlement cash
as negotiated by lawyers working for the EPA, Carb, and private
vehicle owners.

In addition to the cash, FCA has agreed to get all vehicle owner's
software updated free of charge. Owners will also get an extended
warranty that goes for 10 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes
first.

"The settlements contain no findings of wrongdoing, nor admission
of any wrongdoing, by FCA," the carmakers said in a prepared
statement. "The updated software does not affect average fuel
economy, drivability, durability, engine noise, vibration, or other
driving characteristics of the vehicles."

Owners will have 21 months to get their vehicle in for the update.
About 100,000 vehicles are expected as part of this recall. Those
that can do math will note that this only amounts to roughly $300
million in payouts. The rest will go to the EPA and CARB as part of
the settlement. The government will always get what's owed, after
all. [GN]


FIRST HAWAIIAN: Final Approval in Suit v. Unit Set for Aug. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Hawaiian, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the final settlement
approval hearing in the purported class action suit involving First
Hawaiian Bank has been set for August 6, 2019.

On January 27, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
Bank customer alleging that First Hawaiian Bank (FHB) improperly
charged an overdraft fee in circumstances where an account had
sufficient funds to cover the transaction at the time the
transaction was authorized but not at the time the transaction was
presented for payment, and that this practice constituted an unjust
and deceptive trade practice and a breach of contract.

The lawsuit further alleged that FHB's practice of assessing a
one-time continuous negative balance overdraft fee on accounts
remaining in a negative balance for a seven-day period constituted
a usurious interest charge and an unfair and deceptive trade
practice. On October 2, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to resolve this class action lawsuit.

In connection with the anticipated settlement agreement, the
Company recorded an expense of approximately $4.1 million during
the three months ended September 30, 2018.

During the three months ended March 31, 2019, the Court entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement agreement, pursuant to
which the Company funded a $4.1 million settlement account.

The final approval hearing has been set for August 6, 2019.

First Hawaiian, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for First
Hawaiian Bank that provides a range of banking services to consumer
and commercial customers in the United States. It operates in three
segments: Retail Banking, Commercial Banking, and Treasury and
Other. The company was formerly known as BancWest Corporation and
changed its name to First Hawaiian, Inc. in April 2016. The company
was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. First
Hawaiian, Inc. is a subsidiary of BancWest Corporation.


FLORIDA: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of PDN Services Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A.R., by and through her next friend, Susan Root,
C.V., by and through his next friends, Michael and Johnette
Wahlquist, M.D., by and through her next friend, Pamela DeCambra,
C.M., by and through his next friend, Norine Mitchell, T.H., by and
through her next friend, Paolo Annino, A.G., by and through his
next friend Gamal Gasser, Plaintiffs-Appellants, B.M., by and
through his next friend, Kayla Moore, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SECRETARY FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, in her
official capacity, STATE SURGEON GENERAL, in his official capacity
as the State Surgeon General and Secretary of the Florida
Department of Health, KRISTINA WIGGINS, in her official capacity as
Deputy Secretary of the Florida Department of Health and Director
of Children's Medical Services, STATE SURGEON GENERAL JOHN
ARMSTRONG, MD, DEPUTY SECRETARY DR. CELESTE PHILIP, INTERIM
SECRETARY JUSTIN M. SENIOR, Agency for Health Care Administration,
CASSANDRA G. PASLEY, Director of Children's Medical Services,
Defendants-Appellees, eQHEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., a Louisiana
non-profit corporation, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Consol Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Consol
Defendant, Case No. 17-13572 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
a putative class action challenging Florida's provision of medical
services to Medicaid-recipient, medically fragile children.

The case concerns medically fragile children -- children with
medical conditions so serious as to require medical apparatus or
procedures to sustain their lives.  Each of the
Plaintiffs-Appellants is medically fragile.  M.D., C.V., C.M., and
other medically fragile children sought private-duty nursing
("PDN") services for their gravely needed, specialized, and
intensive medical care. PDN services are one-on-one nursing
services provided to individuals who require more in-depth care
than a hospital or nursing facility can provide.

Florida's Medicaid program covers medically necessary PDN services
provided to Medicaid-recipient children.  But at the time the
medically fragile Plaintiffs sought these services, four Florida
policies allegedly reduced coverage of PDN services for them.  The
first was Florida's definition of "medically necessary," which
excluded from coverage services that were "primarily intended for
the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the
provider."  Second, Florida Medicaid covered PDN services only for
children who were "unable to attend a Pediatric Prescribed Extended
Care" ("PPEC") Center: an institution in which children received
out-of-home care for up to twelve hours a day, seven days a week.
Third, if authorized, Florida PDN services to medically fragile
children were "decreased over time as parents and caregivers were
taught skills to care for their child and became capable of safely
providing that care or as the child's condition improves.  Fourth,
Florida inconsistently administered Pre-Admission Screening and
Resident Review ("PASRR") screenings resulting in denial of
medically necessary services, including PDN care.

Applying these policies, the State routinely denied PDN services to
medically fragile children.  Without the in-home nursing care the
children needed, their families had no choice but to place them in
nursing facilities, a result their families desperately sought to
avoid.

Two groups of medically fragile children, through their legal
guardians, sued Florida officials seeking systemic changes to the
State's administration of Medicaid services to such children.  The
first group, children who were institutionalized—that is,
residing in Florida nursing homes—alleged that the State had
inappropriately screened them for, and denied them Medicaid
coverage for, services that would have allowed them to remain in
their homes.  The second group, children who remained at home and
received Medicaid-funded PDN services, alleged that the State's
policies, including application of the convenience standard,
reduced the availability of those services and put them at risk of
unnecessary institutionalization.  

The Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all current and
future Medicaid recipients in Florida under the age of 21, who are
(1) institutionalized in nursing facilities, or (2) medically
complex or fragile and at risk of institutionalization in nursing
facilities.

After the district court consolidated their cases, the Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint with five counts.  Counts 1 through 4
challenged Florida's policies, practices, and regulations to reduce
PDN services.  Counts 1 and 2 specifically alleged violations of
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the
Rehabilitation Act, respectively.  Under these counts, the
Plaintiffs alleged that Florida's policies violated each Act by
placing them at risk of segregation in institutional settings and
by denying them medically necessary services, including PDN
services.

Counts 3 and 4 alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for
violations of the United States Medicaid Act.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs alleged in Count 3 that the AHCA's regulatory definition
of "medical necessity" and the Defendants' policies for providing
PDN services, below the level that is medically necessary, violated
the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment
("EPSDT") provisions of the federal Medicaid statute.  And Count 4
alleged that Florida's policies limited the provision of PDN
services, resulting in delays and denials of medically necessary
care to the Plaintiffs in violation of the Medicaid Act's
"reasonable promptness" provision, which requires assistance to be
provided with reasonable promptness to eligible individuals.

Finally, Count 5 challenged the State's administration of the PASRR
provisions of the Nursing Home Reform Amendments of 1987 ("NHRA")
to the Medicaid Act.  This claim alleged that Florida's
administration of its PASRR program failed to comply with the NHRA,
resulting in wrongful admission of children to, or retention of
children in, nursing facilities.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of a class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and for declaratory and injunctive
relief on all five claims.  After a year of litigation, including
discovery, the State moved to dismiss the complaint because,
beginning in 2013, it had discontinued its application of the
convenience standard to PDN services.

The district court denied the motion to dismiss.  Another year
passed, and the administrative rule changes concerning the PPEC
prioritization and PASRR screenings became final.  Again, the State
moved to dismiss.  Because the State still had not amended its
regulatory definition of "medically necessary" in Rule
59G-1.010(166), however, the district court denied its motion for a
second time.

The district court subsequently dismissed the claims of one of the
Plaintiffs, A.R., when she moved to Colorado, and of two other
Plaintiffs, T.H. and A.G., when they turned 21, on the ground that
as legal adults they were no longer subject to the challenged
policies.  The district court next dismissed Count 5, concluding
that the challenge to the PASRR screenings concerned only
institutionalized children and that, due to death or dismissal, no
institutionalized children remained as parties to the case.  It
also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification because
the proposed class was inadequately defined and unascertainable and
because class certification was unnecessary.  Thus, the case was
reduced from five to four claims and from a potential class action
to only three Plaintiffs, none of whom was institutionalized.

Florida then moved for summary judgment, again arguing that the
remaining claims -- Counts 1 through 4 -- were moot given Florida's
new, final Rule 59G-4.261(4).  The new rule provided that the
convenience standard contained in the general definition of
"medical necessity" in Rule 59G-1.010(166) "shall not be applicable
when determining the medical necessity of PDN services.'"  The
State also pointed out that it had been more than three years since
it had last applied the convenience standard in deciding whether to
cover PDN services.

Treating Florida's motion for summary judgment as a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, a magistrate judge
determined that the case was moot because the State had terminated
all the challenged policies and nothing suggested that the policies
would be reinstated if the suit [were] terminated." Doc. 634 at 25.
The magistrate judge rejected what he characterized as the
Plaintiffs' attempts on the eve of trial to again rewrite the
complaint and expand the scope of this case to the provision of
other medically necessary services beyond PDN.  Adopting the
magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court dismissed all
remaining claims.  This appeal followed.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs challenge the district court's dismissal
of their claims in four ways.  First, they argue that the district
court improperly dismissed Counts 1 through 4 as moot, both because
the court improperly limited the scope of the lawsuit to PDN
services and because Florida might renege on its policy changes.
Second, they argue that the district court erred in dismissing
Count 5 because the remaining Plaintiffs could maintain that claim
despite the fact that they were not presently institutionalized.
Third, they object to the dismissal of Plaintiffs A.R., A.G., and
T.H. from the case on mootness or lack of standing grounds because
they had either moved away from Florida or turned 21.  Fourth, they
argue that the district court improperly denied class
certification.

The Court holds that because Counts 1 through 4 of the complaint
specifically challenged Florida's policies relating to Medicaid
coverage of PDN services and Florida unambiguously changed its
policies through formal rule-making to exempt PDN services from the
convenience standard, prohibit prioritization of PPEC over PDN
services, abolish the caregiver preference, and mandate complete
PASRR screenings, the district court properly dismissed Counts 1
through 4 as moot.

That leaves the Court with Count 5 of the complaint, which concerns
Florida's administration of the PASRR provisions of the NHRA in
compliance with federal law.  The district court dismissed the
PASRR claim because it was brought on behalf of children who were
institutionalized, yet no Plaintiff in the case remained in an
institution.

The Plaintiffs concede that none of the Plaintiffs who resided in
nursing institutions when the complaint was filed remains
institutionalized.  But they argue that they nevertheless can
challenge the PASRR program because Florida's allegedly flawed
administration of the program puts remaining Plaintiffs C.V., M.D.,
and C.M. at risk of unnecessary institutionalization.

The Court rejects this argument because Count 5 of the complaint
clearly specified that "institutionalized Plaintiffs" challenged
the State's administration of the PASRR program and that only
"institutionalized Plaintiffs and members of the sub-class of
institutionalized Plaintiffs" were harmed by it.  Count 5 did not
allege any claims on behalf of non-institutionalized children who
might be at risk of being institutionalized.

Because Counts 1 through 4 are moot given Florida's unequivocal
policy changes and because no institutionalized Plaintiff remains
in the case to bring Count 5, the district court correctly
dismissed the case in its entirety.  It affirmed the district
court's dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fTfMDB from Leagle.com.

Paolo Annino, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ira A. Burnim -- irab@bazelon.org -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John Armando Boudet -- john.boudet@gray-robinson.com -- Andre V.
Bardos -- andy.bardos@gray-robinson.com -- Stuart F. Williams --
swilliams@hensonefron.com -- Steven Howard Schwartz , Caryl
Kilinski, Christopher N. Johnson --
christopher.johnson@gray-robinson.com -- Harry Osborne Thomas,
George N. Meros, Jr., William Eugene Gandy, Jr., Andrew Taylor
Sheeran -- andrew.sheeran@ahca.myflorida.com -- David A. Boyer,
Thomas A. Crabb, Molly Paris, Leslei Gayle Street, Allison G.
Mawhinney, Ashley Hoffman Lukis, Jennifer Ann Tschetter --
jennifert@carltonfields.com -- Jay Patrick Reynolds, H. Justin
Park, Lindsey Weinstock, Eliza Dermody, Elizabeth Erin McDonald,
Victoria Thomas, Brittany Adams Long, Steven J. Schwartz --
sschwartz@ssfpc.com -- Jennifer Mathis, Alison Nodvin Barkoff,
Kathryn Lesley Rucker, U.S. Attorney Service — Southern District
of Florida, for Defendant-Appellee.

Edward Joseph Grunewald, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Christopher B. Lunny -- clunny@radeylaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew W. Dietz -- info@justdigit.org -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lisa Charli Goodman -- lgoodman@justdigit.org -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Beth Esposito, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


FORD MOTOR: Drake Sues Over Inaccurate Fuel Economy Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dillon Drake, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14165-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2019) is
a class action on behalf of all purchasers and lessees of Ford
F-150 vehicles against Defendant for its failure to accurately
represent EPA fuel economy ratings.

Fuel economy is such an important factor in the purchase of a
vehicle that its disclosure to consumers is mandated by law.
Moreover, in order for fuel economy ratings to be meaningful, the
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") requires auto manufacturers
to use specific testing methods and procedures from which fuel
economy calculations can be fairly assessed and then subsequently
compared across all vehicle makes and models. Over the past several
years, the consuming public has been plagued by abuses among auto
manufacturers who have purposefully skewed and misrepresented fuel
consumption and emission results in an effort to dupe the consuming
public into purchasing their vehicles. Justifiably, consumers
relied on the representations, purchased vehicles whose material
attributes were misrepresented and as a result suffered financial
loss. Ford itself is no stranger to such behavior, and indeed was
implicated only a few years ago when a study revealed discrepancies
as high as 20 percent between stated and real-world fuel economy
estimates for its 2013 Fusion and C-Max hybrids. As result of the
study, and ensuing litigation, Ford was forced to adjust its
consumption estimates on those vehicles and subsequently restated
fuel economy results for several other of its 2013-2014 models.

Despite the importance of accurate and reliable fuel economy and
emission representations, Ford's checkered history, recidivist
tendencies, and blind desire for economic gain have resulted in the
matter complained of herein. Upon information and belief, the
F-150, Ford's best-selling flagship pickup truck, was subject to
this flawed testing and subsequently sold to the consuming public
with inaccurate fuel economy figures. Indeed, less than two months
after its announcement, Ford revealed that the U.S. Department of
Justice opened a criminal investigation over its flawed
emissions-certification processes, specifically focusing on the
auto maker's road-load estimations and coastdown procedures that
are used to determine EPA fuel-efficiency figures.

Consumers, such as the Plaintiff, reasonably relied on Ford's
representations in making their decision to purchase Ford vehicles
and were damaged as a result, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dillon Drake is a resident of Sebring Park, Florida and
owner of a F150 Raptor vehicle, ("Vehicle").

Ford Motor Company is a Delaware company with its principal place
of business in Dearborn Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: (813) 223-5505
     Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

          - and -

     Mike Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Email: MMorgan@forthepeople.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Agreement in Fernandez-Cryer Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is still
awaiting the Court's approval of the settlement agreement in the
consolidated Fernandez-Cryer lawsuit.

In July 2016, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
captioned Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Franklin, the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan
("Plan") Investment Committee ("Investment Committee"), and unnamed
Investment Committee members.

The plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), alleging
that the defendants selected mutual funds sponsored and managed by
the Company (the "Funds") as investment options for the Plan when
allegedly lower-cost and better performing non-proprietary
investment vehicles were available.

The plaintiff also claims that the total Plan costs, inclusive of
investment management and administrative fees, are excessive. The
plaintiff alleges that Plan losses exceed $79.0 million and seeks,
among other things, damages, disgorgement, rescission of the Plan's
investments in the Funds, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

In November 2017, a second former employee, represented by the same
law firm, filed another class action lawsuit relating to the Plan
in the same court, captioned Fernandez v. Franklin Resources, Inc.,
et al. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February 2018,
naming the same defendants as those named in the Cryer action, as
well as the Franklin Board of Directors, the Plan Administrative
Committee, individual current and former Franklin directors, and
individual current and former Investment Committee members.

The plaintiff in this second lawsuit asserts the same ERISA breach
of fiduciary duty claim asserted in the Cryer action, as well as
claims for alleged prohibited transactions by virtue of the Plan's
investments in the Funds and for an alleged failure to monitor the
performance of the Investment Committee. The plaintiff alleges that
Plan losses exceed $60.0 million and seeks the same relief sought
in the Cryer action.

In April 2018, the court consolidated the Fernandez action with the
existing Cryer action.

Franklin Resources said, "While management strongly believes that
the claims asserted in the consolidated litigation are without
merit, in order to avoid protracted litigation, on December 3,
2018, Franklin elected to enter into an agreement-in-principle to
resolve the matter for a cash payment of $13.9 million, which the
Company has accrued. In addition, Franklin agreed, among other Plan
changes, to increase its existing matching contributions from 75%
to 85% for eligible participant salary deferrals for a period of
three years. The agreement is subject to court approval."

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

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides its
services to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts, and
partnerships. Franklin Resources, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is
based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in
Hyderabad, India.


FTD COMPANIES: Figueroa Alleges Violation Under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose
Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FTD Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03918
(S.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019).

FTD Companies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
floral and gifting company primarily in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. It operates
through three segments: U.S. Consumer, Florist, and
International.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



FTS INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in FTS
International Inc. (NYSE: FTSI) to the securities class action
pending in the Dallas County, Texas District Court. If you
purchased or otherwise acquired FTS International securities and
suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

For more information about the case click

            https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/FTSI

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing FTSI@hbsslaw.com.

According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors during FTS'
initial public offering by concealing adverse facts about FTS'
business including, in part: (a) the Company faced intense and
increasing competition; (b) the Company was not positioned to
capitalize on increased demand for hydraulic fracturing services
but was positioned to lose market share and suffer decelerating
revenue growth; and, (c) the Company's spike in revenues from
related parties leading up to its IPO offering was temporary.

By mid-February 2019, a little more than one year after the
Company's IPO, the price of FTS shares had eroded nearly 50%.

"We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
Defendants may have misled investors," said Hagens Berman partner
Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding FTS
International should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email FTSI@hbsslaw.com.

Contact:

       Reed Kathrein, Esq.
       Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
       Telphone: 510-725-3000
       Website: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/FTSI
       Email: FTSI@hbsslaw.com
              reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in A&M Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A&M GERBER CHIROPRACTIC LLC, as assignee of Conor
Carruthers, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-15606 (11th Cir.), Judge Clyde
Roger Vinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reversed the District Court's order granting summary judgment for
Gerber.

Conor Carruthers was involved in a car accident on March 18, 2015,
after which he sought medical services from A&M.  At the time,
Carruthers was covered under an automobile insurance policy issued
by GEICO.  Pursuant to Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, the
policy provided him with $10,000 in personal injury protection
("PIP") benefits.  To be entitled to the full $10,000, however, the
statute required that Carruthers -- like all PIP beneficiaries --
be diagnosed by an authorized health care provider with an
"emergency medical condition"; without such a diagnosis, he was
limited to $2,500 in benefits.

It is undisputed that Carruthers was not diagnosed with an EMC at
the time the case was filed.  It is also undisputed that, despite
the lack of an EMC finding, GEICO paid Carruthers/Gerber $7,311 in
PIP benefits pre-suit, well in excess of the $2,500 cap.  Even
though Carruthers received almost triple the amount in PIP benefits
that he was entitled to, Gerber believed that GEICO had
misinterpreted certain language in its automobile policies and that
the misinterpretation resulted in GEICO consistently underpaying
PIP benefits as a "general business practice."

Specifically, the policy contains an endorsement identified as
FLPIP (01-13), and that endorsement (under the heading "PAYMENTS WE
WILL MAKE") references fee schedules pursuant to which GEICO will
pay 80% of benefits that are medically necessary.  The endorsement
goes on to state: "For all other medical services, supplies, and
care GEICO will pay 200% of the allowable amount under a Medicare
Part B fee schedule, subject to a limitation of 80% of the maximum
reimbursable allowance under workers' compensation."  Below that
statement, GEICO added the following: "A charge submitted by a
provider, for an amount less than the amount allowed above, will be
paid in the amount of the charge submitted." The underlying dispute
in this case hinges on whether this single sentence is the
operative language of the policy for health care provider bills of
less than 200% of the fee schedule.

GEICO has taken the position that the policy is an "80/20 policy"
pursuant to which it was required to pay the lower of 80% of the
fee schedule amount or 80% of the charged amount, while insureds
are required to pay the remaining 20% as co-insurance.  To supports
its position, GEICO relied, inter alia, on a document mailed or
provided to its PIP policyholders effective on or after Jan. 1,
2013, and identified as M608 (01-13).

Shortly after the action was removed to federal court, and while
its motion to remand was pending, Gerber filed an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint was largely the same as the
original complaint, but it added another sentence to re-emphasize
that "the action does not assert a claim for any monetary relief,"
and it deleted the request for a declaration that GEICO's
misinterpretation of the disputed policy language "constitutes a
breach of the insurance Policy."  Thus, as amended, the complaint
clarified that it only sought declaratory relief and that there was
no claim for breach of contract or request for money damages
related thereto.  In July 2017 -- more than two years after the
underlying car accident, and ten months after the litigation was
filed -- Carruthers obtained an EMC medical diagnosis.

On cross motions for summary judgment, GEICO argued, inter alia,
that Gerber lacked standing at the outset of the lawsuit because it
was undisputed that GEICO had paid Gerber more than $2,500 before
the case was filed, even though he had not been diagnosed with an
EMC at that time.  By order dated Nov. 17, 2017, the District Court
disagreed with GEICO and found there was standing.  It also ruled
that M608 (01-13) was not an endorsement (but rather was merely a
notice) and, thus, it was not part of the policy.  Applying a
textual interpretation of the FLPIP (01-13) endorsement, the
District Court granted summary judgment for Gerber and held that,
under the disputed provision, when a health care provider bills for
covered services in an amount less than 200% of the fee schedule,
GEICO is required to pay the charge as billed without any
reduction.

GEICO now appeals, arguing that Gerber lacked standing to bring the
case.  It further argues that the District Court erred in
certifying the class; in limiting the documents that comprise the
policy (that is, in failing to treat M608 (01-13) as an
endorsement); and in ruling for Gerber on the merits as to the
policy interpretation question.

Judge Vinson holds that whether and to what extent Gerber might be
injured is beside the point because the proper inquiry in the case
must focus on the potential future injury to Carruthers, not to
Gerber or other members of the class.  And he can see no potential
future threat to Carruthers, other than the possibility that he may
someday be in another car accident; sustain an injury entitling him
to PIP benefits; and still be insured by GEICO under the same or a
similar policy being interpreted the same way, thereby having this
issue present itself again.  But, that is too contingent to
constitute a "substantial likelihood" of future injury.  

The Judge concludes that the absence of a claim for money damages
or substantial likelihood that Carruthers will suffer a future
injury -- both of which Gerber was careful to avoid alleging in the
case -- Gerber has no standing to pursue the case.  He recognizes
that the appeal raises an important issue for GEICO's Florida PIP
policyholders and for medical providers treating them.  And he
recognizes, too, that the lawsuit has been pending for several
years and has consumed a lot of both judicial and attorney
resources.  If he could, the Judge would reach the merits and give
finality to the questions presented.  But he cannot.

In the absence of standing, a court is not free to opine in an
advisory capacity about the merits of a plaintiff's claims.  Again,
standing is 'perhaps the most important' jurisdictional doctrine,
and, as with any jurisdictional requisite, courts are powerless to
hear a case when it is lacking.  Because the Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and neither did the District
Court, the decision must be reversed and the case remanded with
instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2w6dIIg from Leagle.com.

Mark S. Fistos -- mark@pathtojustice.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward H. Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Todd S. Payne -- tpayne@zpllp.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bryan Scott Gowdy -- bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven R. Jaffe -- steve@pathtojustice.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gary M. Farmer, Sr., for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas L. Hunker -- thomas.hunker@csklegal.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Michael Trent Lewenz -- mlewenz@zpllp.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Peter Weinstein -- peter.weinstein@csklegal.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.


GENERAL MOTORS: Corvette Owner Sues Over Defective Wheels
---------------------------------------------------------
Alanis King, writing for Jalopnik, reports that another
class-action lawsuit over the seventh-generation Chevrolet Corvette
made it to federal court, but this one isn't about its performance
on track.  It's, instead, over something that can affect owners
anywhere -- certain C7 rims, the lawsuit claims, are prone to
cracking and bending at "extremely low mileages."

Perhaps most importantly, though, the lawsuit also claims they're
also prone to not falling under General Motors' warranty.

The April 30 filing, found and written about by Car Complaints, is
a class-action complaint on behalf of anyone in the U.S. who bought
or leased any 2015 or newer Corvette Z06 models, as well as anyone
with 2017 or newer Grand Sport models.  The lawsuit claims General
Motors knew of "widespread" problems with the rims, has denied the
issue, and is "systematically denying coverage" of the wheels under
their three-year, 36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranties.

GM has yet to file a response in court, according to online
records, but Jalopnik has reached out to the company for comment on
the lawsuit and any response it may have to the allegations. We'll
update this story if we hear back.

The lawsuit was filed against GM by Anthony Nardizzi, who claims he
leased a new 2018 Corvette from Santa Paula Chevrolet in California
in June 2018.  What happened next, the lawsuit says, wasn't part of
the plan:

Upon purchasing the vehicle from the dealership, Mr. Nardizzi had
the vehicle brought directly to Impression Auto Salon.  CalChrome,
a third-party wheel finisher, picked up the rims to have them
coated.  While inspecting the vehicle, CalChrome took a video
showing that the rims were bent.

Nardizzi, the lawsuit says, replaced the wheels for $7,500 out of
pocket.  When he complained to the dealership and asked for the
wheels to be covered in its bumper-to-bumper warranty, the lawsuit
claims the dealership said the wheels were "warped because of Mr.
Nardizzi's driving and that GM would not cover any portion of the
repair."  When he contacted GM directly, it says, GM agreed to
cover $1,200 of the $7,500 cost.

But for most, the lawsuit claims GM's been blaming the defect on
"potholes or other driver error" despite alleged internal data on
the problem. The suit claims GM knew about the issue even before
Nardizzi's lease, citing numerous forum posts, complaints to the
U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and a
late-2018 Car and Driver story about a 2017 Corvette Grand Sport in
their long-term fleet that had three bent wheels at around 6,500
miles.

Two were fixed, the story said, but one had to be completely
replaced for a crack. Car and Driver also said their wheels weren't
covered under warranty, costing $1,119 for repairs.

By not covering the repairs, the lawsuit alleges GM's breaching its
bumper-to-bumper warranty—citing a line that GM agrees to cover
any vehicle defect aside from "slight noise, vibrations, or other
normal characteristics of the vehicle due to materials or
workmanship occurring during the warranty period."

The lawsuit says that had Nardizzi known about the defect, as it
claims GM did, he either wouldn't have bought the car or would've
paid less. From the lawsuit:

Although GM was sufficiently aware of the Rim Defect from
preproduction testing, design failure mode analysis, calls to its
customer service hotline, and customer complaints made to dealers,
this knowledge and information was exclusively in the possession of
GM and its network of dealers and, therefore, unavailable to
consumers. [...]

GM's omissions were material to Plaintiff Nardizzi. Had GM
disclosed its knowledge of the Rim Defect before he purchased his
Corvette, Plaintiff Nardizzi would have seen and been aware of the
disclosures.

In addition to the monetary concerns, the lawsuit mentions the
potential safety issues with defective wheels -- one NHTSA
complaint, it says, involved an owner who noticed a vibration at
highway speeds.

"Took the vehicle into the dealer and was told that the wheel was
bent," the lawsuit quotes the complaint as saying. "Service manager
stated that this was happening to many Corvettes and was due to the
stiffness of the tire and the weakness of the factory wheel. GM has
denied a claim under warranty."

Nardizzi's requesting a jury trial, and asking for the court to
determine that GM is financially responsible for notifying any
affected owners about the defect, a voluntary recall, an amount of
damages for Nardizzi and other affected owners to be proven at
trial, the costs of attorney fees, and any applicable interest.

Until that happens -- if that happens -- it sounds like most owners
will just have to pay out of pocket for their repairs.[GN]


GLEN MILLS: Former Students File Class Action Over Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that four former students at the
nation's oldest reform school have filed a federal class-action
lawsuit alleging that they were abused and denied an education.

The Juvenile Law Center says the suit against Glen Mills Schools in
suburban Philadelphia was filed on April 10.

An investigation by The Philadelphia Inquirer this year detailed
decades of alleged abuse and cover-ups at the 193-year-old campus.

The state revoked all the school's licenses, weeks after ordering
all remaining students be removed from the campus about 25 miles
west of Philadelphia.

Glen Mills spokeswoman Aimee Tysarczyk says the school wasn't aware
of the suit until they heard about it in the media. She says
attorneys are evaluating the suit.

The lawsuit asks for compensation and punitive damages for the
plaintiffs, legal fees and other relief. [GN]


GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
March 28, 2019, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York largely denied a motion
to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In re
Global Brokerage, Inc., 17-cv-00916 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019).
Plaintiffs principally alleged that defendants, a foreign exchange
trading and services company and certain of its executives, made
misleading statements or omissions regarding (a) the company's
reliance on an agency-trading model and (b) the nature of payments
the company received from another company, "Effex," that had been
spun-off from the defendant company.  The Court had dismissed
plaintiffs' prior amended complaint without prejudice, holding,
inter alia, that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter.
The Court held, however, that plaintiffs' second amended complaint
adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and scienter as to
the majority of claims and all but one individual defendant.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company falsely claimed to use an
agency-trading model whereby it would find the best foreign
exchange rate for its customers and treat all market makers the
same.  In fact, plaintiffs alleged, the company routed the majority
of customers' orders to Effex, which held contrary trading
positions and paid "kickbacks" tied to its trading profits and
losses to the defendants.  Slip op. at 8-10.  The Court held that
plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that defendants were responsible
for actionable misstatements that its agency-trading model was
"fundamental to [its] core business philosophy" under which it
acted as a "credit intermediary, or riskless principal."  Id. at
19.  While defendants argued that these statements did not imply
that all trading providers were treated equally, the Court
determined that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the company
was falsely "leading customers to believe that it was not profiting
from taking positions against its customers' interests."  Id. at
20.

The Court also held that plaintiffs adequately alleged the company
made false and misleading statements regarding purported "order
flow" payments from Effex to the company.  While defendants
disclosed generally that the company made payments for order flow,
the Court found plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that these
statements were misleading because they failed to disclose that the
challenged payments were essentially profit-sharing agreements with
a single market making company.  Id. at 21-22.

Plaintiffs also asserted that defendants violated GAAP by failing
to disclose Effex as a "Variable Interest Entity" -- because it was
allegedly subject to defendants' determination about whether to
route customer orders there and was dependent on defendants for
business -- or, alternatively, as a "related company" because it
had been started by the defendant company, funded with an
interest-free loan from it, and shared a close relationship.  Id.
at 10-11.  The Court agreed and held that, although GAAP violations
alone, without more, would be insufficient to support a claim for
securities fraud, in this case plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged
other independent misrepresentations and the alleged GAAP
violations did not stand alone.

The Court dismissed, however, plaintiffs' claims that regulatory
investigations had not been properly disclosed, holding that the
company's disclosure that the CFTC was examining the relationship
between the company and one of its liquidity providers was
sufficient and that the existence of a tolling agreement did not
render legal action "highly likely or imminent."  Id. at 27-28.

The Court also found that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded
scienter with respect to two individual defendants who were alleged
to have been "heavily involved in the creation and funding" of the
market making company, having hired an individual to create the
high frequency trading algorithm at issue, provided him with
start-up capital, and oversaw the spin-off of the company.  Id. at
31-32.  However, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly
allege scienter as to another individual defendant, and instead
merely stated in conclusory and "boilerplate" fashion that he "must
have been aware" as CFO that the order flow payments were, in
reality, a form of profit-sharing.  Id. at 33.

Finally, the Court held that loss causation was adequately alleged
and that there was "little doubt" that the disclosure -- which
included disclosure of a regulatory settlement and an order that
the company effectively stop doing business within the United
States -- had an "immediate and tangible effect," as the next day
the company's stock allegedly lost half its value and its notes
allegedly fell 37%.  Id. at 36. [GN]

The cases are IN RE GLOBAL BROKERAGE, INC. f/k/a FXCM INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Nos. 1:17-cv-00916-RA, 1:17-cv-01028-RA,
No.1:17-cv-02506-RA., 1:17-cv-00955-RA (S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated March 28, 2019, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y39azotc from Leagle.com.

Tony Khoury, individually, Tony Khoury, on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Brian Armstrong, Plaintiffs, represented by
Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

683 CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim,
The Rosen Law Firm P.A. & Joshua Evan Baker, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A.

Ying Zhao, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP & Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz
LLP.

Sergey Regukh, Movant, represented by Matthew Moylan Guiney, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen
Law Firm P.A.

Hany Sikaik, Movant, represented by Roger Alan Sachar, Jr., Newman
Ferrara LLP.

Thomas Kelly, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Adi Damty & Abed Latif, Movants, represented by Jennifer Sarnelli,
Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Shipco Transport, Inc., Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The
Rosen Law Firm P.A. & Joshua Evan Baker, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Moshe Ariel, Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Wendy Howell, Gene Segalis, John Dearborn & Timothy Black, Movants,
represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

FXCM Inc., William Ahdout, James Brown, Robin E. Davis, Margaret
Deverell, Kenneth Grossman, Arthur Gruen, Eric LeGoff, Janelle G
Lester, Bryan Reyhani, David Sakhai, Nicola Santoro, Jr., David S
Sassoon, Ryan Silverman & Eduard Yusupov, Defendants, represented
by Israel Dahan, King & Spalding LLP, Chelsea Jean Corey, King and
Spalding LLP, Evan Claire Ennis, King & Spalding LLP, Paul Richard
Bessette, King and Spalding LLP & Peter Joseph Isajiw, King &
Spalding LLP.

Dror Niv & Ornit Niv, Defendants, represented by Israel Dahan, King
& Spalding LLP, Chelsea Jean Corey, King and Spalding LLP, Evan
Claire Ennis, King & Spalding LLP, Paul Richard Bessette, King and
Spalding LLP, Peter Joseph Isajiw, King & Spalding LLP & Rebecca
Matsumura, King & Spalding LLP.

Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc., Consolidated Defendant,
represented by Chelsea Jean Corey, King and Spalding LLP, Evan
Claire Ennis, King & Spalding LLP, Israel Dahan, King & Spalding
LLP, Paul Richard Bessette, King and Spalding LLP, Peter Joseph
Isajiw, King & Spalding LLP & Rebecca Matsumura, King & Spalding
LLP.

Kathy Gray, ADR Provider, represented by Thomas James McKenna,
Gainey McKenna & Egleston.



GREEN TREE INN: Knowles Asserts Breach of ADA in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Green Tree Inn, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Green Tree Inn, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00464 (S.D. Ill., April 30, 2019).

Green Tree Inn, LLC is a select-service owner, operator and
franchisor of the GreenTree Inn hotel brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr.
   New York, NY 10016-2555
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Calif. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grimmway Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Rhina Beatriz Carrillo, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grimmway
Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation, Grimmway Farm, an
Unknown Business Form and Ma Medina Farm Labor Services, Inc., a
California Corporation, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101196 (Cal.
Super., April 30, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as other employment - civil
unlimited.

Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Grimmway Farms,
grows, produces, and supplies fruits and vegetables to customers in
the United States and internationally. The company offers carrots,
potatoes, juice concentrates, and frozen products; and organic
products, such as green and red cabbage, lettuces, cauliflower,
broccoli, celery, green and red bell peppers, red onions and
radishes, leeks, and more. It offers its products through retail
partners. The company was founded in 1968 and is based in
Bakersfield, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
   Matern Law Group, PC - Los Angeles
   1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
   Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
   Tel: (855) 888-2577
   Fax: (310) 531-1901
    


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of those who acquired Healthcare
Services Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HCSG) securities during the period
from April 11, 2017 to March 4, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 21, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Healthcare Services Group engaged in a
scheme to deceive the market by misrepresenting the value of the
Company's business and prospects by overstating its earnings and
concealing the significant defects in its internal controls.

On March 4, 2019, the Healthcare Services Group disclosed that it
would delay the release of its annual report on Form 10-K with the
SEC.  The Company admitted that it received a letter and subpoena
from the SEC asking questions about how the Company calculates its
EPS.  On this news, shares of Healthcare Services Group fell $4.96
per share, or 13.14%, to close at $32.78 on March 4, 2019.

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

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


HELIUS MEDICAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. ("Helius" or the "Company")
(HSDT). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby
at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Helius and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On April 10, 2019, Helius disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had declined the Company's request for De
Novo classification and clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation
Stimulator device. The FDA stated that it lacked sufficient data to
determine the relative contributions of the device and physical
therapy in clinical studies. On this news, Helius's stock price
fell $44.11 per share, or 66.18%, to close at $2.10 per share on
April 10, 2019, damaging investors.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice 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.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


INTEL CORP: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the preliminary
hearing to approve the settlement of the consolidated class action
suit related to the company's acquisition of McAfee, Inc., is
scheduled for May 2019.

On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00
per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action
lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee
board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that
the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that
McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The
complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other
equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of
damages in an unspecified amount.

In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the
value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages
should be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at
defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not
entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench trial.

In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California
Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which
the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that
motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in
February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The
California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017, and
in November 2017, affirmed the judgment as to McAfee's nine outside
directors, reversed the judgment as to former McAfee director and
chief executive officer David DeWalt, Intel, and McAfee, and
affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to a jury trial.

At a June 2018 case management conference following remand, the
Superior Court set an October hearing date for any additional
summary judgment motions that may be filed, and set trial to begin
in December 2018. In July 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to amend the complaint, which the court denied in September 2018.

Also in July 2018, McAfee and Intel filed a motion for summary
judgment on the aiding and abetting claims asserted against them;
in October 2018, the court granted the motion as to McAfee and
denied the motion as to Intel.

The parties agreed in principle to settle the case in late October
2018, and finalized the settlement agreement in March 2019. The
settlement agreement calls for an aggregate payment by defendants
of $11.7 million.

Intel's contribution to the settlement will be immaterial to its
financial statements. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement in March 2019, which is scheduled for
hearing in May 2019.

Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.


INTEL CORP: Still Defends Security Vulnerabilities-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend multiple class action suits related to security
vulnerabilities.

In June 2017, a Google research team notified the company and other
companies that it had identified security vulnerabilities (now
commonly referred to as "Spectre" and "Meltdown") that affect many
types of microprocessors, including the company's products. As is
standard when findings like these are presented, the company worked
together with other companies in the industry to verify the
research and develop and validate software and firmware updates for
impacted technologies.

On January 3, 2018, information on the security vulnerabilities was
publicly reported, before software and firmware updates to address
the vulnerabilities were made widely available. Numerous lawsuits
have been filed against Intel and, in certain cases, the company's
executives and directors, in U.S. federal and state courts and in
certain courts in other countries relating to the Spectre and
Meltdown security vulnerabilities, as well as another variant of
these vulnerabilities ("Foreshadow") that has since been
identified.

As of April 24, 2019, 48 consumer class action lawsuits and three
securities class action lawsuits have been filed. The consumer
class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes
of end users of our products, generally claim to have been harmed
by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the security
vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and statutory
claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. Of the
consumer class action lawsuits, 44 have been filed in the U.S., two
of which have been dismissed; two have been filed in Canada; and
two have been filed in Israel.

In April 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the U.S. consumer class action lawsuits consolidated for
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon. Intel filed a motion to dismiss that consolidated action in
October 2018, and a hearing on that motion was held in February
2019.

In the case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, an
initial status conference has not yet been scheduled.

In the case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, the
court entered an order in October 2018, staying that case for one
year.

In Israel, both consumer class action lawsuits were filed in the
District Court of Haifa. The District Court denied the parties'
joint request for a stay in the first case.

Intel filed a motion to stay the second case, and a hearing on that
motion has been scheduled for July 2019. In the securities class
action litigation, the lead securities class action plaintiffs, who
purport to represent classes of acquirers of Intel stock between
October 27, 2017 and January 9, 2018, generally allege that Intel
and certain officers violated securities laws by making statements
about Intel's products that were revealed to be false or misleading
by the disclosure of the security vulnerabilities.

The securities class actions have been consolidated and are pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss those actions in August 2018,
which the court granted in March 2019. The court's order granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, but in April 2019
plaintiffs notified the court that they would not re-plead or
appeal.

Defendants subsequently filed a motion for entry of final judgment,
which is set for hearing in May 2019. Additional lawsuits and
claims may be asserted on behalf of customers and shareholders
seeking monetary damages or other related relief. We dispute the
claims described above and intend to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.

Intel said, "Given the procedural posture and the nature of these
cases, including that the proceedings are in the early stages, that
alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as
to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the
ultimate size of any class or classes if certified, and that there
are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are
unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range
of losses, if any, that might arise from these matters."

Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.


IOOF HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New South Wales
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Mickleboro, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that the
embattled financial services company The IOOF Holdings Limited
revealed that it has been served with a class action.

This certainly is disappointing news for current shareholders
considering the IOOF share price is already down 33% since this
time last year.

What is the class action?
Late on April 12 IOOF announced that it has been served with a
class action proceeding filed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on behalf of certain
shareholders of IOOF who acquired shares between May 27 2015 and
August 9 2018.

According to the class action's website, Quinn Emanuel's claim
against IOOF arises from evidence given by the wealth manager at
the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation
and Financial Services Industry. The evidence concerned breaches by
IOOF's subsidiaries, and directors and officers, of their
obligations as superannuation trustees.

Following these revelations at the Royal Commission, and the
announcement of various proceedings against IOOF's subsidiaries and
officers related to those breaches by APRA, IOOF shares lost over
35% of their value.

Quinn Emanuel alleges that between May 27 2015 and August 9 2018
IOOF contravened its continuous disclosure obligations under the
ASX Listing Rules and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

IOOF has called the class action "speculative and without
foundation" and reiterated that it takes its continuous disclosure
obligations seriously. Adding that it "does not engage in
misleading or deceptive conduct. IOOF intends to defend this
claim." [GN]


JONES DAY: Responds to Gender Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that Jones
Day is responding to a gender bias lawsuit with a statement that
cites an "inclusive culture" and a partnership that includes 240
women.

A $200 million lawsuit filed April 3 had alleged that the firm has
a "fraternity culture" in which female lawyers have to participate
if they hope to get ahead.

The would-be class action said female associates at Jones Day are
discriminated against based on gender, pregnancy and maternity. The
suit criticized the firm's secretive system in which partnership
and pay decisions are made by the managing partner.

Statistics tell a different story, according to Jones Day.

The majority of female partners at the firm are mothers who took
family leaves and often worked flexible schedules, the statement
says.

The American Lawyer reports that female lawyers make up just over
26% of the Jones Day partnership, based on a count of 919 partners
provided to the publication in 2018. That's slightly more than the
average of 23.36% reported for the nation's major law firms in 2018
by the National Association for Law Placement.

Jones Day cited these statistics:

   * Eighteen out of 35 U.S. lawyers promoted to partnership in
January were women, and almost three-quarters of them had taken or
were on family leave at the time of promotion. In January 2018, 14
out of 33 U.S. lawyers promoted to partnership were women, and 71%
of them had taken family leave.

   * Almost 70% of the U.S. women promoted to partnership over the
past decade had taken or were on family leave at the time of their
promotion to partnership.

   * Seventeen of the firm's offices and regions, including its
largest region, are led by female partners, almost all of whom have
children.

   * The firm's 17-member partnership committee, which advises on
partner admissions and compensation, has five women, all of whom
took family leave while working at Jones Day.

   * The firm's largest practice group is co-chaired by a female
trial lawyer, and its issues and appeals practice is chaired by a
female partner who became the practice leader while working part
time.

"These statistics belie the recent claims of six former associates
(four unnamed) that women -- and, in particular, women who take
family leave -- cannot succeed at Jones Day," the statement said.
"The claims of pay discrimination -- made only 'on information and
belief,' without any factual support -- are equally without merit.
The distorted picture of the firm portrayed in the complaint is not
Jones Day. We will litigate this case in court, not in the media,
and are confident we will prevail."

The new lawsuit was filed by Sanford Heisler Sharp, which also
filed a gender bias lawsuit against the law firm last year on
behalf of a fired partner. [GN]



KERN RIDGE: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Calif. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kern Ridge Growers,
LLC. The case is styled as Rhina Beatriz Carrillo, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kern Ridge
Growers, LLC, a California limited liability company, Kern Ridge
Growers, Inc., a California Corporation and MA Medina Farm Labor
Services, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
BCV-19-101197 (Cal. Super., April 30, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as other employment - civil
unlimited.

Kern Ridge Growers, LLC produces, packs, markets, and distributes
conventional and organic grown carrots. The company offers organic
and conventional carrots, peppers and chili peppers, and citrus
fruits. It serves customers through sales representatives. Kern
Ridge Growers, LLC was founded in 1973 and is based in Arvin,
California. The company ships its carrots to export markets from
Canada to Mexico and Dubai.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
   Matern Law Group, PC - Los Angeles
   1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
   Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
   Tel: (855) 888-2577
   Fax: (310) 531-1901



LA CARETTA: Diners File Class Action Lawsuit Over Norovirus
-----------------------------------------------------------
Live 5 News Web Staff reports that three people who say they got
norovirus after eating at a Summerville Mexican restaurant in 2018
have now filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the people
who got sick after eating there last November and December.

The suit states that La Caretta is liable for all damages for each
person who ate and got sick at the restaurant in the 1500 block of
Old Trolley Road.

According to the lawsuit, La Carreta knew or should have known the
the food was unfit or unreasonably dangerous to eat.

The three people are seeking punitive and actual damages from the
restaurant.

According to a report released by the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control, the restaurant had temporarily
closed on Dec. 5 after 10 people became ill.

At the time of the closure, a sign on the front door of the
business stated,"Voluntarily closing until further notice. Sorry
for the inconvenience. -Management."

The restaurant was reopened two weeks later.

DHEC then released their full findings in which they reported more
than 280 complaints were submitted to DHEC's Food Safety Complaint
system. According to DHEC, a single complainant may involve
multiple individuals.

Following the initial complaints, authorities said there was an
attempt to contact each complainant requesting that each person
potentially impacted complete an online survey.

Officials say a total of 332 people completed the survey in which
290 people reported becoming sick after eating at the restaurant
and 42 patrons said they did not have any signs of illness.

In addition, six patrons provided samples for testing, and each
tested positive for norovirus, according to DHEC's report.

During the initial stages of the investigation, DHEC officials said
the symptoms suggested a "viral gastrointestinal illness" which is
contagious and can cause vomiting and diarrhea.

Infection can be spread by direct contact with an ill person,
consuming contaminated food or beverage, and or touching
contaminated surfaces.

DHEC made an on-site visit on Dec. 5, and instructed the management
regarding a recommended thorough, deep cleaning of the restaurant
and exclusion of any ill employees. [GN]


LET'S EAT OUT: Settlement in Cope Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OLIVIA COPE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. LET'S EAT OUT,
INCORPORATED d/b/a BUFFALO WILD WINGS, JEREMY BOYER, individually,
JAMES BRUNO, Individually, BRUNO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., BRUNO
ENTERPRISES, INC. TOO, WING BACKS, INC., SOONERS OR LATER, INC.,
HOT TEX, INC., and SPREADING OUR WINGS, INC. Defendants, Case No.
6:16-cv-03050-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern
Division, granted Cope's motion for preliminary approval of the
Settlement.

After having read and considered the Settlement Agreement, the
exhibits attached to it, and the briefing submitted in support of
preliminary approval of the Settlement, Judge Bough preliminarily
approved the Parties' Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate.


He finds that the notice of the Settlement to the Class Members is
justified because the Parties have shown that the Court will likely
be able to approve the Settlement Agreement under Rule 23(e)(2) and
will likely be able to certify the Settlement Classes for purposes
of judgment, since the Classes were already certified during the
course of the litigation.

He also finds that he will likely be able to certify the following
Settlement Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:

     a. All current and former servers and bartenders working at
any of the Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Missouri
who, at any time from Feb. 10, 2014 until May 31, 2015, were paid
sub-minimum, tip-credit rates of pay ("Missouri Minimum Wage Act
Class"); and

     b. All current and former servers and bartenders working at
any of the Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants who, at any
time from Feb. 10, 2011 until May 31, 2015, were paid sub-minimum,
tip-credit rates of pay ("Missouri Common Law Class").

These Settlement Classes are proper and coextensive with the
Classes that were previously certified by the Court pursuant to
Rule 23 on May 10, 2017.

The Judge approved the formulas for allocation of settlement
payments set forth in the Settlement Agreement as a fair and
reasonable method for calculating and distributing the settlement
payments to the Class Representative, the Class Members, and the
Opt-in Plaintiffs.

Douglas M. Werman, Sarah J. Arendt, and Zachary C. Flowerree of
Werman Salas P.C. and Rowdy B. Meeks of Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC
will serve as the Class Counsel, and Plaintiff Olivia Cope will
serve as the Class Representative.

The Judge approved RG2 Claims Administration LLC to act as the
Settlement Administrator pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

He approved, as to form and content, the Notice of Settlement
attached as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement, and the Class
Notice and the Claim Form attached as Exhibit D to the Settlement
Agreement.

Within 60 days of the initial mailing of the Class Notice, the
Class Members who wish to receive a settlement award must fill out
and return a Claim Form, either electronically or by mail, to the
Settlement Administrator.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on Sept. 5,
2019, at 10:00 a.m.
  At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will determine whether
the proposed Settlement, and any application for a Service Award
and Attorney's Fees and Costs, will be approved.

All papers in support of the Settlement will be filed no later than
seven days before the Final Approval Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wr2yTt from Leagle.com.

Olivia Cope, On behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas M. Werman --
dwerman@flsalaw.com -- pro hac vice, Sarah J. Arendt --
sarendt@flsalaw.com -- pro hac vice, Zachary C. Flowerree --
zflowerree@flsalaw.com -- pro hac vice & Rowdy B. Meeks --
Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com -- Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC.

Let's Eat Out, Incorporated, doing business as Buffalo Wild Wings,
Defendant, represented byKirsten A. Milton --
Kirsten.Milton@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice,
Kyle B. Russell -- Kyle.Russell@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
PC & Paul DeCamp -- PDeCamp@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green,
PC, pro hac vice.

Jeremy Boyer, individually, Bruno Management Company, Inc., Bruno
Enterprises, Inc. Too, Wing Backs, Inc., Sooners or Later, Inc.,
Hot Tex, Inc. & Spreading Our Wings, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Kirsten A. Milton, Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice, Kyle B.
Russell, Jackson Lewis PC & Ryan P. Lessmann, Jackson Lewis PC, pro
hac vice.

James Bruno, Defendant, represented by Kyle B. Russell, Jackson
Lewis PC & Ryan P. Lessmann, Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice.


LION BIOTECH: Allocation Plan of Net Rabkin Settlement Fund Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAY RABKIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
MANISH SINGH, MICHAEL HANDELMAN, and KAMILLA BJORLIN, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02086-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, approved the Lead Plaintiff's proposed plan of
allocation of the Net Settlement Fund.

The matter came on for hearing on April 12, 2019 on the Lead
Plaintiff's motion to determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation created by the Settlement should be approved.  Having
considered and determined the fairness and reasonableness of the
proposed Plan of Allocation, Judge Illstons approved the Plan of
Allocation.  Her Order incorporates by reference the definitions in
the Stipulation of Settlement and Release dated as of Sept. 28,
2018.

Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Judge finds and concludes that due and
adequate notice was directed to the Settlement Class Members.  An
aggregate of 21,240 copies of the Notice were mailed to the
potential Settlement Class Members and nominees, and there are no
objections to the Plan of Allocation.  The formula for the
calculation of the claims of Claimants as set forth in the Plan of
Allocation provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to
allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund among the
Settlement Class Members.  The Plan of Allocation is, in all
respects, fair and reasonable to the Settlement Class.

Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Judge approval regarding
any plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund will in no way
disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.

There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order, and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0wSrsK from Leagle.com.

Leonard Desilvio, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Jay Rabkin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similary
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eli Greenstein --
egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer
Lauren Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Megan Koneski,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Naumon A. Amjed --
namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Paul Aaron
Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan --
rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP.

LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., also known as Iovance Biotherapeutics,
Inc. & MICHAEL HANDELMAN, Defendants, represented by Norman J.
Blears -- NBLEARS@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Matthew James
Dolan -- MDOLAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Robin Eve Wechkin
-- RWECHKIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Sara B. Brody --
SBRODY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.

MANISH SINGH, Defendant, represented by Francisca Minghao Mok, Reed
Smith LLP & James Lohman Sanders, Reed Smith LLP.

KAMILLA BJORLIN, Defendant, represented by Edward Gartenberg,
Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden LLP & Brett E. Heeger,
Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP.

The Lion Investor Group, Movant, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy
-- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Su Yee Lynn Ho, Sriram Sundareswaran, Manfred E. Strauch & Kevin
Fong, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com
-- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP.


LION BIOTECH: Rabkin Securities Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAY RABKIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
MANISH SINGH, MICHAEL HANDELMAN, and KAMILLA BJORLIN, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02086-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, granted final approval of the Settlement.

The Parties have entered into the Stipulation of Settlement and
Release dated Sept. 28, 2018, that provides for a complete
dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against the
Defendants in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in
the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court.

By Order dated Nov. 30, 2018, the Court: (a) preliminarily approved
the Settlement; (b) provisionally certified the Settlement Class
solely for the purpose of effectuating the Settlement; (c) directed
that notice of the proposed Settlement be provided to the
Settlement Class Members; (d) provided the Settlement Class Members
with the opportunity either to exclude themselves from the
Settlement Class or to object to the Settlement; and (e) scheduled
a hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement.  Due and
adequate notice has been given to the Settlement Class.

Judge Illston conducted a hearing on April 12, 2019.  Having
reviewed and considered the Stipulation, all papers filed and
proceedings held herein in connection with the Settlement, all oral
and written comments received regarding the Settlement, and the
record in the Action, she finally certified, solely for purposes of
effectuating the Settlement, the Action as a class action on behalf
of a Settlement Class defined as all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Lion common stock between Sept. 27,
2013 and April 10, 2017, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

The Lead Plaintiff is appointed as the Settlement Class
Representative, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, as the
Settlement Class Lead Counsel.

Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Judge fully and finally approved the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects (including,
without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the Releases
provided for therein; and the dismissal with prejudice of the
claims asserted against the Defendants in the Action), and finds
that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Settlement Class.

The Action and all of the claims asserted against the Defendants in
the Action by the Lead Plaintiff and the other Settlement Class
Members are dismissed with prejudice.  The Parties will bear their
own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in
the Stipulation.

Separate orders will be entered regarding approval of a plan of
allocation and the motion of the Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.  Such
orders will in no way affect or delay the finality of the Judgment
and will not affect or delay the Effective Date of the Settlement.

There is no just reason to delay the entry of the Judgment and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Klz9hm from Leagle.com.

Leonard Desilvio, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Jay Rabkin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similary
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eli Greenstein --
egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer
Lauren Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Megan Koneski,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Naumon A. Amjed --
namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Paul Aaron
Breucop, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan --
rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP.

LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., also known as Iovance Biotherapeutics,
Inc. & MICHAEL HANDELMAN, Defendants, represented by Norman J.
Blears -- NBLEARS@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Matthew James
Dolan -- MDOLAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Robin Eve Wechkin
-- RWECHKIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Sara B. Brody --
SBRODY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.

MANISH SINGH, Defendant, represented by Francisca Minghao Mok, Reed
Smith LLP & James Lohman Sanders, Reed Smith LLP.

KAMILLA BJORLIN, Defendant, represented by Edward Gartenberg,
Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden LLP & Brett E. Heeger,
Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP.

The Lion Investor Group, Movant, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy
-- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Su Yee Lynn Ho, Sriram Sundareswaran, Manfred E. Strauch & Kevin
Fong, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com
-- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP.


LOGMEIN INC: Continues to Defend Wasson Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit entitled, Wasson v.
LogMeIn, Inc. et al.

On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, referred to
herein as the Securities Class Action, was initiated by purported
stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No.
2:18-cv-07285).

On November 6, 2018 the case was transferred to the District of
Massachusetts (Case No. 1:18-cv-12330). The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 based on alleged misstatements or omissions concerning
renewal rates for the Company's subscription contracts.

The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.

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

LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.


M.J. BROTHERS: Hearing on Rodriguez Deal Prelim Approval Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. M.J.
BROTHERS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00252-LJO-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California vacated the April 24,
2019 hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
a class action settlement.

Currently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion which was
continued to April 24, 2019.  On April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff
filed supplemental briefing addressing issues raised in a findings
and recommendations that has since been vacated.  

Having reviewed the record, the Magistrate finds the matter
suitable for decision without oral argument.  Accordingly, he
vacated the previously scheduled hearing set on April 24, 2019,
iand the parties need not appear at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2W7Ahuv from Leagle.com.

Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Estreberto Valdez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Miguel Esparza, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Francisco Banda, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by John Edward Hill, Law Offices Of John E. Hill, A
Professional Corporation & Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John E.
Hill.

M.J. Brothers, Inc., a California Corporation, Eduardo Martin,
Daniel Martin, Fernando Martin & Ronald Martin, Defendants,
represented by Faith Lisle Driscoll --
fdriscoll@theemployerslawfirm.com -- Barsamian & Moody, Patrick
Moody -- pmoody@theemployerslawfirm.com -- Barsamian and Moody &
Ronald H. Barsamian -- ronbarsamian@aol.com -- Barsamian & Moody.


MAGNUM REAL ESTATE: Fischler Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Magnum Real Estate Group LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Magnum Real Estate Group LLC doing
business as: 196 Orchard, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03833 (S.D.
N.Y., April 30, 2019).

Magnum Real Estate Group LLC develops and manages condominiums and
residential properties. The company is based in New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


MARKEL CORP: Reveals Internal Review Findings Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Simpson, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
Markel Corp. said that an internal review conducted by outside
counsel found "no evidence that personnel of its CATCo unit acted
in bad faith in exercising business judgment in the setting of
reserves and making related disclosures during late 2017 and early
2018."

Last December, Markel reported that the U.S. Department of Justice,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Bermuda Monetary
Authority were conducting inquiries into loss reserves recorded in
late 2017 and early 2018 at Markel CATCo Investment Management Ltd.
and its subsidiaries. The inquiries are limited to CATCo and do not
involve the company or its other subsidiaries.

Markel retained outside counsel to conduct an internal review.

The company said its outside counsel has met with the U.S. and
Bermuda government authorities and reported the findings from the
internal review.

Markel said it continues to fully cooperate with the inquiries and
does not know at this time the duration or results.

CATCo Investment Management manages portfolios of investments
linked to reinsurance risks accessed through its reinsurance
company, Markel CATCo Re.

Markel Corp. previously reported that the internal review into the
loss reserves led to the disclosure of a personal relationship
between two CATCo executives that Markel said violated company
policy. The two are no longer with the company.

The fired executives, Anthony Belisle, Markel CATCo's former chief
executive officer, and Alissa Fredricks, Markel CATCo's former
chief executive officer for Bermuda, have sued Markel over the
firing, claiming they violated no company policy in effect at the
time. They allege the company amended its personnel policy just
days before their termination but after millions of dollars in
bonuses had vested, in an apparent attempt to create a
justification for the firings. The two allege they are owed $77
million.

Markel is also facing a potential class action shareholder lawsuit
over the reserve statements that are being investigated. New York
law firm Bragar Eagel & Squire in mid-January said it filed the
class action U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Markel Corp. securities between
July 26, 2017 and December 6, 2018. [GN]


MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Calif. Consolidated Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California

A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California,
(consolidating Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v. Mattel,
Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel, Christopher A.
Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and Joseph B. Johnson
alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with
statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period
October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017.

In general, the lawsuit asserts allegations that the defendants
artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly
making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to
the investing public about retail customer inventory, the alignment
between point-of-sale and shipping data, and Mattel's overall
financial condition. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants'
conduct caused the plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase
Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices.

On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Mattel's motion to dismiss the
class action lawsuit, and on June 25, 2018, the plaintiff filed a
motion informing the Court he would not be filing an amended
complaint.

Judgment was entered in favor of Mattel and the individual
defendants on September 19, 2018. The plaintiff filed his Notice of
Appeal on October 16, 2018 and his opening appellate brief on
February 25, 2019.

Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.


MATTEL INC: Faces Class Suits Related to Fisher-Price Sleeper
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company and Fisher-Price, Inc. are
facing class action suits related to the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper.

Purported class action lawsuits against Fisher-Price, Inc. and
Mattel, Inc. have been filed in the United States District Courts
for the Western District of New York (Drover-Mundy, et. al. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., et al., filed April 18, 2019, and Mulvey v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., et al., filed April 19, 2019), the District of
New Jersey (Kimmel v. Fisher-Price, Inc., et al., filed April 11,
2019), and the Central District of California (Black v. Mattel,
Inc., et al., filed April 23, 2019).

The lawsuits assert claims for false advertising, negligent product
design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in connection
with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper (the "Sleeper").

In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have
been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight
sleep for infants. The lawsuits propose consumer classes comprised
of those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for
prolonged and overnight sleep, and/or a class of all children who
sustained an injury or death due to the alleged defective design of
the Sleeper, and their parents.

The lawsuits purport to certify classes nationwide and in
particular states, and seek unspecified compensatory damages,
punitive damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement,
attorneys' fees, costs, interest, declaratory relief, and/or
injunctive relief.

Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made at this time.

A fifth purported class action seeking to certify a consumer class,
and seeking similar remedies, has been threatened against
Fisher-Price and Mattel but has not yet been filed.

Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.


MATTEL INC: Wyatt Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
purported class action suit entitled, Wyatt v. Mattel, Inc., et
al.

A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Wyatt v.
Mattel, Inc., et al., filed March 6, 2019) against Mattel, Ynon
Kreiz, and Joseph J. Euteneuer alleging federal securities laws
violations in connection with statements allegedly made by the
defendants during the period February 7, 2019 through February 15,
2019.

In general, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants artificially
inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions to the investing
public about demand for and supply of Mattel's products and the
impact on Mattel's business, operations, and prospects for 2019.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, expert fees, and/or costs.

Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuit are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made at this time.

Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.


MDL 2286: Reconsideration of Arbitration Order in TCPA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. TELEPHONE
CONSUMER PROTECTION LITIGATION, Case No. 11md2286-MMA (MDD), No.
16cv2157-MMA (MDD)., 16cv2768-MMA (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael
M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
of the Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis.

Lead Plaintiffs William Baker, Curtis Bentley, and Emir Fetai,
bring the putative class action for alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The Plaintiffs each
opened a credit card account with Citibank, N.A.  Both credit card
agreements contain a South Dakota choice-of-law provision and
identical arbitration agreements.  The credit card agreements also
state that they may assign any or all of their rights and
obligations under the Agreement to a third party.

Citibank ultimately sold both accounts to Midland.  The bills of
sale and assignment state that Citibank assigned to Midland both of
the Plaintiffs' accounts.  The purchase and sale agreements
governing those sales state that Citibank assigned to Midland all
right, title, and interest in the Plaintiffs' accounts.

On Jan. 31, 2019, the Court granted in part Defendants Midland
Funding, LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM"), and Encore
Capital Group's motion to compel Bentley and Baker ("Plaintiffs")
to arbitrate their individual claims, strike class allegations, and
stay the case pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").
Specifically, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis,
stayed their individual member actions, denied the Defendants'
request to stay the putative class action in the Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL"), and denied the Defendants' request to strike
class allegations.

The Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court's Order, or
alternatively, for certification for immediate interlocutory
appeal.  They contend the Court committed clear error in four ways:
(1) finding that Citibank could retain and assign its right to
arbitrate; (2) finding the credit card agreements govern the
relationship between the parties; (3) considering the redacted
Purchase and Sale Agreements attached to Defendants' reply; and (4)
interpreting the plain language of the arbitration agreements. Mtn.
at 4. Defendants oppose each of these assertions.  

The Defendants filed a response in opposition, to which the
Plaintiffs replied.

Judge Anello finds that he is not left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed and, therefore, the
Plaintiffs have not shown clear error or manifest injustice.  The
Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any legal basis to find
manifest error or law in its interpretation of the plain language
of the arbitration agreements.  It was not clear error for the
Court to find that Citibank assigned the right to compel
arbitration to Midland based on the documents the Defendants
proffered.  The Plaintiffs' arguments do not alter that decision
and the Court is not "left with the definite and firm conviction"
that it erred in finding that Citibank assigned its right to compel
arbitration to Midland.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

The Plaintiffs argue if the Court does not grant their motion for
reconsideration, it should certify its Order for interlocutory
appeal.  The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have not proven the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  The proceeding to
rbitration, as opposed to certification of interlocutory appeal,
will advance the termination of the Plaintiffs individual member
cases.  Further, as noted by the Defendants, the MDL putative class
action will proceed with the third named Plaintiff, Mr. Fetai,
regardless of whether the Plaintiffs individual member actions are
arbitrated.  As such, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' request to
certify the Court's Order for interlocutory appeal.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Anello denied the Plaintiffs' motion.
The parties are to proceed to arbitration as per the Court's prior
Order.  The Plaintiffs' individual member actions (16cv2157-MMA
(MDD) and 16cv2768-MMA (MDD)) remain stayed and administratively
closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/X3V40q from Leagle.com.

William Baker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Bower --
dbower@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates P.C.

Midland Credit Management Inc., Midland Funding LLC & Encore
Capital Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by Amy M. Gallegos --
agallegos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Edward D. Totino --
edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.


MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Halford Files Insurance-related Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid-Century Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Todd Halford, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mid-Century
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01077-JDB-jay (W.D.
Tenn., May 1, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance
asserting Diversity-Breach of Contract.

MID-Century Insurance Company provides insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Brandon McWherter, Esq.
   GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
   341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
   Franklin, TN 37067
   Tel: (615) 354-1144
   Fax: (731) 664-1540
   Email: bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com




MULTICARE HEALTH: Cadiz Denied Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TASI Q. CADIZ, Plaintiff, v. MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant, Case No. C19-5244 RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B.
Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied Cadiz's Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis.

The matter is before the Court on Cadiz's Motion, supported by his
proposed complaint.  Cadiz seeks to sue Multicare for breach of
contract negligence harassment/retaliation and civil rights
violations.  It appears he also seeks to represent a class of
similarly situated persons.  The basis for Cadiz's claims is not at
all clear from his complaint. It appears that he was using a
Multicare restroom near its emergency room when someone opened the
door, exposing him.  He was ultimately asked to leave.  The rest of
the 44-page complaint is filled with conclusory statements about
Multicare's obligations and intentions, filled with adjectives and
legal citations, but no facts.

Judge Leighton holds that Cadiz's proposed complaint does not meet
the plausibility standard.  He has not identified any individual
who did anything to him, or explained why what they did violated
any of his contractual or constitutional or other rights, or how it
amounted to actionable discrimination.

The Judge also holds that as a pre so litigant, Cadiz may represent
himself, only; he cannot represent a class of similarly situated
people, even if a corporation's employee's opening a restroom door
was the sort of claim that could otherwise lead to a class action
against the corporation.

In light of the foergoing, Judge Leighton denied Cadiz's Motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.  Cadiz will pay the filing fee
or file an amended complaint within 21 days of the Order, or the
case will be dismissed.  Any amended complaint should focus on the
"who, what, when, where, and why" of a factual story.  Acres of
adjectives, legal citations, and conclusory statements are not
required and are not enough to state a viable claim.  His complaint
should identify who did what to him, when where and why, and then
plausibly articulate why that conduct is actionable in the Court.
The incident he has described thus far does not state a plausible
claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2HqkjUp from Leagle.com.

Tasi Q. Cadiz, Plaintiff, pro se.


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nabriva
Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ: NBRV) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between November 1,
2018 and April 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 8, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Nabriva's manufacturers were incapable of
maintaining good manufacturing practices. Because these
manufacturers would be subject to inspection as part of the
Company's New Drug Application for CONTEPO with the FDA. The poor
manufacturing practices were likely to hurt the chances of the New
Drug Application to be approved. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Nabriva, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Tel: 310-301-3335
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


NATIONAL IMAGING: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Mauthe TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. NATIONAL
IMAGING ASSOCIATES, INC, Case No. 18-2119 (3d Cir.), Judge Morton
Ira Greenberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the District Court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) of Mauthe's class-action complaint under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), entered on April 25, 2018.

On Sept. 23, 2014, Mauthe received a satisfaction survey relating
to the quality of its services, via fax, from the Defendant.
Mauthe alleges that he did not have an established business
relationship with defendant, implying that he did not know why the
Defendant sent the survey to him.  Mauthe charges that the fax was
an unsolicited advertisement that the Defendant sent to him in
violation of the TCPA because it contained the Defendant's name,
promoted the quality of its services, and referred its recipient to
a website to which he could send his responses to the questions in
the survey.  Mauthe also alleges that the fax was a pretext to
increase awareness and use of the Defendant's healthcare management
services and to increase traffic to its website, www.RadMD.com.  He
alleges that at least 39 other similarly-situated persons or
entities received the fax, and he sought to advance a class-action
claim against the Defendant, for each person or entity that was
sent one or more telephone facsimile messages about healthcare
services available through www.RadMD.com.

Judge Greenberg understands Mauthe's real theory behind his claim,
that the Defendant may have intentionally sent the fax survey to
dozens of recipients unsolicited as some sort of nonobvious
promotion of its services.  However, even though the complaint
makes generalized class action allegations, it does not
specifically identify a single recipient of the fax that Mauthe
received without solicitation, by a recipient other than Mauthe.

If the complaint had included explicit factual allegations of other
identified individuals receiving this fax survey without
solicitation that circumstance might have been material to the
analysis, but it did not make such explicit allegations.  Thus, the
theory of liability based on a nonobvious promotion of tge
Defendant's services through the sending of multiple faxes is a
mere conclusory statement rather than a factual allegation.

In fact, based on the factual allegations in the complaint, the
Judge finds that it was just as plausible that the Defendant sent
the fax to Mauthe by mistake, and not because it was attempting to
make a sale to him.  Even construing the complaint in the light
most favorable to Mauthe, his allegations did not raise his TCPA
claim above the speculative level.  

Accordingly, Judge Greenberg finds that the District Court did not
err in holding that the fax survey was not an advertisement, and he
affirmed its April 25, 2018 dismissal order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/tGw5IP from Leagle.com.

Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- (argued), Daniel J.
Cohen, David M. Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- Bock Hatch
Lewis & Oppenheim, 134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000, Chicago,
IL 60602.

Richard E. Shenkan -- rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com -- Shenkan Injury
Lawyers LLC, 6550 Lakeshore Street, West Bloomfield, MI 48323,
Attorneys for Appellant.

Michael E. Baughman -- baughmanm@pepperlaw.com -- (argued), Pepper
Hamilton, 3000 Two Logan Square, 18th and Arch Streets,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Eric S. Merin -- merine@pepperlaw.com -- 777 South 20th Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19146, Attorneys for Appellee.


NCAA: Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Suit Settlement/Fee Award Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's approval of the settlement and fee award in the
case, In re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ATHLETIC
GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST LITIGATION (This document relates to ALL
ACTIONS except Jenkins v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, N.D.
Cal. No. 14-cv-278-CW), SHAWNE ALSTON; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, DARRIN DUNCAN, Objector-Appellant, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, The NCAA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 18-15054 (9th Cir.).

In the underlying class action, student athletes who attended
Division I schools challenge a NCAA bylaw that capped the maximum
grant-in-aid at less than the full cost of attendance at those
schools.  In January of 2015, after the Plaintiffs filed suit, the
NCAA amended its bylaws to allow member schools to provide up to
the full cost of attendance in athletic aid.  As to the Plaintiffs'
damage claims, the parties reached a settlement that requires
defendants to pay $208,664,445 to some 53,000 class members.  After
deducting attorneys' fees and expenses, the average recovery for
the class members who played sports for four years is approximately
$6,000.

The district court approved the settlement of the Plaintiffs'
damage claims and awarded $41,732,889 in attorneys' fees and
$3,184,274.38 in expenses.  Class member Darrin Duncan objected to
the fee award and now appeals the district court's approval of the
settlement and fee award.

The Appellate Court finds that Duncan appealed the district court's
approval of the settlement.  His briefs, however, do not challenge
the settlement generally, but instead concern only the district
court's award of attorneys' fees.  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to
impose sanctions on that basis, arguing that the appeal of the
settlement approval has not actually been prosecuted and is
delaying the distribution of funds to class members.  But to
address this concern, the Plaintiffs could have moved the district
court to require Duncan to post an appeal bond.

Moreover, the Court finds that although the Plaintiffs contend that
Duncan's appeal is unrelated to the district court's settlement
approval, it has held that attorneys' fees provisions included in
proposed class action settlement agreements are, like every other
aspect of such agreements, subject to the determination whether the
settlement is 'fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable,' and
so the reasonableness of the settlement is not wholly distinct from
the reasonableness of attorneys' fees, as the Plaintiffs suggest.

The Court therefore disagrees that Duncan's appeal of the approval
settlement was purely vexatious, and so denied the motion for
sanctions.  It accordingly affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/dzQcUv from Leagle.com.


NEW ENGLAND FITNESS: Summary Judgment in Kauffman Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH KAUFFMAN, JR., and KRYSTAL KAUFFMAN, on behalf
of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. NEW ENGLAND FITNESS SOUTH, INC., d/b/a
PLANET FITNESS, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. A-1789-17T1 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division, (i) reversed the trial court's orders granting summary
judgment to the Plaintiff and the class certification; and (ii)
remanded for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action, alleging an
exculpatory clause in the Defendant's health club membership
agreement violated the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act ("TCCWNA").  

Plaintiff Krystal Kauffman entered into a membership agreement with
Defendant Planet Fitness, to join its health club facility.  The
agreement contained an exculpatory clause releasing defendant from
liability for any injury sustained while using the facility.
Fifteen months later, Krystal cancelled her membership because of
financial difficulties.  She had used the health club 10 times.
During that time, she did not sustain any injury while using the
equipment, the locker room facilities, or walking through the
Defendant's parking lot.  Therefore, the exculpatory clause was
never invoked against her.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged the Defendant violated
the TCCWNA, the Health Club Services Act ("HCSA"), and the Consumer
Fraud Act ("CFA").  The crux of the complaint alleged the
Defendant's membership agreement violated the clearly established
rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the putative class because
it contained an overly broad exculpatory clause.  Thereafter, the
Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all people who
signed a membership agreement with the Defendant during a
seven-year timeframe.

The Plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment as to
liability on their TCCWNA claim and violations of the HCSA.  In
turn, the Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment,
claiming the exculpatory clause in the membership agreement did not
violate a clearly established legal right as required under the
TCCWNA.  

The trial judge found Krystal had standing to pursue her TCCWNA
action because she signed the membership agreement and was subject
to its terms, making her an aggrieved consumer within the meaning
of the statute.  However, because Joseph did not enter into a
written contract with the Defendant for membership at the club, he
was not an aggrieved consumer and, therefore, did not have standing
to pursue a TCCWNA claim.

The Judge also determined the exculpatory clause in the membership
agreement violated a clearly established legal right under state
law. He relied on Martinez-Santiago v. Pub. Storage, to support his
conclusion that the responsibility of a seller was clearly
established with regard to premises liability to business invitees.
Orders were entered granting summary judgment to Krystal as to
liability on her TCCWNA claim, granting class certification,
appointing Krystal as the class representative, and granting the
Defendant's summary judgment motion as to Joseph's action.

The Court granted the Defendant leave to file an interlocutory
appeal and stayed all further proceedings pending the Supreme
Court's issuance of a decision in Spade v. Select Comfort Corp.
Following the April 16, 2018 Spade opinion, the Court lifted the
stay, and with the guidance and clarification provided in the
Supreme Court's ruling, it considered the Defendant's appeal.

The Court holds that it is undisputed that Krystal did not suffer
any physical harm while using the Defendant's facility.  Although
she claimed the Defendant did not maintain its parking lot properly
in the winter, she did not slip or fall or suffer any adverse
consequence from the alleged poor maintenance.  Moreover, Krystal
admitted at her deposition she had "no gripe with Planet Fitness."
Rather, she seeks damages and class certification because she
signed a membership agreement that included an exculpatory clause.

In the aftermath of Spade, Krystal's assertions are not sufficient
to deem her an "aggrieved consumer" under the TCCWNA.  The
exculpatory clause was never invoked against her.  Her proofs do
not establish she suffered any adverse consequences from executing
the agreement.  Rather, she fits the scenario of the consumer
described by the Supreme Court in Spade who executed a contract
that violated a clearly established legal right, but received its
furniture on schedule and as ordered.  That consumer, who incurred
no monetary damages or adverse consequences suffered no harm and is
not an aggrieved consumer.  Neither is Krystal.

Because Krystal lacks standing under the TCCWNA, she cannot be the
named representative of the proposed class.  It is well established
that, in order to bring a class action lawsuit, the named
representative must individually have standing to bring their
claims.  Without standing, the Plaintiffs' putative class action is
improper, because the Plaintiff herself lacks standing as a member
of the putative class.

For these reasons, the Court reversed the orders granting summary
judgment to the Plaintiff and the class certification.  It remanded
for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ZwH5EH from Leagle.com.

Anthony R. Twardowski -- artwardowski@zarwin.com -- (Zarwin, Baum,
DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, PC,) of the Pennsylvania bar,
admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant (Zarwin,
Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, PC, and Anthony R.
Twardowski, attorneys; Eitan D. Blanc -- edblanc@zarwin.com -- and
Anthony R. Twardowski, on the briefs).

Charles N. Riley -- criley@lockslaw.com -- argued the cause for
respondents (Locks Law Firm, LLC, and Law Office of Charles N.
Riley, LLC, attorneys; Michael A. Galpern, Andrew P. Bell, James A.
Barry -- jbarry@lockslaw.com -- and Charles N. Riley, on the
brief).


NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows Claims in Special Education Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J.A., individually and on behalf of J.A., a minor
child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. MONROE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, LAMONT REPOLLET Acting Commissioner of Education, NEW
JERSEY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, JEFFREY R WILSON
Administrative Law Judge, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-09580-NLH-KMW (D. N.J.), Judge Noel H. Hillman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) granted in part
and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint; and (ii) granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to file an amended complaint.

J.A. is 11-years old and disabled.  The primary diagnosis is autism
with other secondary diagnoses.  She is eligible for special
education and related services under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), and protection under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"); New Jersey's Special Education Law; and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination ("NJLAD").  J.A. lives with her parents,
J.A. and J.A., in Gloucester County, New Jersey.

On May 3, 3016, an individualized education program ("IEP") was
implemented for her at Oak Knoll Elementary School in the Monroe
Township Board of Education ("MTBOE") school district.  The IEP was
amended on May 9, 2017 for the following year.  J.A.'s parents were
dissatisfied with how MTBOE handled the May 3, 2016 IEP, and they
were further dissatisfied with the May 9, 2017 IEP.  As a result,
on May 24, 2017, the J.A. family filed a Request for Due Process
Hearing with the New Jersey Department of Education ("NJDOE")
Office of Special Education Programs ("OSEP").

The IDEA guarantees that every child with a disability receive a
free appropriate public education ("FAPE") from her public school
if that school receives federal funding.  One of the IDEA's
procedural safeguards guaranteed to children with disabilities and
their parents is an opportunity for any party to present a due
process complaint with respect to any matter relating to the
identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child,
or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such
child.  From the date of filing the due process complaint, the
parties have 30 days within which to settle or otherwise resolve
the dispute.  This so-called "resolution period" totals 30 days,
and if the case is not resolved, it proceeds to a hearing.
Thereafter, if no adjournments are sought and granted, a final
decision must be rendered within 45 days after the end of the
30-day resolution period ("45 Day Rule").  The New Jersey DOE OSEP
provides an essentially identical procedure.

The Plaintiffs claim that the state Defendants have violated the 45
Day Rule in their individual situation because as of the date they
filed their complaint in the Court -- May 23, 2018 -- their
administrative case was still pending, and they would not have
another hearing before the ALJ until June 11, 2018, which was 383
days from the end of the resolution period and well beyond the 45
Day Rule.  In addition, or as an adjunct, to their individual case,
the Plaintiffs have advanced a putative class action pursuant to
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 23 for alleged systemic due process
violations arising from the way New Jersey adjudicates FAPE
disputes between families and local schools.

More specifically, the class claims are asserted on behalf of
themselves and all persons who filed Requests for Due Process
Hearings ("DP Complaints") for violations of special education laws
with the NJDOE during the period Jan. 1, 2011 through March 23,
2018 and who, after the case was transferred to the OAL, did not
receive a decision within 45 days.  The Plaintiffs also advance
class action claims against the state Defendants alleging that
NJDOE's use of the OAL as the adjudicative body to resolve special
education disputes is systemically flawed because assigned ALJs
lack training, knowledge, and jurisdiction (Counts One through
Four).

The Plaintiffs' individual claims focus on the May 2017 Due Process
Complaint, claiming that J.A. has been denied a FAPE in violation
of the IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and NJLAD.  They seek
judicial review of the ALJ's denial of their Motion to Amend their
Request for a Due Process Hearing, Motion for Independent
Educational Evaluations ("IEEs"), and Motion to Strike (Counts Five
through Eleven)

When the Plaintiffs filed their complaint, their Due Process
Complaint before the OAL was still pending.  On Oct. 10, 2018, they
filed a second action in the Court, Civil Action 18-14838,
regarding a subsequent decision by the ALJ regarding their May 2017
Due Process Complaint and another consolidated Due Process
Complaint.  In the second case, the Plaintiffs appeal the ALJ's
Oct. 2, 2018 Order denying their Motion to Preclude Evidence based
on MTBOE's alleged violation of the "5 Day Exchange Rule" in
contravention of the IDEA and the NJAC.

Currently pending before the Court are the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.  The Defendants argue, among
other points, that because of the ongoing nature of the Plaintiffs'
Due Process Complaint in the administrative forum, the Plaintiffs'
claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.  Also pending is the Plaintiffs' motion to file an
amended complaint in order to add additional named Plaintiffs as
the class representatives.

Judge Hillman finds that the Plaintiffs have asserted two different
cases in one -- a putative class action against the state
Defendants for alleged systemic problems with compliance with the
45 Day Rule and a challenge to hearing officer qualifications,
coupled and intertwined with an individual appeal of J.A.'s
personal due process complaints regarding her claim against MTBOE
that she has been denied FAPE.  In the view of the Judge, the two
cannot proceed together.

With regard to the Plaintiffs' individual claims, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs' continuation of the May 2017 Due Process
Complaint after filing the suit, as well as the filing of a second
Due Process Complaint and proceeding with a consolidated Due
Process Complaint before the OAL, warrants the dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' individual claims.  Those claims, which necessarily
turn on the individual and unique circumstances of J.A.'s due
process complaints, are plainly unexhausted and must be dismissed.


In contrast, the Plaintiffs' claims of systematic failure fall
within a clear exception to the exhaustion requirement and will be
allowed to proceed in the Court.  On balance, and to promote the
orderly consideration of the Plaintiffs' systemic claims, the Judge
deems it best to deny the state Defendants' motion in that regard
without prejudice pending the Plaintiffs' submission of an amended
class action complaint consistent with the Opinion, applicable
pleading standards and jurisdictional constraints.

In sum, Judge Hillam ordered the following:

     (1) The Plaintiffs' claims against MTBOE and the state
Defendants regarding J.A.'s individual due process complaints will
be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Count
Five - Appeal Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(i) against
Defendants MTBOE, ALJ Wilson - Motion to Amend DP Complaint; Count
Six - Appeal Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(i) against
Defendants MTBOE, ALJ Wilson - Motion for IEEs; Count Seven -
Appeal Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(i) against Defendants
MTBOE, ALJ Wilson - Motion to Strike; Count Eight - Denial of FAPE
against MTBOE; Count Nine - Violation of Section 504 against MTBOE;
Count Ten - Violation of ADA against MTBOE; Count Eleven - Vilation
of NJLAD against MTBOE);

     (2) Plaintiffs' putative class action claims against the state
Defendants for their alleged violations of the 45 Day Rule and for
their claim that hearing officers are not properly qualified may
proceed (Count One - Class Action - Systemic Violation of the
45-Day Rule as a Denial of FAPE against Defendants NJDOE, Repollet,
OAL, and ALJ Wilson; Count Two - Class Action - Systemic Violation
of Hearing Officer Qualifications against Defendants NJDOE,
Repollet, OAL, and ALJ Wilson; Count Three - Class Action -
Declaratory Judgment against Defendants NJDOE, Repollet, OAL, and
ALJ Wilson; Count Four - Class Action - Violation  of Plaintiffs'
Rights Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Defendants NJDOE,
Repollet, OAL, and ALJ Wilson); and

     (3) The Plaintiffs may file an amended class action complaint
to include the additional named class members; but

     (4) The Plaintiffs will only advance claims on behalf of
individuals who have the proper standing to advance such claims;
and

     (5) The state Defendants retain their right to challenge the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint by way of a renewed motion to dismiss
on any grounds not resolved in the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/2w3ZBD5 from Leagle.com.

J. A. & J. A., individually and on behalf of J.A., a minor child,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by ROBERT CRAIG THURSTON -- info@thurstonlawpc.com --
Thurston Law Offices LLC.

MONROE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant, represented by
WILLIAM S. DONIO -- wdonio@cooperlevenson.com -- COOPER LEVENSON,
P.A.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LAMONT REPOLLET, Acting
Commissioner of Education, NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
& JEFFREY R WILSON, Administrative Law Judge, Defendants,
represented by CAROLINE GENETT JONES, STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & LAUREN AMY JENSEN, STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.


NEW YORK WHEEL: Gilbane Building Co Files Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Wheel LLC.
The case is styled as Gilbane Building Company, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York
Wheel LLC, New York Wheel Owner LLC, New York Wheel Investor LLC,
Richard A. Marin and Andrew Ratner, Defendants, Case No.
151051/2019 (N.Y. Sup., May 1, 2019).

The New York Wheel was a proposed 630-foot-tall giant Ferris wheel
to be located at St. George in Staten Island, New York City. It was
to be located alongside the site of the proposed Empire Outlets
retail complex.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ERNSTROM & DRESTE, LLP, Esq.
   925 CLINTON SQUARE
   ROCHESTER, NY 14604
   Tel: (585) 473-3100

The Defendant is represented by:

   GREENBERG TRAGER & HERBST
   767 3RD AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 688-1900


NIO INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that
purchasers of Nio Inc. (NYSE: NIO) filed a class action complaint
against the company for alleged violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 between January 10, 2019 and March 5, 2019.
Nio designs, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles in the
People's Republic of China, the U.S., Germany, and the U.K.

Nio Accused of Inflating Company's Outlook Amid Decreasing Demand
and Disappointing Sales

According to the complaint, on January 10, 2019, Nio represented
that it had exceeded its 2018 delivery goal of its premium electric
vehicles. On March 5, 2019, defendants disclosed the truth - that
sales were declining and material negative trends would negatively
impact Nio's sales and revenues through at least the second quarter
2019. Nio had delivered just 1,805 ES8 vehicles in January 2019, a
45% decline from December 2018, and just 811 ES8 vehicles in
February 2019, a 55% decline from January 2019. Over two days of
trading, Nio's ADSs declined over 30% to close at just $7.09 on
March 7, 2019, and continues to decline.

Nio Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leo Kandinov at
(800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

         Contact:         
         Leo Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         5040 Shoreham Place
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL: Cary Hits Illegal Discharge
--------------------------------------------------------
Countess Cary, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter
Railroad Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03014, (N.D. Ill.,
May 3, 2019), seeks compensation for the extra hour at the minimum
wage rate for each shift lasting more than ten hours and the two
15-minute breaks as mandated by New York labor law.

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation operates
as "Metra," a commuter rail system serving Cook, DuPage, Will,
Lake, Kane and McHenry counties in Northeastern Illinois where
Cary, a 61-year old African American woman, worked from 1998 until
October 2018 as Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and
Employee Relations. She claims that she was constructively
discharged after an extended period of discrimination, harassment
and retaliation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Linda Debra Friedman, Esq.
     STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
     303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 431-0888
     Email: lfriedman@sftld.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: George Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Bernard L. George, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northland Group,
Inc. and Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00207 (W.D. N.C., May 1, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Northland Group, Inc. provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders and servicers. The company was founded in 1982
and is based in Edina, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
   Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A.
   631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
   Mooresville, NC 28117
   Tel: (704) 997-9529
   Fax: (704) 230-0413
   Email: arthur@lawahp.com



ONECOIN LTD: Silver Miller Files Class Suit Over Pyramid Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cali Haaning, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that lawyers
at the Silver Miller law firm have filed a class action suit
against founders and pervaders of OneCoin, an alleged global
cryptocurrency pyramid scheme that bilked investors out of an
estimated $4 billion dollars.

Ruja Ignatova, Konstantin Ignatov, Sebastian Greenwood and Mark
Scott are named as defendants in the suit.

Konstantin Ignatov was arrested March 6, 2019, at the Los Angeles
International Airport and charged with wire fraud conspiracy for
marketing OneCoin, "a fraudulent cryptocurrency… operat(ing) as a
multi-level marketing network through which members receive
commissions for recruiting others to purchase cryptocurrency
packages."

Ignatov's sister, Ruja Ignatov, was also charged with wire fraud,
securities fraud, and money laundering in absentia. She remains at
large.

Ruja Ignatova disappeared in October 2017 around the same time she
was indicted in the US. At the time, her absence was explained as
"maternity leave" by remaining OneCoin leadership. She has not been
seen since.

In the press release announcing Konstantin Ignatov's arrest, New
York County District Attorney, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., stated:

"As alleged in the indictment, these defendants executed an
old-school pyramid scheme on a new-school platform, compromising
the integrity of New York's financial system and defrauding
investors out of billions. Our Office urges all crypto investors to
scrutinize investment opportunities, recognize the prevalence of
fraud in this underregulated space, and proceed with caution."

Investigators allege that OneCoin possessed no valid public
blockchain and that, "…the value of OneCoin is determined
internally and is not based on market supply and demand."

Despite the lack of fundamentals, "The purported value of a OneCoin
has steadily grown from EUR0.50 to approximately EUR29.95 per coin,
as of January 2019."

The Ignatov's are originally from Bulgaria, and OneCoin originated
there.

The US Department of Justice claims Ignatova was well aware of the
fraudulent nature of her undertaking, and once, ". . . described
her thoughts on the 'exit strategy' for OneCoin.  The first option
(was) . . . 'Take the money and run and blame someone else for this
. . .'"

If detained and convicted, Ignatova, 38, could face up to 25 years
in prison.

Her bother, Konstantin, 33, faces a maximum of 20 years in prison.

The class action filing against OneCoin submitted by Silver Miller
describes OneCoin as:

". . . (A) purported cryptocurrency that never really existed, on a
blockchain that never really existed, born from mining farms that
never really existed, yet fraudulently sold to investors throughout
the world through a densely-packed multi-level-marketing system
that ultimately amassed a reported Four Billion Dollars
($4,000,000,000.00) in revenues."

The filing also details OneCoin promotions in the United States,
which the firm says began in 2015, "with an ‘official launch
party' in cities all across the country."

Regulators in Uganda, Nigeria, Bulgaria, Italy, Germany, Samoa,
Singapore and other countries have all issued notices warning
consumers to be wary of OneCoin.[GN]


OVERHILL FARMS: Zamora Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Marlen A. Beltran Zamora, an individual, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Overhill Farms
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV10854 (Cal. Super., March 29, 2019), was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on May 3,
2019 under Case No. 19-cv-03891.

Zamora seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress
for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, failure to maintain
time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
      Brittany R. Gibson, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             ASokolowski@maternlawgroup.com
             bgibson@maternlawgroup.com

Overhill Farms is represented by:

      Mark J. Payne, Esq.
      TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
      5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Tel: (949) 622-2732
      Email: mark.payne@troutman.com


P.F. CHANG'S: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark W. Batten, Esq., -- mbatten@proskauer.com -- Samantha L.
Regenbogen, Esq. -- sregenbogen@proskauer.com -- and Thomas B.
Fiascone, Esq. -- tfiascone@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose
LLP,in an article for The National Law Review, report that on
Friday April 12, 2019, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
confirmed that plaintiffs seeking to bring class actions asserting
Massachusetts Wage Act ("Wage Act") violations must meet the
certification standards set by Massachusetts Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 ("Rule 23"), and cannot avail themselves of a lower
bar to class certification. In Gammella v. P.F. Chang's China
Bistro, Inc., plaintiff Felice Gammella argued that the
Commonwealth's Wage Act (Mass. Gen. L. ch. 149, Sec.Sec. 148, 150)
provides its own standard for class certification, separate and
distinct from the more rigorous Rule 23. Siding with the defendant,
the SJC held that Wage Act claims must be brought under Rule 23.
The Wage Act's language conferring the right for employees to bring
claims individually or on a class basis does not, in itself,
provide a lower certification standard. Rather, the court held, the
language merely authorizes employees seeking certification to
proceed under Rule 23. Accordingly, employees seeking to certify
classes asserting Wage Act claims will still have to meet the usual
Rule 23 requirements.

Also in front of the SJC was the question of whether a Rule 68
offer of judgment to a single named plaintiff in a potential class
action can moot the plaintiff's claim if the plaintiff both
rejected the offer and notified of his intent to appeal a denied
class certification motion. Weighing in on the issue for the first
time, the SJC joined the majority of courts and held that a
plaintiff's claim would not become moot in that scenario.

The SJC ultimately reversed the superior court's denial of the
plaintiff's motion for class certification, reversed the grant of
the defendant's motion to dismiss for mootness on the Rule 68
point, and remanded the case for further proceedings. [GN]


PARTS EXPRESS: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Parts Express International, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Parts Express International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03905 (S.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019).

Parts Express has provided electronic parts and accessories to the
audio/video industry since 1986.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal




PERSONALIZATIONMALL.COM: Figueroa Files Class Suit Under ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
Personalizationmall.com, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Personalizationmall.com, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03915 (S.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019).

Personalizationmall.Com, Inc. was founded in 1998. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of combined lines of
gifts and novelty merchandise, souvenirs, greeting cards, holiday
decorations, and miscellaneous small art goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Ex-Mayor Files Class Suit Over Tax Increases
--------------------------------------------------------------
John N. Mitchell, writing for The Philadelphia Tribune, reports
that former Mayor John Street filed a class action lawsuit in
Common Pleas Court in an effort to prevent Mayor Jim Kenney's real
estate assessment increases.

The plaintiff in the suit is Robert L. Cunningham, an elderly
resident of North Philadelphia who has lived in his current home
for almost 48 years. According to the suit, Cunningham has received
a 61% tax increase.

"This is the most egregious distortion of the democratic process
that I have seen in 50 years," Street said in a late afternoon
press release on May 10. "No other administration since the
enactment of the 1951 Home Rule Charter has had the capacity or the
inclination to raise hundreds of millions of real estate tax
dollars without a vote of council. This is the most blatant and
flagrant perversion of by a modern-day mayor and a clear violation
of one of democracy's pillars -- taxation without representation."

The lawsuit names Kenney, Finance Director Rob Dubow and Chief
Assessment Officer Michael Piper as defendants. It seeks
"declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief for taxpayers who have
been over-assessed and charged too much for their properties." The
suit claims that more than 200,000 residential properties across
the city have been over-assessed.

"It's a shame that former Mayor Street is using his law license to
execute a political stunt in the form of a frivolous lawsuit,"
Kenney spokesman Mike Dunn said in an email. "It is a needless
distraction from the recent public debate regarding property
assessments -- a debate which has been productive and has had
meaningful results, including reforms that were initiated by OPA
(Office of Property Assessment).

"By the way, there are numerous legal errors in the filing, not the
least of which is that a class action suit is inappropriate,
because every taxpayer has the right to appeal their assessment --
which is why courts have said class actions are inappropriate in
this context."

Former Mayor Street has endorsed state Sen. Anthony Hardy Williams
in his underdog effort to unseat Kenney in the May 21 Democratic
primary. Williams says the assessment increase is "driven by the
failure of the Mayor Kenney to address the gentrification crises."

Said Williams: "Mayor Kenney is the first mayor to abuse the
authority given the city's chief executive to unilaterally raise
taxes through the assessment process. These taxes are driving out
Philadelphians from their homes and their neighborhoods."

Property values increased 5% citywide in the new round of
reassessments for 2020, issued in April, while residential values
rose 3.9%. More than 80,000 homeowners will see their property
values decrease and nearly 34,000 will not experience any change.

Last year, property assessments skyrocketed 10.5% citywide, which
led to audits that found inaccuracies and deficiencies with the
office's 2019 assessments.

Kenney later rolled out a series of reforms, including altering the
office's methodology for calculating property assessments, which
was used for this year's assessments.

Philadelphia is exempt from a state law requiring property
assessments be revenue-neutral.

Although Kenney did not include a property tax hike in his proposed
budget, the increase in property values was expected to increase
the city's revenue by $53 million over last year. [GN]


PONZIOS RD: Summary Judgment Bid in Casco Wage Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OSCAR CASCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. PONZIOS RD, INC. d/b/a METRO
DINER; and Doe Defendants 1-10, Defendant(s), Civil No. 16-2084
(RBK/JS) (D. N.J.), Judge Robert B. Kruger of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, granted in
part Plaintiffs Casco and Tina Blemings' motion for partial summary
judgment.

The employment dispute concerns whether Defendant Ponzios RD, doing
business as Metro Diner, could pay its "tipped employees" like
bussers and servers less than the minimum wage by using a "tip
credit" under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL").

On April 14, 2016, Casco brought the action (which Blemings
subsequently joined) on behalf of a nationwide collective class as
a collective action under the FLSA.  Casco also brought a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of
himself and a New Jersey class of tipped employees.

The Complaint contains five counts: (1) FLSA minimum wage
violations (Count One); (2) FLSA overtime wage violations (Count
Two); (3) New Jersey minimum wage violations (Count Three); (4) New
Jersey overtime violations (Count Four); and (5) a New Jersey
common law unjust enrichment claim (Count Five).

In answering the Complaint, the Defendant denied, among other
things, that it failed to properly notify tipped employees of its
intention to claim a tip credit and pay them less than the minimum
wage.

The Plaintiffs now seek summary judgment under the FLSA and the
NJWHL as to the defense that the Defendant complied with the legal
requirements to pay its tipped employees less than the minimum wage
by claiming a tip credit.

Throughout the pendency of the Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion,
discovery continued in the case.  On Nov. 9, 2018, Magistrate Judge
Schneider granted the Defendant leave to conduct discovery of the
10 opt-in Plaintiffs and extended pretrial factual discovery until
Feb. 28, 2019.  On Feb. 22, 2019, Judge Schneider subsequently
extended the pretrial factual discovery deadline to April 30, 2019.
Most recently, Judge Schneider directed all the Plaintiffs who
have not yet responded to the Defendant's discovery requests to do
so by March 8, 2019.

Shortly thereafter, the Defendant filed a letter to Judge Schneider
dated March 13, 2019, stating that some opt-in Plaintiffs have
still not responded to the Defendant's discovery requests and
seeking leave to conduct discovery of six alternative opt-in
Plaintiffs.  The Defendant, however, filed no affidavit with the
Court to show that it could not adequately respond to the
Plaintiffs summary judgment motion without that discovery.  In
fact, the Defendant opposed the Plaintiff's motion.

The Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment for
two reasons, one legal and one factual.  First, the Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendant did not comply with the legal
notification requirements to claim a tip credit under the FLSA and
the NJWHL.  Second, and assuming arguendo that the Court does not
wish to address the notification issue, the Plaintiffs contend that
the facts of the case demonstrate that Defendant could not properly
claim a tip credit.

In opposition, the Defendant argues that the information it gave to
its tipped employees satisfied the legal requirements to take a tip
credit and that the facts do not support the Plaintiffs' claim that
the Defendant lost its right to claim a tip credit.  The Defendant
also claims that genuine disputes of material fact prevent summary
judgment and that summary judgment is premature because of
outstanding discovery of the opt-in Plaintiffs.

Judge Kruger agrees with the Plaintiffs' legal argument that the
Defendant did not meet the notification requirement to take a tip
credit under the FLSA and thus need not reach the parties'
fact-based arguments at this time.  He will not delay ruling on
summary judgment because the Defendant's request is procedurally
improper.  The Defendant did not file a Rule 56(d) affidavit with
its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment or at
any time thereafter.  Therefore, "as a procedural matter alone,"
the Judge rejects the Defendant's attempt to delay summary
judgment.

But as to the same claim under the NJWHL, the Judge holds that the
Plaintiffs have not met their burden to obtain summary judgment.
He cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as
a matter of law on the tip credit issue under the NJWHL.  

The Judge opines that the Plaintiffs have provided the Court with
no information on the more specific issue here of how New Jersey
law treats an employer's ability to meet minimum wage obligations
through tip credits.  They also fail to conduct any analysis
comparing its text to the text of Section 203(m), which, unlike the
NJWHL, explicitly states that the FLSA's tip credit provision will
not apply with respect to any tipped employee unless such employee
has been informed by the employer of the provisions of this
subsection.  They also fail to direct the Court to any regulations
or authorities interpreting any provision of the NJWHL in tandem
with the FLSA with respect to the tip credit issue.  

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment under the
NJWHL is denied, without prejudice.  The Judge expresses no opinion
on the proper construction of the NJWHL as it relates to an
employer's notification obligations before it may attempt to claim
a tip credit.

For these reasons, Judge Kruger granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion, and summary judgment is entered in their favor and against
the Defendant on the tip credit issue under the FLSA.  An Order
will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/et80Hf from Leagle.com.

OSCAR CASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by GERALD D. WELLS --
gwells@cwg-law.com -- Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP & LAWRENCE
KALIKHMAN -- lkalikhman@kalraylaw.com -- KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC.

PONZIOS RD, INC., doing business as, Defendant, represented by
RALPH R. SMITH, III, CAPEHART & SCATCHARD & KELLY ESTEVAM ADLER,
CAPEHART & SCATCHARD PA.


QUIXOTE VENTURES: Pa. Super. Affirms Summary Judgment in Klein Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELLEN KLEIN, BARBARA JONES, ELIZABETH STANKOVICS AND
DAWN ROWLANDS, INDIVIDUALY, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
Appellants, v. QUIXOTE VENTURES, LLP AND LIFETIME MANUFACTURE
HOMES, LLP, Case No. 2258 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super.), Judge Dan
Pellegrini of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the
Northampton County Court of Common Pleas' order of summary judgment
entered on July 16, 2018, in favor of Quixote.

On May 17, 2012, Tenants Klein, Jones, Stankovics and Rowlands,
filed a class action complaint against Quixote (a manufactured home
park landlord), Lifetime Manufacture Homes, LLP (Lifetime) (a
manufactured home dealer), Forks Chestnut Hill Corporation (a
general partner of Lifetime), and Albert Jinks (Jinks) (a limited
partner in Quixote and Lifetime).  The Tenants' homes were all
situated in a community called Jacob's Farm that was owned and
operated by Quixote.  The Tenants sought to be named as the class
representatives of all residents of Jacob's Farm who bought homes
from Lifetime, but the class was never certified.

In their action, the Tenants asserted, inter alia, that Quixote and
Lifetime violated the Mobile Home Park Rights Act ("MHPRA").
Specifically, they claimed that those two parties violated the
MHPRA by (a) requiring them to purchase porches, decks, garages and
other upgrades from Lifetime, and (b) failing to timely disclose
lumber surcharge fees which increased the total price of their
homes.

These alleged violations of the MHPRA arose from terms in the
Tenants' home purchase contracts with Lifetime and their leases
with Quixote to reserve the lots on which their homes would be
placed.  In April 2005, at closing, the last of the four-named
Tenants completed her purchase with Lifetime and signed her lease
with Qu ixote.  The other three Tenants had completed their
purchases and signed their leases earlier.

Prior to their respective closings, each Tenant was given an
advance copy of the lease with Quixote, as well as a disclosure
form stating that the agreed purchase price could be subject to an
increase if the builder assessed lumber surcharge fees.  They were
also provided with a one-page "Questions and Answers" sheet which
stated that "all decks and garage construction must be by
Lifetime."

It is undisputed that all four Tenants possessed the above
documents several months prior to their closing dates.  Further,
all of the closing costs and purchase prices, including the lumber
surcharges, were due at closing.  While they dispute the legality
of certain costs and lease terms, the Tenants do not maintain that
any such costs or terms were ever withheld from them prior to
finalizing their home purchases and signing their leases.

In 2008, the Tenants held a community meeting with other residents
of Jacob's Farm to discuss various topics such as potential legal
claims regarding lumber surcharges and construction restrictions in
their leases.  It is not clear from the record what occurred at
that meeting to prompt the present action nor is it evident why the
Tenants waited until May 2012 to file suit.

In February 2013, Lifetime filed a preliminary objection in the
nature of a demurrer to the Tenants' then-operative complaint.
Lifetime averred that the Tenants had failed to state a cause of
action against it because the MHPRA did not govern the conduct of
the dealers of mobile or manufactured homes such as Lifetime.
Agreeing, the trial court dismissed all claims against Lifetime.
The claims against Jinks were dismissed for similar reasons on May
9, 2014.

After years of further litigation, Quixote (Jacobs' Farm's owner
and operator) moved for summary judgment.  The trial court granted
the motion, stating in its order that due to the prior dismissal of
all claims against Lifetime and Jinks, its ruling was based only on
the conduct of the distinct entity identified as Quixote.
Rejecting the Tenants' argument that all of the Defendants should
be treated as a single entity, the trial court granted Quixote's
motion because none of the Tenants' claims were predicated on
Quixote's conduct.  As a separate basis for granting summary
judgment, the trial court determined that the statute of
limitations had run prior to the filing of the Tenants' original
complaint.

The Tenants appealed from the order granting summary judgment in
favor of Quixote and now raise the following issues in their
brief:

      A. Whether the trial court erred or otherwise abused its
discretion in granting summary judgment because there are genuine
issues of material fact regarding whether the [Tenants] were
required to purchase certain upgrades, such as decks and garages,
from Lifetime and whether the Appellee(s) violated the MHPRA by
requiring this.

      B. Whether the trial court erred or otherwise abused its
discretion in granting summary judgment because there are genuine
issues of material fact that the appellees imposed improper lumber
sur-charges and failed to timely disclose same in violation of the
MHPRA.

      C. Whether the trial court erred or otherwise abused its
discretion regarding the Court's June 26, 2013 decision to dismiss
Lifetime and the trial court's July 16, 2018 decision stating that
it was constrained by same.

      D. Whether the trial court erred or otherwise abused its
discretion in granting summary judgment because there are genuine
issues of material fact that the statutes of limitations was not
violated and/or this decision should have been left to the jury to
decide.

Viewing the present facts in the light favorable to the Tenants,
Judge Pellegrini finds that their causes of action were reasonably
discoverable in 2005.  The Tenants do not dispute that the precise
terms of the subject lumber surcharges and building restrictions
were disclosed in advance of their closings.  Nothing in the record
suggests that the Tenants were in any way hindered from immediately
assessing the legality of those surcharges and building
restrictions.  In fact, one of the four Tenants admitted that she
first disputed them in 2005, soon after the relevant purchase and
lease conditions went into effect.  Accordingly, there is no basis
for a jury to conclude that the limitations period was tolled by
operation of the discovery rule, and the Tenants' claims are
time-barred.

Having resolved the appeal on those procedural grounds, the Judge
finds it unnecessary to address the merits of any of the other
issues presented in the Tenants' brief.

He affirmed and entered judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/tyfwyk from Leagle.com.

James W. Sutton, III -- jsutton@vslaws.com -- The Law Offices Of
James W. Sutton III, for Appellant, Ellen Klein, Barbara Jones,
Elizabeth Stankovics, Dawn Rowlands.

Devin John Chwastyk -- dchwastyk@mwn.com -- McNees Wallace & Nurick
LLC, for Appellee, Quixote Ventures, LLP.

Daniel E. Cohen -- dec@schrlaw.com -- Seidel, Cohen, Hof & Reid,
LLC, for Appellee, Lifetime Manufacture Homes, LLP.


ROBIN INDUSTRIES: Byerly Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Byerly, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Robin Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01004, (N.D. Ohio, May 3, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

Robin Industries is a custom molder of elastomers and plastics for
a wide variety of markets. Byerly worked for Robin as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid worker.

According to the complaint, Robin would round the employees' start
time to the start of their scheduled shift and would round off
their end time to the end of their scheduled shift for purposes of
calculating employees' pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
      Cleveland OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 230-2955
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com


RYB EDUCATION: Consolidated Qian & Wang Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
RYB Education, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated Qian v.
RYB Education, Inc. et al. and Wang v. RYB Education, Inc. et al.
was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as
defendants in two putative class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York:  Qian v. RYB
Education, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-09261-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) and
Wang v. RYB Education, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-09320-UA
(S.D.N.Y.).  

The complaints in both actions allege that the company's
registration statements contained misstatements or omissions
regarding the company's business, operation, and compliance in
violation of the U.S. securities laws.

The complaints state that the plaintiffs seek to represent a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
trading in the company's securities between September 27 and
November 22, 2017, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  

On January 3, 2018, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases.

On June 18, 2018, the consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

RYB Education, Inc. provides early childhood education service in
the People's Republic of China. The company offers kindergarten
services to 2-6-year-old children; and play-and-learn centers
services for the joint participation of 0-6-year-old children and
their adult family members to promote children's development,
foster bonding with family, and prepare them for their entry into
kindergartens and primary schools. The company was formerly known
as Top Margin Limited and changed its name to RYB Education, Inc.
in June 2017. RYB Education, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based
in Beijing, China.


RYB EDUCATION: Qian Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
RYB Education, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case entitled, Qian
v. RYB Education, Inc. et al., Case No. 17CIV05494, has been stayed
on forum non conveniens grounds.

The company, certain of its directors and officers, and certain
underwriters for its initial public offering were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Mateo: Qian v. RYB
Education, Inc. et al., Case No. 17CIV05494.  

The complaint alleges that the company's registration statements
contained misstatements or omissions regarding its business,
operations and prospects in violation of the U.S. securities laws.
The complaint states that the plaintiffs seek to represent a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase or other acquisition of the company's securities in
connection with its initial public offering on or about September
27, 2017, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

On September 5, 2018, the case was stayed on forum non conveniens
grounds.

RYB Education, Inc. provides early childhood education service in
the People's Republic of China. The company offers kindergarten
services to 2-6-year-old children; and play-and-learn centers
services for the joint participation of 0-6-year-old children and
their adult family members to promote children's development,
foster bonding with family, and prepare them for their entry into
kindergartens and primary schools. The company was formerly known
as Top Margin Limited and changed its name to RYB Education, Inc.
in June 2017. RYB Education, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based
in Beijing, China.


RYB EDUCATION: Says Zhang Class Suit in Preliminary Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
RYB Education, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Zhang v. RYB Education, Inc.
et al.

The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York for the County of Queens: Zhang v. RYB
Education, Inc. et al., Index No. 717923/2018.  

The complaint alleges that the company's registration statements
contained misstatements or omissions regarding its business,
operations and prospects in violation of the U.S. securities laws.


The complaint states that the plaintiffs seek to represent a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase or other acquisition of the company's securities in
connection with its initial public offering on or about September
27, 2017, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

RYB Education said, "This case remains in its preliminary stage, we
express no opinion on the likelihood of any unfavorable outcome or
any estimate of the amount or range of any potential loss."

RYB Education, Inc. provides early childhood education service in
the People's Republic of China. The company offers kindergarten
services to 2-6-year-old children; and play-and-learn centers
services for the joint participation of 0-6-year-old children and
their adult family members to promote children's development,
foster bonding with family, and prepare them for their entry into
kindergartens and primary schools. The company was formerly known
as Top Margin Limited and changed its name to RYB Education, Inc.
in June 2017. RYB Education, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based
in Beijing, China.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Filing of 2nd Amended Lil' Man Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIL' MAN IN THE BOAT, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-00904-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California denied the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Lil' Man operates a charter vessel out of South Beach Harbor.
South Beach Harbor is a "full service marina" on the San Francisco
Bay, operated by the San Francisco Port Commission.  The harbor has
two "guest docks" relevant to the litigation, known as the North
Dock and the South Dock.

In 2016, harbormaster Joe Monroe and his staff asked commercial
vessels using South Beach Harbor to sign a new landing agreement.
Lil' Man refused to sign the agreement.  In February 2017, Lil' Man
brought the suit as a putative class action, asserting four claims
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: violation of the Tonnage Clause of
the United States Constitution; violation of the First Amendment
right to petition; violation of the Commerce Clause; and violation
of the Rivers and Harbors Act.  Lil' Man also asserted claims under
the Bane Act, which the Court dismissed on the Defendants' motion.

Lil' Man amended its complaint in August 2017.  On Sept. 6, 2017,
the parties appeared for a case management conference, and the
Court issued a scheduling order setting Sept. 15, 2017 as the
deadline to amend the pleadings.

On Jan. 11, 2018, the parties filed a stipulated request to allow
Lil' Man to file a second amended complaint.  The Court denied the
request the following day because the parties provided no
explanation of good cause for the failure to comply with the
deadline to amend the pleadings set forth in the scheduling order.

Thereafter, the Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as
to the First Amendment claim and the claims for violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 23300.  The Court
granted that motion in September 2018.  In October 2018, Lil' Man
moved for class certification on its remaining claims.  The Court
denied the motion for lack of numerosity.

In January 2019, the Court held a further case management
conference and set March 15, 2019 as the deadline to file a motion
to amend the pleadings.  On the day of the deadline, Lil' Man moved
to file a second amended complaint.  The Defendants oppose the
motion.

Lil' Man seeks leave to file a second amended complaint to add a
claim for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 arising from
facts that arose after the litigation was filed, and after the
Plaintiff was last permitted leave to amend its complaint.
Specifically, Lil' Man alleges that the Defendants shut down, then
tore down, the North Dock in retaliation for Lil' Man's filing of
the lawsuit.  The closure of the North Dock allegedly occurred on
April 24, 2017; the North Dock was removed by the Defendants
entirely in 2018.

As an initial matter, Judge Tigar notes that the motion is
controlled by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
not Rule 15 as Lil' Man's motion suggests.  The Court previously
set Sept. 15, 2017 as the deadline to amend the pleadings, and the
present motion was filed a year-and-a-half after that date. T hus,
Lil' Man must demonstrate good cause before the Court will allow
amendment.

Lil' Man argues that it understood the Court's January 2019 order
to have "implicitly modified the prior case management order" which
set Sept. 15, 2017 as the deadline to amend the pleadings.  The
Court did not intend to, and did not, modify its prior case
management order.  It merely set a deadline for the filing of the
Plaintiff's motion.  In fact, the Court reminded the Plaintiff of
the need to show good cause at the Jan. 30, 2019 case management
conference.  Moreover, in January 2018, the Court denied a
stipulated request to allow Lil' Man to file a second amended
complaint due to the parties' failure to make the good cause
showing required by Rule 16.  The inference Lil' Man draws from the
setting of a motion deadline is not reasonable.

Lil' Man next attempts to demonstrate diligence and good cause by
separating its allegation that Defendants shut down the North Dock
from its allegation that they closed the North Dock, and focusing
the Court on the latter event.  Because the argument was made for
the first time on reply, the Judge need not consider it.  The
argument also fails, however, considered on the merits.  The
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint makes clear that the City's
actions were all part of one alleged course of conduct.  That
course of conduct began in April 2017.  Waiting until March 2019 to
file a proposed amended complaint does not demonstrate diligence.

Finally, Lil' Man asserts that its proposed amendments respond to
the Court's orders granting partial judgment on the pleadings, and
denying Lil Man's motion for class certification.  These matters do
not require amendment of the complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tigar denied Lil' Man's motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2HmYC7n from Leagle.com.

Lil' Man in the Boat, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by David Raymond Ongaro -- dongaro@ongaropc.com --
Ongaro PC, Amelia D. Winchester -- awinchester@ongaropc.com --
Ongaro PC & Glen Elliot Turner -- gturner@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro
PC.

City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Port Commission,
operating under the title Port of San Francisco, Elaine Forbes,
Interim Executive Director, Peter Daley, Deputy Director, Maritime
the San Francisco Port, Jeff Bauer, Deputy Director of Real Estate,
the San Francisco Port & Joe Monroe, Harbormaster, South Beach
Harbor, Pier 40, Defendants, represented by Tara M. Steeley --
tara.steeley@sfgov.org -- San Francisco City Attorney's Office.


STATE FARM: Court Dismisses Vang Suit without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Chee Vang, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-18-03870-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.), Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona (i) granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss; (ii) denied as moot the Defendants'
prior motion to dismiss; (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply; and (iv) dismissed without
prejudice the amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs are State Farm policyholders residing in Minnesota.
Each was injured in an automobile accident that occurred in
Minnesota.  Each received treatment from chiropractor Jer Lee, D.C.
at the Chiro Health Clinic in Minnesota, as well as from other
Minnesota-based providers.  

This chiropractor, however, didn't receive timely payment from
State Farm because he had been flagged by an internal State Farm
anti-fraud program that sought to identify which doctors cause
State Farm to pay the most in automobile-accident bodily-injury
claims.  Each alleges State Farm delayed payment using a scheme
targeting racial and ethnic minorities for sham fraud
investigations.

According to the Plaintiffs, this program is actually an elaborate
scheme to avoid paying claims by racial and ethnic minorities and
members of immigrant communities across the United States.
Accordingly, they seek to assert anti-discrimination claims against
State Farm under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 18116, and under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

Notably, all of the Plaintiffs reside in Minnesota.  That's also
where the car accidents occurred, where the chiropractor is based,
and where the State Farm claims specialists were located at the
time they made the challenged decisions to delay payment.  The only
connections between the conduct at issue in the case and the state
of Arizona are that (1) State Farm used an Arizona "mail drop"
during the time period in question and (2) State Farm reassigned
some of the claims to an Arizona-based claims specialist in
September 2018, which is after the key events occurred.

On Nov. 6, 2018, te Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that
State Farm systematically targets healthcare providers serving
minority populations and, in turn, knowingly discriminates against
minority insureds like themselves.

On Dec. 18, 2018, State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, or
alternatively, to transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1631.

On Jan. 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
Jan. 22, 2019, State Farm filed the motion seeking dismissal or,
alternatively, a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1631 now
pending before the Court.

Judge Lanza cannot conclude that State Farm is "at home" in
Arizona.  State Farm is not subject to general jurisdiction in
Arizona.  General jurisdiction is accordingly absent.  State Farm's
Arizona contacts paint only part of the general-jurisdiction
picture.  The Plaintiff focus solely on State Farm's in-state
activities.  Though indisputably substantial and continuous, the
relative significance of these contacts remains uncertain at best.


The Plaintiffs' arguments concerning specific jurisdiction fare no
better.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs are residents of
Minnesota, suffered injuries from automobile accidents in
Minnesota, received treatment in Minnesota from providers in
Minnesota, submitted insurance claims in Minnesota, and, until
September 2018, had those claims assigned to claim specialists in
Minnesota -- the same specialists who allegedly delayed payment
pursuant to a company-wide policy that discriminates against racial
and ethnic minorities.  The investigations that ensued undoubtedly
focused on witnesses and evidence located in Minnesota as well.
The eventual reassignment of some claims to an Arizona-based claim
specialist did not alter their fundamentally Minnesotan character.
It follows, then, that the Plaintiffs cannot establish their claims
would not have arisen but for State Farm's Arizona-related
activities.

The Plaintiffs include, in their opposition brief, a cursory
request for jurisdictional discovery if the Court concludes that
personal jurisdiction is lacking.  This request will be denied.
The Juge finds that although jurisdictional discovery should be
permitted where pertinent jurisdictional facts are in dispute,
denial is proper"when it is clear that further discovery would not
demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for
jurisdiction.  Such is the case here.  The Plaintiffs do not
explain, with any specificity, what evidence they expect
jurisdictional discovery to produce.

Accordingly, Judge Lanza (i) granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss; (ii) denied as moot the Defendants' prior motion to
dismiss; and (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to File Sur-Reply.  He dismissed without prejudice the amended
complaint.  The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
accordingly and will terminate the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sCTQTZ from Leagle.com.

Chee Vang, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Vee Vang, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Xeng Thao, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Yeng Her, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David
Walfred Asp -- dwasp@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindel Nauen PLLP,
Eric Neil Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindel Nauen
PLLP, Hart Lawrence Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed PLLP & Susan E. Ellingstad --
seellingstad@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindel Nauen PLLP.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company & State Farm Fire
and Casualty Company, Defendants, represented by Erin Elizabeth
Bradham -- erin.bradham@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Frank
Falzetta -- ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLC, Jennifer Marie Hoffman --
jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP & Karl Michael Tilleman -- karl.tilleman@dentons.com -- Dentons
US LLP.


TELUS COMMS: Blake Cassels Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Berg, Esq. -- brad.berg@blakes.com -- and Max Shapiro, Esq.
-- max.shapiro@blakes.com -- of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, report that on April 4, 2019, a majority of
the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in TELUS Communications Inc. v.
Wellman (Wellman) decided that business customer claims in a class
action should be stayed pursuant to arbitration clauses in the
standard terms and conditions of those customers' contracts. It
further concluded that the Ontario Arbitration Act did not provide
courts with jurisdiction to refuse to stay class member claims that
are covered by a valid arbitration clause.

LOWER COURT DECISIONS

The plaintiff filed a proposed class action against TELUS alleging
overbilling on behalf of about two million Ontario residents with
standard form mobile phone service contracts. The proposed class
included both consumers who purchased plans for personal use and
non-consumers (business customers) who purchased plans for business
use. The standard form contracts contained an arbitration clause
which, by virtue of the Ontario Consumer Protection Act, did not
apply to the consumer contracts. However, the business customers
did not fall within those consumer provisions and TELUS moved to
stay the claims of those customers in reliance on the arbitration
clause in their contracts.

The court dismissed TELUS's motion at first instance, allowing the
consumer and business customer claims to proceed together in the
class action. In so doing, the court held that section 7(5) of the
Arbitration Act granted it the discretion to refuse a stay where it
would not be reasonable to separate the matters dealt with in the
arbitration agreement from other matters.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed TELUS's appeal. Justice
van Rensburg for the majority agreed with the first instance
judge's interpretation of section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Justice Blair concurred in the result, though expressed
reservations about whether that provision extended to the
interconnection of several arbitration agreements involving
different parties, and whether non-consumers ought to be able to
sidestep an arbitration clause by adding consumer claims and
wrapping all claims in the cloak of a class proceeding.

SCC DECISION

Justice Moldaver, writing for the five-judge SCC majority, allowed
the appeal and concluded that the Arbitration Act required that the
business customer claims be stayed. Four justices dissented.

The majority identified the overriding issue on the appeal as the
proper interpretation of section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act,
rather than underlying policy concerns regarding the merits of
enforcing arbitration clauses contained in standard form
contracts.

As a matter of statutory interpretation, the majority noted that
section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act establishes a general rule that
the court must stay a proceeding commenced in respect of a matter
that is the subject of an arbitration agreement. Section 7(5),
which provides an exception to this general rule, has two
requirements. First, the arbitration agreement must deal with only
some of the matters over which the proceeding was commenced.
Second, it must be reasonable to separate the matters dealt with in
the arbitration agreement from the other matters. If these
conditions are met, the court has discretion to allow the matters
that are not dealt with in the arbitration agreement to proceed in
court but must nonetheless stay the proceedings in respect of the
matters dealt with in the arbitration agreement.

The majority concluded that the first precondition was not met
because the sole matter at issue in the proposed TELUS class action
(alleged overbilling) was dealt with in the business customers'
arbitration agreements. As such, a stay of their claims was
mandatory. The majority reasoned that the legislature made a
careful choice to exempt only consumers from the ordinary
enforcement of arbitration agreements, and non-consumers (here, the
TELUS business customers) ought to be held to their bargains. While
the majority acknowledged the importance of promoting access to
justice and avoiding multiple proceedings, absent express direction
from the legislature, these policy concerns should not be permitted
to override the objectives pursued by the Arbitration Act –
including that parties to a valid arbitration agreement abide by
their agreement.

For the dissent, Justices Abella and Karakatsanis emphasized policy
concerns. They interpreted section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act in a
manner that maintains the courts' discretion to refuse to stay
arbitrable claims if it is unreasonable to separate them from
non-arbitrable claims.

IMPLICATIONS

It follows from Wellman that valid arbitration clauses in
commercial agreements should be enforced even where this will
exclude certain persons from class actions. This decision affirms
that courts will not lightly set aside the legislative objective of
enforcing valid arbitration clauses on policy grounds in class
actions. It also confirms that arbitration clauses contained in
standard form agreements (sometimes called contracts of adhesion
because they are not negotiated) "will generally be enforced"
absent legislative language to the contrary.

Going forward, companies that have such clauses in their commercial
agreements can expect more certainty and predictability in those
clauses being upheld by the courts. In this regard, Wellman
reinforces the importance of careful drafting for both bespoke and
standard form contracts that include arbitration clauses. Parties
will wish to consider whether to include either broad language to
the effect that all claims arising out of, or in relation to, the
contract shall be determined through arbitration or more tailored
language to exclude certain matters from arbitration. [GN]


TELUS COMMS: Davies Ward Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Derek D. Ricci, Esq. -- dricci@dwpv.com -- Anthony M.C. Alexander,
Esq., -- aalexander@dwpv.com -- and Rui Gao, Esq. -- rgao@dwpv.com
-- of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that in its recent ruling in TELUS Communications
Inc. v Wellman, 2019 SCC 19 (Wellman), the Supreme Court of Canada
held that business customers of TELUS that entered into mandatory
arbitration agreements cannot seek relief in court by participating
in a class action together with consumers.

In Wellman, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court ruled that for
consumers as a protected category of litigant, the right to seek
redress by way of class action takes precedence over any contrary
promise to resolve disputes through arbitration. For all other
litigants, however, the importance of enforcing an arbitration
agreement trumps the right of these parties to participate in a
class proceeding covering the same subject matter.

Key Takeaways

   * Non-consumers cannot simply disregard otherwise-binding
arbitration agreements by "piggybacking" on the claims of
consumers.

   * The decision represents a departure from a line of case law in
Ontario and some other provinces, and brings the law in these
provinces in line with the law in British Columbia.

   * Arbitration clauses are enforceable against non-consumers even
if they are included in standard-form contracts.

   * Non-consumers may, however, still be able to challenge the
enforceability of standard-form arbitration clauses by arguing that
those clauses are invalid due to unconscionability.
Background

The case involved an Ontario class proceeding that had been brought
against TELUS on behalf of two groups of the company's customers:
(i) consumers who purchased its telecom services, and (ii)
businesses that purchased these services. Both groups alleged that
TELUS had improperly "rounded up" billable airtime to the next
minute without disclosing this practice.

Both sets of customers had executed agreements promising to resolve
disputes exclusively by way of binding arbitration. The difficulty
for TELUS is that Canadian consumer protection legislation
generally treats mandatory arbitration agreements as unenforceable
against consumers and thus ineffective to prevent consumers from
participating in class actions. However, that legislation grants no
such protection to non-consumers (such as TELUS's business
customers).

Despite this distinction, the courts below had rejected TELUS's
challenge to the make-up of the class action and had allowed the
class action to proceed on behalf of both consumers and business
customers of TELUS. In doing so, the courts below had followed a
line of case law to the effect that, under the Ontario Arbitration
Act, the court has the discretion to refuse to grant a stay of
claims that are subject to a valid arbitration agreement if it
would not be reasonable to separate them from non-arbitrable
claims. Courts in provinces where similar arbitration legislation
was enacted (such as Manitoba and Alberta) have also adopted this
reasoning.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court divided 5-4, with the majority ruling that the
courts below had erred by refusing to stay that portion of the
class action that involved claims by TELUS's business customers.

As the majority noted, the Ontario Arbitration Act requires that
all disputes that involve a matter that falls within an arbitration
agreement must be arbitrated, rather than litigated. Because the
dispute regarding overbilling was unquestionably captured by the
TELUS arbitration agreement, it was not a matter that could be
properly pursued by way of class proceeding. This conclusion would
have precluded both consumers and business customers from
participating in the class action were it not for the special
treatment granted to consumers under the applicable consumer
protection legislation. Because of that unique protection, those
TELUS customers who were considered consumers were not bound by
their arbitration agreements and were consequently permitted to
proceed with the class action.

In contrast, the majority affirmed that those same arbitration
clauses are enforceable against non-consumers, even if these
clauses are contained in standard-form contracts. Had the
legislature wished to render such agreements unenforceable outside
the consumer context, it could have done so. In reaching this
decision, the majority effectively rejected the relevant case law
in Ontario and some other provinces, and affirmed the approach that
the Supreme Court of Canada had previously adopted in the British
Columbia case of Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15.

Importantly, however, the majority left open the possibility that
standard-form arbitration clauses could still be challenged (even
in non-consumer contracts) through the doctrine of
unconscionability. Notably, the Ontario Court of Appeal found a
mandatory arbitration clause -- incorporated into a standard-form
employment contract -- to be unconscionable, and thus
unenforceable, in Heller v Uber Technologies, 2019 ONCA 1. The
Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that the plaintiffs in that case
had "no reasonable prospect of being able to negotiate any of the
terms" of the agreement, and there was "a significant inequality of
bargaining power" between the parties.

Going beyond the facts in the Wellman case, the majority also
clarified that, under the Ontario Arbitration Act (and similar
legislation in other provinces), the default rule is that the court
must stay a court proceeding if at least one subject matter of the
proceeding is covered by an arbitration agreement, even if the
proceeding involves other matters not covered by the arbitration
agreement. In those circumstances, the court can exercise its
discretion to grant a partial stay over claims that are not dealt
with in the arbitration agreement if certain conditions are met;
but the court has no discretion to refuse to grant a stay of claims
that are subject to a valid arbitration agreement. [GN]


TFI INT'L: Wins Court OK of $4.74MM Settlement in Flores FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TFI
INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-05790-JST
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (i) granted Plaintiffs Philip
Flores and Darah Duong's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Joint
Stipulation of Settlement, and Attorneys' Fees and Costs; and (ii)
denied their unopposed administrative motion to file a document
under seal.

The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants TFI International Inc., TForce
Final Mile, LLC, and Velocity Express, LLC, misclassified Velocity
Express delivery drivers -- including the Plaintiffs -- as
independent contractors, thereby depriving them of minimum wages
and overtime.  Though Velocity Express required its drivers to sign
an Independent Contractor Agreement, it nonetheless exerted
substantial control over the drivers' work.

On Nov. 9, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit as a putative
collective action under the FLSA and putative class action pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging
violations of the FLSA, the California Labor Code, and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

On June 3rd, 2013, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a FLSA collective action for the class of all
current and former delivery drivers of Velocity Express, LLC who
signed the 2009 Independent Contractor Master Agreement, and who
are or were employed to deliver goods to its clients at any time in
the last three years, who worked over eight hours per workday or 40
hours per workweek, and were not paid a minimum wage or overtime
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek or hours worked over 8 in a
workday.  It approved a modified version of the proposed notice and
consent form for additional class members to opt in to the
litigation.

The parties represent that they had previously twice attempted to
mediate their claims with the assistance of Mark Rudy, but those
attempts were unsuccessful due to outstanding issues regarding
liability.  They engaged in a third round of mediation during
discovery for the Tranche 1 Plaintiffs, including an all-day
mediation session and multiple follow-up conferences, resulting in
the Settlement before the Court.

On Oct. 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the unopposed motion for
settlement approval.  The Court heard argument on the motion on
Nov. 15, 2018.  At the hearing, the Court expressed the concerns
about the proposed settlement identified later in the order.  To
respond to these concerns, the parties filed a supplemental joint
statement on Nov. 28, 2018, supported by a further declaration from
the Plaintiff's counsel.  The Plaintiffs' counsel then filed a
further supplemental declaration in support on Dec. 17, 2018.  On
Jan. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed yet a further
declaration, detailing the counsel's efforts at notice tothe
members of the collective action and the response by participating
drivers.

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Defendants agree to pay a
maximum amount of $4.74 million.  The Settlement allocates that
amount as follows: (1) $1.85 million for the participating
Plaintiffs; and (2) $2.9 million for the Plaintiffs' counsel's
attorneys' fees and costs, including the costs of administering the
Settlement.

The Claims Amount will first be used to satisfy the $62,500
judgment the Court awarded to Boconvi and Mack.  In addition, 13%
of the Claims Amount, or $240,500, will be allocated to the subset
of participating Plaintiffs who provided services in California, in
exchange for the release of their California law claims.  The
remaining $1,547,000 will be allocated to all the participating
Plaintiffs.  The Claim Share of each participating Plaintiff (both
as to the California-specific and general amounts) will be
determined in proportion to the number of weeks worked by that the
Plaintiff during the qualifying period.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
have calculated the number of qualifying weeks for each Plaintiff
using data provided by the Defendants.

The Defendants also agree to dismiss the pending appeal of the
Boconvi action.  In exchange, the Plaintiffs agree to release all
claims that were pled in the Flores Action.

The Settlement requires each Plaintiff to affirmatively opt to
participate and establishes a process for securing their
participation.  By Oct. 25, 2018 -- one day prior to filing the
motion with the Court -- the Plaintiffs' counsel mailed each
Plaintiff notice of the Settlement.  If a Challenging Driver's
dispute is not resolved by Nov. 15, 2018, the Settlement provides
that the Court will adjudicate each challenge.  Any Plaintiff whose
challenge is not resolved in their favor will be "deemed a
Non-Participating Driver" and excluded from the Settlement.

Finally, the Settlement contemplates a fourth class of the
Plaintiffs: those who fail to timely respond to the mailed notice
by Nov. 14, 2018 ("Absentee Participating Drivers").  Those
Plaintiffs will have an additional thirty days, until Dec. 14,
2018, to respond.  The Settlement does not allow these Plaintiffs
to challenge their individual share.  For those Plaintiffs who fail
to respond within the 51-day period, the Court shall, on Dec. 17,
2018, enter an order administratively dismissing the claim of that
Absentee Participating Driver.

Any Non-Participating Driver's share of the Claims Amount will be
"ratcheted back" by the Defendants and subtracted from the
Settlement fund.  However, any dismissed Absentee Participating
Driver's share will be reallocated among the participating
Plaintiffs.  If 5 or more of the 367 Plaintiffs become Absentee
Participating Drivers, Challenging Drivers, or Non-Participating
Drivers, then the Defendants may withdraw from the Settlement by
Dec. 17, 2018.

In the event that the Settlement is funded, checks will be sent to
the participating Plaintiffs.  Those checks must be cashed within
90 days; the funds of any uncashed checks will be reallocated to a
cy pres recipient designated by the Court.

As events unfolded, many of these provisions became superfluous.
By Nov. 13, 2018, 357 of 367 of the opt-in Plaintiff drivers had
consented to participate in the Settlement (and two additional
drivers had already had their claims adjudicated by the Court).  Of
the remaining eight drivers, two agreed to dismiss their claims
with prejudice and not participate; one driver died with no
identifiable heirs; and one driver was in bankruptcy proceedings,
and the trustee verbally consented to the Settlement and stated an
intention to seek approval from the bankruptcy court.  The
remaining four drivers had not responded by Nov. 13, 2018.

Between Nov. 13, 2018 and Dec. 17, 2018, three of the remaining
drivers contacted the Plaintiffs' counsel to consent to the
settlement.  As for the one remaining driver, the Plaintiffs'
counsel made at least 20 attempts to contact him using priority
mail and telephone, including leaving messages on a verified
telephone number in both English and Spanish.  That driver did not
respond in any way to these efforts.  The Plaintiffs' counsel has
stated an intention to move to withdraw as counsel for that driver.
No driver has challenged the terms of the Settlement.

In connection with the motion for settlement approval, the
Plaintiffs have filed an administrative motion to file under seal
the notice that the Plaintiffs' counsel sent to each Plaintiff to
alert them to the Settlement and their window to participate.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the notices are attorney-client privileged
communications.  They have filed a declaration in support of
sealing.

Judge Tigar denied the motion to seal.  He cannot conclude that the
notice documents to individual drivers are privileged because the
Plaintiffs' counsel shared them with Defendants when they filed
their motion to seal.  Under the attorney-client privilege, it is a
general rule that attorney-client communications made in the
presence of, or shared with, third-parties destroys the
confidentiality of the communications and the privilege protection
that is dependent upon that confidentiality.  The Clerk is ordered
to file the documents on the public docket.

The Judge concludes that (i) the Settlement resolves a bona fide
dispute under the FLSA; (ii) given the risks to both sides, the
Settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise; and (iii) the $2.9
million award to the Plaintiffs' counsel and the $246,187.97 in
compensable costs in the litigation are reasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tigar granted the parties' motion
for approval of their collective action settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/I2cATX from Leagle.com.

Phillip Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, Alexandra Whitney Robertson, Johnson Becker,
PLLC, Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed
LLP, pro hac vice, Charles R. Ash -- cash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Christopher Paul Ridout, --
christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Jacob R.
Rusch, Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jesse L. Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Molly
Elizabeth Nephew, Johnson Becker, PLLC, Neil B. Pioch, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice & Rod M. Johnston, Sommers Schwartz,
P.C., pro hac vice.

Darah Doung, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Alexandra Whitney Robertson, Johnson Becker, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Caleb Marker, Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice,
Charles R. Ash, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Christopher
Paul Ridout, Zimmerman Reed LLP, Jacob R. Rusch, Johnson Becker,
PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice,
Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jesse
L. Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Molly Elizabeth Nephew, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Neil B. Pioch, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice &
Rod M. Johnston, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice.

TFI International Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Robert G. Hulteng -- rhulteng@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Alexander Hurd Scherbatskoy, Littler Mendelson,
P.C., Andrew Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Blair Amelia Copple -- bcopple@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Emily Erin O'Connor --
eoconnor@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Paul Edward
Goatley -- pgoatley@fisherphillips.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.

TForce Final Mile, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Robert G. Hulteng, Littler Mendelson,
P.C., Andrew Michael Spurchise, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Emily Erin
O'Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Paul Edward Goatley, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.

Ms. Elsa Lazarte, Miscellaneous, represented by Daniel Martinez de
la Vega -- dvega@vegalawyer.com -- Law Offices of Daniel Vega.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Camry Air Con Smell Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota
Camry air conditioning smell class action lawsuit has been
certified for California owners and lessees of 2012-2015 Camrys.
The lawsuit was filed by Camry drivers Gloria Ortega and Alfred
Salas, both who claim the smells are enough to scare anyone out of
the cars.

Plaintiff Ortega says she owns a 2012 Toyota Camry that she uses
each day along with the air conditioning. But the air conditioner
allegedly emits an old moldy smell Ortega claims is like dirty
socks. However, she says the smell dissipates "within seconds"
after she turns the air conditioning to "recirc" mode.

Plaintiff Salas owns a 2014 Camry and uses the air conditioning
system every day, and each day allegedly has to cope with a smell
"like dried-up urine in a fabric that's been out in the sun."

Once the air conditioning "kicks in" the odor disappears and
"completely" goes away after ten minutes. However, the plaintiff
claims the "stench" is strongest after using the air-conditioning.

According to the lawsuit, Camry occupants get sick from the mold
that builds up on the evaporators that collect heat from the
passenger cabins. In addition to moisture, the plaintiffs claim
outside vents allow dead insects and leafy materials to enter the
air conditioning systems.

Toyota has allegedly known about the air conditioning smells
because dealers have been sent technical service bulletins about
owners who complained about bad odors.

The judge ruled there is no doubt Ortega's Camry is fit for its
ordinary purpose because she has driven tens of thousands of miles
over a period of years, but the same can't be said of the Camry
owned by plaintiff Salas.

The smell described by Salas is different, typically will last a
longer time and he says he must keep the windows cracked open while
the air conditioning is on.

Judge Fernando M. Olguin also ruled there is evidence to support
the argument of design defects in the Camrys, although Toyota
denies it. According to the ruling, there are "triable issues
regarding the existence of a design defect that causes the foul
odors at issue, and whether such odors are material."

The Toyota Camry air conditioning smell class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California - Salas, et al., v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., et
al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC. [GN]


TRICOR AMERICA: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Bid Denial in Velarde
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOAN VELARDE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRICOR
AMERICA, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A153351 (Cal.
App.), Judge Mark B. Simons of the Court of Appeals of California
for First District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's order
denying Tricor's petition to compel arbitration.

In 2017, Velarde filed a wage and hour class action complaint
against Tricor.  Tricor filed a petition to compel arbitration,
arguing the parties had executed a contract requiring arbitration
of their disputes.  It submitted three documents as evidence of the
contract.  First, Tricor submitted a February 2016 memorandum to
employees stating Tricor is implementing an arbitration agreement.
The second document Tricor submitted as evidence of the contract
was a blank version of the two-page Arbitration Agreement, without
the preceding memorandum.  Third, it submitted a page containing
only the line, "I have read the foregoing Mutual Agreement to
Arbitrate Disputes, understand it and agree to abide by its terms,"
with the signature blocks completed by the Plaintiff and a Tricor
representative.

Tricor submitted declarations providing that, in February 2016,
Tricor's Human Resources Manager attached the memorandum and
Arbitration Agreement to each employee's paycheck; the Office
Manager at Velarde's location "arranged for" employee paychecks and
any attached documents to be distributed to each employee's
"cubby"; and some employees, after signing the Arbitration
Agreement, tore off the portion of the second page below the line
of asterisks and returned only that portion to Tricor.

At his deposition, the Plaintiff authenticated his signature on the
torn-off page containing the Arbitration Agreement's signature
block.  He also testified he did not receive the entire Arbitration
Agreement from Tricor, had never seen it, and had not discussed an
arbitration agreement with anyone at Tricor.  The Plaintiff
testified it was Tricor's policy that everything be signed without
questioning it or else one would lose the job.

The trial court denied Tricor's motion to compel arbitration,
finding Tricor failed to meet its moving burden of demonstrating
the existence of an agreement to arbitrate this controversy.  The
trial court credited the Plaintiff's consistent statements that he
did not receive the arbitration agreement.  If he did sign the
one-page signature sheet, it was because it was placed in his cubby
and Tricor employees were expected to blindly sign everything or
risk losing their jobs.  The Plaintiff testified that he was never
made aware that he was signing an arbitration agreement when given
the one-page signature sheet to execute.

Tricor filed a motion to strike the Plaintiff's respondent's
appendix, arguing none of the appendix's five documents were part
of the trial court record.  Judge Simons disregards any references
in the Plaintiff's response brief to the materials in his appendix.
Because of this disregard, he denies as moot Tricor's motion to
strike the Plaintiff's response brief or to order him file a new
brief without references to the materials in his appendix.  Tricor
also seeks monetary sanctions against the Plaintiff for his
violation of rule 8.124(g).  The Judge has stricken the Plaintiff's
appendix and declines to impose additional sanctions.

Tricor argues the trial court erred in overruling its evidentiary
objections.  The Judge agrees in part, but finds the error
harmless.  He finds that the Plaintiff's use of his own deposition
testimony was authorized by section 2025.620, subdivision (c)(1).
As to other evidence, he finds that the trial court erred in
admitting the Plaintiff's declarations.  The authentication of the
Spanish declaration does not address the Plaintiff's failure to
provide an interpreter's certification with the English
translation.  However, the Judge also agrees with the Plaintiff
that his deposition testimony provides the critical evidence in the
case.  The trial court's error in admitting the Plaintiff's
declarations and discovery responses was harmless, and he does not
rely on this evidence in his resolution of the appeal.

Tricor argues the evidence shows the Plaintiff received the entire
Arbitration Agreement.  The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's
deposition testimony, credited by the trial court, provides
substantial evidence supporting the court's finding that the
Plaintiff did not receive the entire Arbitration Agreement.  Tricor
also argues tge Plaintiff's execution of the signature page
constitutes, as a matter of law, his agreement to be bound by the
Arbitration Agreement.  The Judge concludes that the executed
signature page does not, as a matter of law, bind the Plaintiff to
the terms of the Arbitration Agreement.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Simons affirmed the Order.  The
Respondent is awarded his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/CkIVUh from Leagle.com.


TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CA: $450K Deal in Ferzich FLSA Suit Has Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK KERZICH and TIMOTHY WERTZ, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01116-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the parties' renewed motion
for approval of their FLSA settlement agreement.

The complaint in the action was filed on July 28, 2016, alleging
that the Defendants had violated the FLSA by under-paying municipal
employees' overtime when the employees accepted cash in lieu of
healthcare benefits, following the holding in Flores v. City of San
Gabriel.  A scheduling order was entered on Nov. 1, 2016, setting a
deadline for non-expert discovery to be completed by June 9, 2017
and expert discovery to be completed by Sept. 20, 2017.

Prior to the passing of the discovery deadline, the parties
stipulated to conditional certification of the action on Feb. 23,
2017.  No substantive motion practice took place.  A magistrate
judge of the Court held two separate settlement conferences in the
action, one on Oct. 2, 2017 and the other on Oct. 23, 2017.  A
settlement was reached following the second of those settlement
conferences.

After a hearing before Judge Drozd, and after supplemental briefing
provided by the parties, on Aug. 14, 2018, the Court denied
approval of the settlement agreement without prejudice.  Following
that denial, the parties engaged in an additional round of
settlement negotiations under the direction of Magistrate Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe.  The revised settlement agreement currently
before the court is the product of those negotiations.

The proposed settlement essentially encompasses three theories of
liability the Plaintiffs have alleged against the Defendant.  The
first directly follows the decision in Flores v. City of San
Gabriel, and alleges that any cash payments made to plaintiffs in
lieu of healthcare benefits must be included in the calculation of
overtime wages.  The second theory is an expansion of the holding
in Flores, and seeks to have the total payments for healthcare
benefits made by defendant on behalf of the Plaintiffs included in
the calculation of overtime, regardless of whether they were paid
as cash directly to the Plaintiffs or were in the form of
healthcare benefits secured for the Plaintiffs.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs seek to settle what they denote as their "canine claim,"
which concerns alleged underpayment of the dDefendant's canine
police officers.

The settlement agreement proposes a total payment of $450,000.
This total amount is designated to the following categories:
$227,000 in damages to the Plaintiffs for both Flores theories of
liability; $25,000 in damages for the canine claim; $6,000 total as
incentive payments, awarding $3,000 each to plaintiffs Kerzich and
Wertz; and $192,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs'
counsel.  Notably, and in contrast to the prior proposed
settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel is not now seeking a further
award of contingency fees.

Judge Drozd is satisfied that there is a bona fide dispute at issue
in the case.  He also finds that proposed settlement is fair and
reasonable.  Given the counsels' level of experience, and given the
prevailing rates in the Eastern District of California, the Judge
finds the fee award proposed in the settlement reasonable.  Lastly,
he approves an incentive award in the amount of $3,000 to each of
the named Plaintiffs.  The named Plaintiffs will receive slightly
more than double what the remaining Plaintiffs will receive, which
is comparable to incentive awards previously found reasonable by
the Court.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Drozd approved the Settlement
Agreement as fair, reasonable, and just in all respects as to the
Plaintiffs and the parties will perform the Settlement Agreement in
accordance with its terms.  The Notice of Collective Action
Settlement Claim Form and Release to be sent to all the Plaintiffs
is approved.

The Judge has made no findings or determination regarding the law,
and the Motion and any exhibits and any of the other documents or
written materials prepared in conjunction with the motion and order
will not constitute evidence of, or any admission of, any violation
of the law.

Simpluris, Inc. will administer the issuance of the Claim Form and
Release to all the Plaintiffs, receive and process completed Claim
Form and Releases, issue payments to the Plaintiffs with
appropriate withholdings, issue payments to the Plaintiffs'
counsel, and otherwise manage the Settlement Amount as set forth in
the Settlement Agreement.

The Judge dismissed the action with prejudice.  The Clerk of Court
is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2JS8wj0 from Leagle.com.

Mark Kerzich, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals & Timothy Wertz, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Gary
Marc Messing -- gary@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP,
Jason H. Jasmine -- jason@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine
LLP & Donald Paul Bird, II -- Paul@MAJLabor.com -- Messing Adam &
Jasmine LLP.

County of Tuolumne, Defendant, represented by Arthur A. Hartinger
-- ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, LLC
& Kevin P. McLaughlin, Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP.


U.S. XPRESS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that
purchasers of U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: USX) filed a
class action complaint on April 2, 2019, against the company for
alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933
pursuant to the company's June 2018 initial public offering
("IPO"). U.S. Xpress operates as an asset-based truckload carrier
that provides services primarily in the U.S.

According to the complaint, U.S. Xpress held its IPO in June 2018,
offering its stock at $16.00 per share and generating over $245
million in proceeds based on misleading offering documents. In
particular, U.S. Xpress failed to disclose that a shortage of
trucks and employees and unexpected costs were negatively impacting
the company's financial outlook. On November 1, 2018, the company
revealed higher wages and independent contractor costs, lower than
expected recruitment levels, and a higher insurance expense. On
this news, the price of U.S. Xpress's stock dropped almost 30%, to
close at just $7.10 per share on November 2, 2018, more than half
the price of its IPO just months earlier, and has yet to recover.

U.S. Xpress Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leo Kandinov at
(800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

         Contact:         
         Leo Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         5040 Shoreham Place
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


UBER: Glasgo Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GLASGO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02486-KAW (S.D. Fla., May
10, 2019) is an action arising under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), a remedial statute enacted in 1991 in
response to consumer outrage over the proliferation of intrusive,
nuisance telemarketing practices.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'s ("Uber") business is predicated on
instantaneous automatic text message communications with its
customers, yet despite this, Uber failed to take any corrective
action to curb their violative practice of sending automated
verification code text messages.

Uber knew it was flagrantly violating the TCPA. However, Uber
failed to take effective action to stop the violations, and chose
to save on the costs of solving the problem at the expense of the
privacy and frustration of its customers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Michael Glasgo is a natural person who was a resident of
Hillsborough County, Florida.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a multinational corporation that
provides transportation services that connects passengers to
automobile drivers via Uber's iPhone and various smartphone
applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott D. Owens, Esq.
     SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
     3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
     Hollywood, FL 33019
     Phone: 954-589-0588
     Fax: 954-337-0666
     Email: scott@scottdowens.com

          - and -

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


UBER: Has $132MM Earmarked for Settling Drivers' Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Drew Millard, writing for The Outline, reports that in a prospectus
filed with the SEC prior to its IPO, Uber explained that its entire
strategy was to dominate the transportation ecosystem, from taxi
services to buses meal delivery to trucking to those e-scooter
things that everyone hates, and outlast its competitors by hoping
everyone else runs out of money before they do.

Drivers around the world recently engaged in a 24-hour strike to
protest Uber's IPO, as well as the fact that the company classifies
them as "independent contractors" rather than actual employees. The
company is also dealing with a class-action lawsuit brought by
drivers who are fighting their independent contractor status, which
it's currently attempting to settle while it's still in the "lose
all our money on purpose" phase of its business.

While the company claimed in a May 9 SEC filing that it believes
"drivers are independent contractors," Uber clearly doesn't believe
that too hard, because the filing goes on to reveal that Uber has
$132 million squirreled away to pay to 60,000 drivers who are suing
to be considered employees. Uber also notes that it has already
given $20 million to its drivers to settle a similar lawsuit and
expects the amount of settlement money it will shell out this year
"will fall within an approximate range of $146 million to $170
million." [GN]


VALVE SOFT: Quinault Nation Sues Over CS:GO Skins Betting
---------------------------------------------------------
Casino.org reports that the Quinault Nation, a Native American
tribe that operates a casino in the state of Washington, has filed
a lawsuit against Valve Software accusing the gaming firm of
facilitating and encouraging illegal online gambling through skins
betting related to games like Counter Strike: Global Offensive
(CS:GO).

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Superior Court for the state of
Washington in Grays Harbor County, was first reported by GeekWire
on April 12.

Lawsuit: Valve Engaging in Unfair Competition
The Quinault Nation, which operates the Quinault Beach Resort &
Casino in Ocean Shores, Washington, accuses Valve of fostering an
environment in which illegal gambling can flourish.

The suit also alleges that Valve is engaging in unfair competition
with licensed and regulated casinos in Washington, which have to
deal with extensive regulation in order to operate. In addition,
the lawsuit references Valve's use of so-called "loot crates,"
which have been investigated as a potential form of gambling by
regulators around the world.

This is far from the first time that Valve has had to deal with the
issue of skins betting. Skins, in this context, refer to cosmetic
upgrades that players can purchase or unlock during gameplay.
Players routinely swap these designer weapons with each other or
sell them for cash.

But on some third-party websites, users can also wager their skins
in games of chance. A typical system has players put in an item as
a bet, after which a random winner is chosen to win the entire pool
of skins. The skins can also be wagered as bets on esports
competitions.

Skins Betting Rampant Despite Shutdown Efforts
In 2016, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Connecticut resident
who accused Valve of knowingly allowing illegal gambling sites to
flourish. Valve then attempted to shut down many of the major skins
betting sites with cease and desist letters, threatening operators
with the loss of their Steam accounts. However, that seemed to do
little to slow the rate of skins gambling.

While Valve doesn't actually run any of these sites, they do get
some benefits from their existence. The skins betting operations
have to use Valve's software to facilitate the buying and selling
of the items, and Valve takes a cut from each transaction. That's
not to mention just how much the explosion of skins betting has
fueled CS:GO's rise as a major esport.

"Valve has profited handsomely for years from illegal online
gambling, and has made only token efforts to stop it," the Quinault
lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a new class-action lawsuit
against Big Fish, a Seattle-based social casino that has become a
frequent target of legal action in Washington. Because state laws
define gambling as "risking something of value on the outcome of a
contest of chance," at least one federal court has rules that even
the virtual chips in a play money casino could qualify as
"something of value."

That definition might play a critical role in the Quinault lawsuit
against Valve as well. The filing references previous class action
cases over skins betting that have gone to arbitration in the state
of Washington.

"Arbitrators ruled that Skins were a thing of value in that what
the users were doing was gambling and was illegal," the lawsuit
reads. [GN]


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. 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.

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VNDA)

Investors Affected: November 4, 2015-February 11, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vanda was engaged in a
fraudulent scheme in which it promoted the off-label use of Fanapt
and Hetlioz; (2) Vanda was fraudulently receiving drug
reimbursements from the government by abusing Medicare, Medicaid,
and Tricare programs; (3) as a result of the scheme, Vanda faced
legal action from the government; (4) Vanda's promotional materials
for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false and misleading, garnering
regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and
(5) as a result, defendants' statements about Vanda's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

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


VI DEVELOPMENT: Cuaya Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR COYOTL CUAYA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. VI DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC
d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER, 570 KCBS CORP. d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER, 401 KCBS
CORP. d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER, 462 BKCS LTD. d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER,
BKCS LTD. d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER, K&H 14 INC. d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER,
FOOD & BEYOND LLC, d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER, TERENCE PARK, and BYUNG IL
PARK, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04290 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019)
seeks to recover from Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime, compensation for unpaid off-the-clock work, unpaid spread
of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Plaintiff worked a combined total of more than 40 hours each
workweek. However, Defendants failed to pay him all of the overtime
premium due for those hours he worked in excess of 40 each
workweek. Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members
were not paid their overtime premium for hours that they worked in
excess of 40 each workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff VICTOR COYOTL CUAYA was hired by Defendants to work as a
cook for Defendants' Deli Restaurant in or around 2010 and was
terminated in January 2019.

Defendants operate a chain of deli restaurants as a single
integrated enterprise under the shared trade name "Bread &
Butter".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


VIRGINIA BEACH: Bid to Decertify Class in Andreana Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH H. ANDREANA, et al. Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA
BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-574 (E.D. Va.), Judge
Raymond A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, denied the Defendants'
Motion for Decertification.

The action stems from a series of allegations of age discrimination
against Virginia Beach public schools.  The Plaintiffs claims that
in 2015, Defendants Virginia Beach City Public Schools and the
School Board of Virginia Beach informed all 104 Computer Resource
Specialist ("CRS") employees that the position would cease to
exist, and the Defendants would create only 84 Instructional
Technology Specialist ("ITS") positions.  The Defendants allegedly
required all former CRSs to reapply to the new ITS positions,
directly competing with other employees and the general public.  Of
the 104 former CRSs, 99 of them applied to be ITSs, while there
were 100 other applicants.

The Defendants used a "screening and evaluation process and policy"
in selecting candidates for the ITS positions.  The Plaintiffs
claim that this process and policy was willfully discriminatory
because it disregarded older candidates in favor of younger ones.
They allege that the Defendants selected individuals for the ITS
position based on age, even though the Plaintiffs allegedly were
better qualified and met all expectations in carrying out their
duties as CRSs.  As a result of this alleged discrimination, the
Plaintiffs allegedly were forced to accept positions with the
Defendants at lower pay or retire.

Named Plaintiff Joseph Andreana filed his Complaint for the
collective action on Nov. 7, 2017 and alleged three claims under
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967: disparate
treatment, disparate impact, and pattern and practice
discrimination.

On May 9, 2018, the Court issued two Orders in the instant case.
In its first Order, the Court conditionally certified the
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  In its second
Order, the Court granted in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss
after finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over
the pattern and practice discrimination claim, but keeping the
disparate treatment and disparate impact claims intact.

On May 23, 2018, the Court approved Andreana's collective action
notice.  All additional Plaintiffs needed to file their notices to
opt in by Aug. 21, 2018.  After two opt-in Plaintiffs were dropped
from the action, 11 Plaintiffs remain in the collective action.

On March 11, 2019, the Defendants filed the instant Motion, which
argues that the Plaintiffs are not similarly situated to allow a
collective action under Section 216(b) for either their disparate
treatment or disparate impact claims.  The Plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition on March 21, 2019, to which the Defendants
replied on March 27, 2019.  The Plaintiffs requested a hearing on
the matter.

Judge Jackson finds that where the plaintiffs hold similar titles,
are located in the same location, and allege similar conduct, as
the Plaintiffs do so, disparate treatment and disparate impact
claims may continue in a collective action.  Among the Plaintiffs,
there are common questions of law, factual issues and relief
sought.  Therefore, the Judge finds the factual and employment
settings factor of the decertification analysis weighs in favor of
the Plaintiffs.

The Judge also finds that a collective action does not necessitate
that "there be no differences among class members," nor does it
prohibit individualized inquiry "in connection with fashioning the
specific relief or damages to be awarded to each class member."
The Defendant has not shown that these defenses require substantial
individualized determinations that would not lead to efficient
adjudication.  Therefore, the individualized defense factor of the
decertification analysis weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs and
supports the Court's finding that certified class treatment of the
Plaintiffs' claims is appropriate.

Finally, he finds that the fairness and procedural considerations
factor supports the Plaintiffs.  The Defendants contend that if the
action is not decertified, it will need to prepare for eleven
mini-trials of each Plaintiff because the claims are vastly
different.  However, the members of the collective share a common
issue: whether the Defendants did not rehire the Plaintiffs as ITSs
because of their age.  Each individual Plaintiff would be unlikely
to pursue his or her claim alone because of the costs involved
relative to the damages sought.  The fairness and procedural
considerations factor weighs against the Defendants.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Jackson concludes that the
Plaintiffs are similarly situated to proceed as a collective.  He
denied the Defendant's Motion to Decertify the FLSA collective
action class.  He ordered the case to proceed as a collective
action as conditionally certified, subject to the modifications in
class membership previously ordered by the Court. The Clerk is
directed to provide a copy of the Order to counsel and parties of
record.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2JOaEIz from Leagle.com.

Joseph H. Andreana, Marie Gerdes, Philip M Hull, Lyn E Hebert, Gary
Lennon, Victoria P Wilmouth, Deborah J Sholar, Patricia Kay Fesser,
Mary-Ellen Davis, Gary Viado & Mary N. Smead, Plaintiffs,
represented by James Richard Theuer -- jim@theuerlaw.com -- James
R. Theuer PLLC.

Virginia Beach City Public Schools & School Board of the City of
Virginia Beach, Defendants, represented by Ann Katherine Sullivan
-- slesoken@asksullivan.com -- Sullivan Law Group, P.L.C., Deborah
Yeng Collins, Sullivan Law Group, P.L.C. & Melissa Morris Picco,
Sullivan Law Group, P.L.C..


VIRGINIA TAN: Class Suit Over $30MM Ponzi Scheme Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Lindsay, writing for CBC.ca, reports that a B.C. judge has
certified a class action lawsuit filed against a West Vancouver
woman who ran a $30-million Ponzi scheme -- allegedly with the help
of her husband and son.

North Vancouver's Jastram Properties Ltd. claims it lost more that
$4.8 million in investments in Virginia Tan's fraud, according to a
judgment from B.C. Supreme Court.

Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten certified the claim as a class
action on April 2, 2019, writing that at least 165 investors could
be included in the suit.

"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," the judge wrote.

Two years ago, Tan admitted to the B.C. Securities Commission that
she'd fraudulently raised at least $30 million from investors
between 2011 and 2015. She agreed to a $3-million penalty, but as
of November 2018, had yet to pay.

Her husband, Patrick, and their adult son, Marcus, allegedly helped
her raise the money. Jastram's suit says they repeated her lies
about a non-existent investment opportunity and hid what was really
happening.

Six related companies are also named as defendants in the suit.

A 'very safe' investment

The class action alleges the elder Tans diverted the ill-gotten
money to their son, and used it to purchase homes and other assets
in his name or in the name of corporations he directed. That
included six properties in Surrey, 24 in Fort St. John and one on
the Sunshine Coast, according to the judge's decision.

Jastram's director, Lale Doetsch, filed an affidavit saying she met
Virginia Tan during a dinner at the Hollyburn Country Club in the
summer of 2012.

B.C. securities commission receives $4.8M penalty payment from
partners in Ponzi scheme

" Virginia Tan explained to me that she was providing bridge
financing and she only lent money to people she knew who mainly
operated businesses that were waiting to get paid for government
jobs they had done," the affidavit says.

"She said she had virtually no clients who defaulted and because of
that the investments were very safe."

Altogether, Jastram invested $6.6 million with the Tans but only
received $1.8 million in returns, the suit says.

According to her settlement agreement with the BCSC, Tan took the
money in exchange for promissory notes, pledging to repay the
investments within time frames ranging from one month to two years,
at annualized rates of between 16 and 21 per cent.

When the terms in those notes expired, many of the targets renewed
their investments in exchange for new promissory notes.

"Since Tan earned no business income, she made interest and
principal payments to investors with funds raised from other
investors," the agreement says. "Tan also co-mingled a relatively
small amount of her personal funds with investor funds in her bank
accounts, and used these accounts to make payments to investors."

B.C. man who defrauded former Google exec gets house arrest
By late 2015, she was out of money, and could no longer make the
phoney interest payments.

Jastram hired a forensic accounting firm last year to look into the
Tans' operations, and their researchers found the scheme was
"characteristic of and consistent with both the formal definition
as well as an authoritative description of a Ponzi Scheme," the
judgment says.

Virginia and Patrick Tan were forced into bankruptcy in 2016. They
are the subject of multiple other lawsuits, some of which may be
joined into the class action.

The allegations in the suit have not been proven in court. [GN]


VISA INC: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in EMV Chip Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the Plaintiffs in the EMV Chip Liability
Shift, filed a renewed motion for class certification on July 16,
2018, following an earlier denial of the motion without prejudice.


Plaintiffs' renewed motion was terminated without prejudice to
reinstatement on October 17, 2018, but was subsequently reinstated
and is currently pending.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


VISALUS INC: Faces $925MM Damages in Robocall Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that an Oregon federal jury handed down a verdict in
a certified class action that could subject health supplement
marketer ViSalus to $925 million in robocall damages. [GN]

The case is LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-1857-SI (D. Or.).


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Chaves Hits Discrimination, Illegal Discharge
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa M. Chaves, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00847, (M.D. Fla., May 3, 2019), seeks damages and injunctive
relief for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. operates Walmart Supercenter Store in
Ocoee, Florida where Chaves worked as a full-time, hourly-paid
department manager. Chaves is Puerto Rican by birth and claims to
be harassed and discriminated because of her Hispanic ethnicity,
mocking her accent, assigning her to the night shift most of the
time and intentionally altering her clock-in time to make her
appear late. She developed hypertension and filed for leave. She
was eventually terminated for "excessive" absenteeism from her
illness. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALMART: Pontiac Retirees Set to Get Settlement Payout
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Laitner, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that it was
2012 when a pint-sized David north of Detroit took on a well-known
Goliath in Arkansas.

Their epic struggle ended. Contrary to early predictions, a federal
court in Arkansas approved a deal welcomed by David -- that is, the
puny City of Pontiac General Employees Union Pension Fund.

After a seven-year slug fest in and out of court, Pontiac's
pensioners achieved a favorable settlement in a lawsuit over stock
prices against the world's largest retailer, Walmart.

These 1,200 retirees of city government in Pontiac, who live on
modest pensions, have yet to receive official notification. And
their joint nest egg of about $500 million soon will get merely a
modest infusion of perhaps $20,000 or $30,000 -- the amount has yet
to be calculated, their California lawyers say. But that's just a
fraction of the total payout that retired city unionists in Pontiac
have extracted from Walmart, on behalf of countless others
nationwide and still more folks around the world.

Under a settlement approved by a judge, Walmart is on the hook for
a daunting $160 million. That sum that will go to make whole not
only the Pontiac retirees but every Walmart stockholder across the
nation and around the world who was cheated when investors were
misled in a 2011 Walmart report to investors, according to
allegations in the court filings. The report white-washed a massive
bribery scandal by Walmart in Mexico, according to a review of the
allegations by U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey in the Western
District of Arkansas.

Asked to comment, Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove, from the
company's headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, said. "There's
really not much we're saying other than we're pleased with the
final approval of this settlement." Under the settlement, "there
was no decision on the merits of the case," Hargrove added, in an
email.

Walmart had slightly more to say back in October, after the two
sides reached a preliminary agreement to settle the lawsuit. At
that time, Walmart Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Karen Roberts said: "We are pleased both sides could reach a
resolution that ends this litigation. Years ago, we began making
investments that have established a leading, comprehensive,
worldwide ethics and compliance program for our business."

The dollar amount of the recovery per share of stock won't be a
windfall. It will vary from shareholder to shareholder, according
to the prices they paid to buy the stock during a specific period.
Investors who qualify will get back only what they lost, attorneys
said. Still, the legal settlement put a big smile on Pontiac's
former mayor, Walter Moore, 73, chairman of the city workers'
pension fund. Moore said he's proud that the city's pensioners
stood up to Walmart on behalf of numerous stockholders.

"We in the public employee plans -- we have to take on these big
companies because if we don't, nobody will," Moore said, over a
salad in downtown Pontiac.

Judge had a big stick

Moore has followed the twists and turns of the complex case, and he
said he's grateful to the federal judge in Western District of
Arkansas:

"She was amazing. She was soft-spoken but carried a big stick, you
know?"

The settlement is poised to benefit thousands of Walmart
stockholders across the nation -- individuals as well as many
pension funds, large and small -- who as plaintiffs had charged
they'd been cheated by the retailing behemoth, said San Diego
attorney Jason Forge, one of nine lawyers from three law firms who
argued on behalf of Walmart investors in the class-action lawsuit.

The Pontiac pensioners were the lead plaintiffs, suing "on behalf
of all others similarly situated," according to the lawsuit.

"There were many different class members, but Pontiac stepped up
and represented everyone," said Forge, who grew up in Farmington
Hills and attended law school at the University of Michigan.

"They said, 'On behalf of everybody who bought high and sold low,
we want to sue to recover those losses.' So this was for pensioners
across the entire country," he said.

As is typical in class actions, Forge and his colleagues spent
years on the case without pay or any reimbursement for expenses,
all the while hoping for a share of a big settlement. They'll get
it. The three firms fighting for Pontiac's pensioners and for
countless other stockholders would've earned nothing if their side
had lost. Now they and the consultants they hired will share in a
$48-million payday, Forge said.

He said owners of Walmart stock should be grateful to Pontiac's
former mayor, who steadfastly nudged the pension fund's board
members into suing.

"If it wasn't for the Walter Moores of the world, a lot of
individual shareholders would suffer in situations like this. The
government doesn't get the job done in these cases. It's really up
to the courts to expose these situations and punish corruption,"
said Forge, who signed key briefs in the case on behalf of his law
firm– Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego. Meanwhile, an
investigation of Walmart by federal authorities is grinding slowly
on with no end in sight, he said.

Blue vests and bribes

In the long-running securities class-action lawsuit just settled,
which will be known to generations of future law school students as
City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., the small union pension plan represented any
individual or group anywhere that bought "or otherwise acquired"
Walmart stock between December 8, 2011, and April 20, 2012.

Walmart in 2018 was listed by Forbes magazine as the world's
largest company, both in revenues -- more than $500 billion -- and
in staff size, with 2.2 million employees.

According the judge's Report and Recommendation, the company
apparently loomed large in unethical dealings too. First, that
judge's report reiterated the lawsuit's allegations: that Walmart
was guilty of years of corruption, as it spread about $24 million
in bribes across Mexico so that it could rapidly overcome zoning
and political hurdles to become in short order Mexico's biggest
retailer. Then, after the bribes came to the attention of Walmart's
top executives, emails showed that company brass covered up the
illegal deals for years, according to the allegations.

Finally, just when the retailer's to management learned that the
New York Times would soon expose the bribery, after a former
Walmart executive tipped off a reporter, Walmart -- instead of
coming clean with investors -- filed false statements about the
corruption with the Securities and Exchange Commission that misled
countless investors, according to the New York Times' account. The
result? Investors, including many pension funds, bought the stock
when it was priced above $60 and then saw it drop about 5%
immediately after the New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning
article came out in April 2012, the lawsuit goes on to charge.

As seems to occur often in complex legal cases, the initial
wrong-doing was not so much the stumbling block for this particular
Goliath. Instead, it was the subsequent cover-up of the corruption
that made humongous Walmart vulnerable to the legal slings of a
small pension fund situated 30 miles north of Detroit.

Still, the little guys took on a giant in federal court and came
out smiling. The hope and promise behind this case were enough to
draw the attention not only of the New York Times but also from
numerous financial publications.

News stories about the historic settlement helpful to the Pontiac
pension fund and to many other Walmart investors splashed Walter
Moore's name and references to Pontiac onto numerous legal and
stock-watching websites, from Yahoo Finance to Law360.com, as well
as into the pages of the New York Times.

The financial outcome, but even more the moral victory of Pontiac's
pensioners, "makes me feel so good," Moore said. [GN]


WEINSTEIN CO: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Geiss RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUISETTE GEISS et al., Plaintiffs. v. THE WEINSTEIN
COMPANY HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 9554
(AKH) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.

The action by 10 Plaintiffs -- Zoe Brock, Caitlin Dulany, Louisette
Geiss, Larissa Gomes, Katherine Kendall, Nannette Klatt, Melissa
Sagemiller, Sarah Ann Thomas, Melissa Thompson, and Jane Doe --
individually and on behalf of a class, against Harvey Weinstein,
his former companies, and certain officers and directors of those
companies, charges that H. Weinstein sexually harassed and
assaulted them between 1993 and 2011, and that the other defendants
knew of, facilitated, and covered up his misconduct.

The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on Dec. 6, 2017.  The
Defendants moved to dismis.  The Court held oral argument on Sept.
12, 2018.  It dismissed the complaint with leave to replead and
ordered that the two related cases -- the Geiss class action,
involving the TWC Subclass, and the Dulany class action, involving
the Miramax Subclass, then under docket no. 18 Civ. 4857 -- proceed
together via one amended complaint.  

The Plaintiffs filed the FAC on Oct. 31, 2018.  The FAC contains 18
counts, including four federal claims for violations of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") (Counts I and II) and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") (Counts
V and VI), and fourteen state claims for negligent supervision and
retention (Counts III and IV), battery (Counts VII and VIII),
assault (Counts IX and X), false imprisonment (Counts XI and XII),
intentional infliction of emotional distress (Counts XIII and XIV),
negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts XV and XVI), and
ratification (Counts XVII and XVIII).

The state law claims fall into two categories: (i) allegations
against Miramax Film NY, LLC; The Walt Disney Co., Disney
Enterprises, Inc., Buena Vista International, Inc.; and certain
officers of these companies, for conduct occurring before Sept. 30,
2005; and (ii) allegations against The Weinstein Co. Holdings, LLC
("TWC") and certain officers and directors of TWC for conduct
occurring after Sept. 30, 2005.

Irwin Reiter, a Vice President at Miramax and then TWC, was
dismissed from the lawsuit on Dec. 13, 2018.

The Defendants again moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court
held oral argument on those motions on March 13, 2019.

Judge Hellerstein (i) denied Harvey Weinstein's motion to dismiss
the TWC Subclass's TVPA claim (Count I), and (ii) dismissed all
other claims against all other Defendants (Counts II - XVIII).  The
Judge finds that the TVPA participation claims (Count II) fail to
allege receipt of a benefit from participation in sex trafficking,
the RICO claims (Counts V and VI) fail to allege injury to business
or property caused by a RICO violation, and the state law claims
(Counts III, IV, VII - XVIII) are untimely under the applicable
statutes of limitations.

Accordingly, the Miramax Subclass has no remaining claims, there
are no remaining claims against any of the Corporate Defendants,
and no remaining claims against any of the Individual Defendants,
except Count I against Harvey Weinstein.  Jane Doe's state law
claims are dismissed without prejudice.  All other dismissals are
with prejudice.

The Clerk will terminate the open motions (ECF Nos. 199, 239, 241,
246, 254, and 272).  The remaining parties will appear for a status
conference on June 4, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order and Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/0lKEba from Leagle.com.

Louisette Geiss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Katherine Kendall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Zoe Brock, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Sara Ann Thomas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Melissa Sagemiller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Nannette Klatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan --
beth@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert Bruce
Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, LLP,
Shelby Smith -- shelbys@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Whitney K. Siehl, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Jason Allen Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Jane Doe, Nannette May, Melissa Thompson, Caitlin Dulany & Larissa
Gomes, Plaintiffs, represented by Whitney K. Siehl, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by
Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Karen Yasmine Bitar -- kbitar@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Lorie Elizabeth Almon -- lalmon@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Lynn A. Kappelman -- lkappelman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP & Scott Roblan Rabe -- srabe@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP.

Miramax Film NY, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura R.
Washington, Latham & Watkins LLP & Marvin S. Putnam, Latham &
Watkins LLP.

Harvey Weinstein, Defendant, represented by Phyllis Kupferstein,
Kupferstein Manuel LLP, Brian Pete, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP & Elior Daniel Shiloh, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Robert Weinstein, Defendant, represented by Abigail Flynn Coster,
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Barry A. Bohrer, Schulte Roth & Zabel
LLP, Brian Theodore Kohn, Schulte, Roth & Zabel LLP & Gary Stein,
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.


WINN MGMT: Uncashed Funds Distribution to Legal Aid at Work Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM GOODWIN, Plaintiff, v. WINN MANAGEMENT GROUP,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00606-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California granted the parties' joint stipulation to distribute
uncashed funds to cy pres recipient Legal Aid at Work.

On Feb. 23, 2018, the Court granted final approval of the class
action and FLSA settlement reached in the case.  According to the
parties, the unclaimed funds resulting from the settlement in the
matter total $3,162.51.

On March 12, 2019, the Court-appointed Settlement Administrator,
CPT Group, Inc., informed the counsel that the California
Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") would not accept the
unclaimed wage claim funds because the funds collected and sent
were not investigated by the DIR and because the amounts due to
workers were not confirmed by the DIR.

Because the DIR will not accept the unclaimed funds, the parties
have identified Legal Aid at Work as the alternate cy pres
recipient of those unclaimed funds.  The parties represent to the
Court that Legal Aid at Work operates several free legal clinics
and helplines that were specifically created to provide direct,
individualized help to workers across California.  These clinics
include: Workers' Rights Clinic, Workers' Disability Law Clinic,
and Wage Claim Clinic.  They also represent that naming Legal Aid
at Work as the cy pres recipient will account for the nature of the
instant lawsuit, which alleged unpaid overtime and penalties, the
objectives of the underlying statute, and the interests of the
silent class members.

Based on this information provided by the parties, Judge Drozd is
satisfied that Legal Aid at Work is an appropriate cy pres
recipient of the unclaimed funds in the case.
  Accordingly, he granted the parties' joint stipulation to
distribute uncashed funds to cy pres recipient Legal Aid at Work.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XarSLa from Leagle.com.

Adam Goodwin, individually and individually on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Malk
-- mm@malklawfirm.com -- Michael Malk, Esq., Apc.

Winn Management Group LLC, a Massachusetts Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Jacobs --
mjacobs@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLC & Shaun Jordan
Voigt -- svoigt@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP.


ZALE DELAWARE: Leos Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CAROLINA LEOS, on behalf of herself and others
similar situated, Plaintiff, v. ZALE DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34
2019-00253281 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Sacramento to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 9,
2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00363.

Plaintiff's Complaint asserts six causes of action: Failure to pay
overtime wages at the legally required rate in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's ("IWC") Wage
Orders; Failure to pay meal and rest break premiums at the legally
required rate in violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the IWC Wage
Orders; Failure to pay minimum wage or overtime pay for all hours
worked in violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the IWC Wage Orders;
Failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to timely pay unpaid wages due
at time of separation of employment in violation of Cal. Lab.; and
Unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
     Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
     MCGUIREWOODS LLP
     1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 315-8200
     Fax: (310) 315-8210
     Email: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
            abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com

          - and -

     Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
     Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 844-9944
     Fax: (415) 844-9922
     Email: skim@mcguirewoods.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Legal Action Over Co-Marketing Program
----------------------------------------------------------
NewsOK.com reports that Zillow is back in hot water: A class-action
suit against the online realty giant is moving forward after
insider whistleblowers alleged that the company designed its
controversial "co-marketing" program to violate federal
anti-kickback laws.

Zillow termed the charges "without merit" and says it intends to
"vigorously defend" itself.

Best known to the general public for its Zestimates
property-valuation feature, Zillow is a multibillion-dollar,
publicly traded behemoth whose principal revenues come from
advertising placed by realty agents.

So-called "premier" agents and brokers, who receive prominent
placement on Zillow-listed home sites, pay hundreds or thousands of
dollars a month in advertising fees to the company. Premier agents
need not be the highest-volume or most successful agents in their
area; they simply need to pay for the label.

Zillow earned nearly $900 million, two-thirds of its corporate
revenue, in fees from agents paying for ads last year, according to
the company's latest filing with the Securities & Exchange
Commission.

In 2013, Zillow rolled out a program whereby realty agents could
have large portions of their advertising fees paid for by lenders
who share advertising costs with them. Buyers interested in a
particular property could then contact not only an agent but a
lender to shepherd them through the financing process.

The idea proved wildly popular among agents and lenders. For paying
part of an agent's Zillow advertising fees -- initially up to a
maximum of 90 percent, later revised to 50 percent -- a lender
could get hot leads directly to active buyers. For realty agents,
the attraction was obvious. Hey, why not? Lenders will subsidize my
costs.

However, a federal law known as RESPA -- the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act -- prohibits payment of fees for business referrals
among realty, mortgage and title industry providers that are not
for services actually rendered. In April 2017, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau informed Zillow that it was
investigating whether its co-marketing program violated the law's
prohibition against kickbacks.

Zillow negotiated with the CFPB, but last year, after the Trump
administration appointed a new CFPB director, the agency abruptly
dropped the case.

Meanwhile, investors who said they purchased Zillow stock at
inflated prices relying on company executives' statements that its
co-marketing concept did not violate federal law filed a
class-action suit alleging securities fraud. A district court judge
later dismissed portions of the suit but allowed the plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint if they presented conclusive evidence
that the co-marketing scheme violated RESPA.

They appear to have done so successfully, at least enough to
convince a federal district court judge to put the case back on
track. Last November, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint,
bolstered by testimony from two unnamed Zillow insiders.

The first: a regional sales manager for the company who alleged
that lenders participated in the program because they "expected
real estate agents to refer business." The second: a sales and
operations trainer who alleged that "every agent and lender knew
that the co-marketing program was for the lender to get leads and
referrals. ... It was understood that lenders were paying for
referrals."

Whenever the second insider "spoke to Zillow about potential
concerns with the co-marketing program," she was told "not to ask
questions," according to the court. She also alleged that she knew
of a lender who had been paying 100 percent of a realty agent's
fees for 2.5 years. Both whistleblowers provided "consistent
testimony regarding how agents and lenders used the (program) to
provide mortgage referrals in exchange for advertising payments,"
according to the court.

In his decision, which was handed down April 19, Judge John C.
Coughenour, of the U.S. district court in Seattle, said "the court
can draw a reasonable inference that Zillow designed the
co-marketing program to allow agents to provide referrals to
lenders in violation of RESPA."

Asked for his take on the case, Marx Sterbcow, Esq. --
marx@yourrealestatelawyer.com -- a nationally known RESPA lawyer
based in New Orleans, told me "the court certainly seems to suggest
there is a lot of smoke involving the legality of Zillow's"
program. If the whistleblowers' allegations are correct, he said,
"it could cause (mortgage companies) and banks to pull completely
out" of the program, for fear of violating RESPA themselves, and
being exposed to major legal jeopardy.

The significance for buyers, sellers and owners? The case is still
out on the alleged federal law violations, but now when you see
"premier" agents linked up in marketing efforts with lenders, you
have a better idea about what's really going on.[GN]


[*] Carlton Says Class Action Defense Spending Continues to Rise
----------------------------------------------------------------
The eighth annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey reveals a
continuing rise in class action defense spending, driven by more
matters per company facing these cases, and, collectively, more
complex, high risk, and bet-the-company matters than ever reported
in past surveys. In total, companies spent $2.46 billion defending
class actions in 2018 and spending and the number of class actions
defended by company are expected to increase again in 2019.

It was the fourth consecutive annual rise in spending after
steadily decreasing expenditures from 2010 to 2014. The number of
companies that reported facing class actions in 2018 dropped
slightly to 54%, but the average number of matters per company
increased from 6.3 in 2017 to 7.8 in 2018.

The 2019 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is based on interviews
with general counsel or senior legal officers at 395 Fortune 1000
and other large companies across a variety of industries.

The survey found that labor and employment cases remain the most
common type of class action, accounting for 28.7% of matters and
26.1% of spending. In the past five years, nearly two-thirds of
companies have faced at least one labor and employment class action
and, overwhelmingly, companies report that wage and hour matters
are their top concern in this category.

"As predicted, class action defense spending rose again in 2018 and
this is likely to continue through 2019," said
Julianna McCabe, director of Carlton Fields' Class Action Survey
and chair of the firm's National Class Actions practice group. "As
the resources and financing available to pursue these costly
matters have become increasingly available, the volume and
complexity of the class actions filed continues to rise. In-house
legal departments are dedicating significant resources to these
cases and relying on outside counsel for help in making early
assessments of their win-loss probabilities, among other factors."

While most companies have not yet faced a data privacy class
action, survey results show that they predict these cases as the
next wave. The percentage of companies making such a prediction
nearly doubled from last year's survey, increasing from 28.9% to
54.3%. Eighty-six percent of companies have an action plan in place
to address and limit the impact of a data breach, including class
action exposure.

Nearly 9% of companies identified collective actions under the
European Union's new privacy regulation (the GDPR) as a next wave,
a significant enough number that it was reported separately in the
survey. Approximately two-thirds of companies reported concern
stateside, about the impending California Consumer Privacy Act.

Among additional key findings:

   -- Companies increased their use of contractual arbitration
clauses in 2018, and the percentage of companies that included
class action waivers in their arbitration agreements increased to
near 50%. More companies now use arbitration clauses that bar class
actions than in any previous survey.

   -- Exposure, win probability, the relevant case law and facts,
and reputational impact were the class action risk variables
companies ranked as most important, and more than 95% of companies
report relying on outside counsel for an early assessment of
win-loss probability.

   -- Increasingly, companies facing class actions employ a
case-by-case approach to class action management, 53.2% reporting
that they defend at the right cost, assessing each case separately.
Only 10.6% say they prefer to settle such matters early, while
21.3% take an aggressive stance and 14.9% employ a "defend at all
costs" strategy.

   -- Still, cases filed as class actions are most often resolved
by settlement, with 53.1% of companies reporting that settlements
typically occur pre-certification. Thirty-nine percent of matters
filed as class actions are settled on an individual basis.

   -- Companies are taking notice of the impact of the political
climate in Washington on their management of class actions, with
23.5% of companies reporting that it affects regulatory oversight
and involvement relevant to class actions.

   -- The use of alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) in class
actions declined slightly in 2018. More companies identified fixed
fees as a successful type of AFA for class actions than any other
type of arrangement.

   -- Finally, while most companies have not seen a reduction in
class action discovery costs as a result of the federal
proportionality standard, companies employ a host of strategies to
control electronic discovery costs: among others, the aggressive
negotiation of reasonable search terms; the use of a single
e-discovery vendor; and the filing of motions to stay or for
cost-shifting.

The Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is widely recognized as a
powerful resource for in-house counsel who want to manage class
actions effectively and efficiently. Participating companies in the
2019 survey had an average annual revenue of $14.8 billion and
median annual revenue of $6.7 billion. They operate in more than 25
industries, including banking and financial services, consumer
goods, energy, high tech, insurance, manufacturing,
pharmaceuticals, professional services, and retail trade.

To download the 2019 Carlton Fields Class Action report, please
visit www.classactionsurvey.com.

                      About Carlton Fields

Carlton Fields -- http://www.carltonfields.com-- has more than 300
attorneys and government and financial services consultants serving
clients from offices in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. The firm is known for
its national litigation practice, including class action defense,
trial practice, white-collar representation, and high-stakes
appeals; its insurance practice, including life and financial
lines, property and casualty, reinsurance, and title insurance; its
regulatory practice; and its handling of sophisticated business
transactions and corporate counseling for domestic and
international clients. (Carlton Fields practices law in California
through Carlton Fields, LLP.) [GN]


[*] U.S. Chamber Institute Calls for TCPA Class Action Reform
-------------------------------------------------------------
ACA International disclosed that a new video released by the U.S.
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform discusses the importance of
updating the antiquated Telephone Consumer Protection Act so that
it is more reflective of real-world, modern technology and no
longer serves as a vehicle for frivolous lawsuits.

"What's worse than getting a call or text from a spammer? How about
trial lawyers who make tens of millions of dollars off everyone's
misery?" the message states.

Additionally, unclaimed money from class action lawsuits is often
awarded to interest groups, which give those advocates another
(monetary) reason to fight for a broad definition of an auto
dialer.

Due to the importance of open communication between businesses and
consumers in the methods they prefer and the impact of the TCPA
requirements on legitimate callers, ACA International continues to
advocate with the FCC and Congress for a clear interpretation of
the law, definition of an autodialer and compliance expectations
that will prevent frivolous class action litigation. The FCC must
act to clarify its interpretations of the TCPA as directed by the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) after the decision in
ACA Int'l v. FCC. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***