---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 16, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 12

                            Headlines

AC OCEAN WALK: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New Jersey
ACCOUNT SERVICES: Traylor Sues over Debt Collection Practices
ADF MIDATLANTIC: Appeals Decision in Keim TCPA Suit to 11th Cir.
ADVANCED CALL: Israel Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Perry Suit

AMERICOLLECT INC: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit
APHRIA INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
APHRIA INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over iPhone Pixel Count
AR RESOURCES: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Kassin FDCPA Suit

AUSTRALIA: Live Cattle Export Class Action Waits on Judgment
BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC: Sued for Overpaid Property Taxes
BIPI NORTHERN: Ankit Sapra Seeks Unpaid Overtime
BOARDWALK 1000: Breeze Suit Asserts Civil Rights Violation
BOEING: Workers' Party Class Action Blocks Embraer Merger

CANADA: ENvironnement JEUnesse Files Climate Change Class Action
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Good Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Penn.
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Katz Files Suit Under FDCPA in NY
CHEETAH MOBILE: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
CHRISTAL & SMITH: Garrett Sues Over FDCPA Violation

CHRYSLER: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Cybersecurity Case
CITIGROUP INC: Mintz Attorneys Discuss TCPA Class Action Ruling
CORNING INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Read Suit
CROWN ASSET: Chambers Files Class Suit, Seeks Damages
CURO GROUP: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit

EDISON HOME: Sued Over Use of Captive Insurance Companies
EL BADIA: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FEDEX GROUND: Denial of Cond. Class Cert. Bid in Nelson Recommended
FLAGSHIP RESORT: Breeze Says Website Not ADAAG Compliant
FLORIDA FIRST: Court Narrows Documents Production in Cooper

FLORIDA: Bilal Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
FUTURE US: Web Site Not Accessible to Deaf Users, Sullivan Claims
G&K SERVICES: Settlement in Hoffman Suit Has Prelim Approval
GFE DISTRIBUTION: Flores Sues Over FLSA, Wage & Hour Law Violation
GLOBAL TEL: Garson Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy

GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Furman Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for BMs
HUAZHU GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action Suit
HUMANA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Under FLSA, Indian Says
IKEA: Quebec Court Authorizes Class Action Over Furniture Recall
ILLINOIS: DCFS Sued Over Foster Youth Psychiatric Program

IN-N-OUT BURGERS: Victor Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Wages
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
INUVO INC: Akerman Seeks to Enjoin Vote on ConversionPoint Merger
IOOF: Class Action Lawyers Considering a Class Action
ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Yom Kippur War Loans

JELD-WEN INC: Settlement in Crane Wage Suit Has Prelim Approval
JPAY INC: Reyes Files Appeal vs. USDC-CALA in 9th Circuit
KING COUNTY, WA: Petition for Writ in Moore Suit Due Feb. 7
KIRCHHOFF AUTOMOTIVE: Green Sues Over Time-Shaving Practices
LA-Z-BOY INC: Vasquez Sues Over False Ad

LG&E: Residents Near Coal Plant Seeking Class Action Lawsuit
LINDENHURST, NY Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Street Flooding
LOMA NEGRA: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
MARK HJELLE: Court Narrows Claims in RICO Suit
MARRIOTT INT'L: Emerson Has Ongoing Class Action Lawsuit Probe

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Suit Alleges Negligence
MDL 2626: Alcon Appeals Ruling in Contact Lens Antitrust Suit
MOINIAN LLC: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Breach
MONARCH RECOVERY: Smith Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NAVIHEALTH INC: Fetterolf Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

NEVADA GOLD: Faces Fuller Suit Over Maverick Merger Deal
NISSAN MOTOR: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
NY RESTAURANT STAFFING: Arcos Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
OHM CONCESSION: Komorskiv Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
OLDCASTLE BUILDING: Walton et al. Seek Overtime Wages

OPERATING ENGINEERS: Appeals Ruling in Furwa Suit to 6th Cir.
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Brady Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
PAULS VALLEY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Sgarlata PSLRA Suit
PAYTIME INC: U.S. Judge Weighing Settlement of Lawsuit

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Suit Over Misleading Ad for Texas Toasts
PG&E CORPORATION: Borders Suit Seeks Damages Over Camp Fire
RE FLORIDA: Violates Privacy Rights Under TCPA, Edelsberg Alleges
ROYAL CUP: McDaniel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SC JOHNSON: Crespo Files Suit Over Product's False Ad

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Court Narrows Claims in UACs' Suit
SIBANYE GOLD: Court Consolidates PSLRA Actions in Brandel
SILVER DOLLAR: Court Grants Arbitration in Hill-Smith FLSA Suit
SIRIS CAPITAL: Szoke Sues D&Os over Merger Deal with Mavenir
SITEL OPERATING: Foster Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

SM ENERGY: Court Effectuates Severance of Released Claims
SONIA HOSPITALITY: Breeze Files Civil Rights Violation Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Huntsman Suit Asserts USERRA Violation
STATE FARM: $250MM Settlement in Hale Has Final Court Approval
SWF FOOD: Franco Sues Over Retaliation and Unpaid OT Under FLSA

TELADOC HEALTH: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
TELADOC HEALTH: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
TIGER BRANDS: Cooperates With Class Action Lawsuit
TRI-STATE AREA MOVING: Gaddy Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TTEC HEALTHCARE: Beattie Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

UNITED STATES: Judge Hints Travel Ban Class Action Will Advance
UNITED STATES: Law360 Reviews Most Consequential 2018 Rulings
UNITED STATES: Looks to Deport Vietnamese Immigrants Amid Suit
VENDRITE VENDING: Ambrosecchia Seeks to Recoup Unlawful Deductions
VERIFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Gray Sues Over Storage of Biometric Info

WASHINGTON: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Danielson Class Suit
WASHINGTON: Summary Judgment vs Former SEIU Members Affirmed
[*] ILR Comments on New EU Collective Action Directive
[*] NHTSA Urged to Conduct Probe Amid Exploding Sunroof Suits
[*] Rise in Employment Class Actions Set to Continue in Australia


                            *********

AC OCEAN WALK: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AC Ocean Walk LLC.
The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AC Ocean Walk LLC, a
New Jersey limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00107 (D. N.J., January 4, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as a violations of
civil rights.

AC Ocean Walk LLC provides casino gaming and gambling services. The
Company offers its services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ERIK MATHEW BASHIAN, Esq.
   BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
   500 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 302
   GARDEN CITY, NE 11530
   Tel: (516) 279-1554
   Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com



ACCOUNT SERVICES: Traylor Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIA TRAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCOUNT SERVICES
COLLECTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03352-B (N.D.
Tex., Dec. 20, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendant's violation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, Account Services on or about July 30,
2018, sent the Plaintiff a debt collection letter. The letter
stated "RE: UTSW MEDICAL CENTER". The letter goes on to state,
"Please be advised that your past due account has been referred to
this office for collection by UTSW MEDICAL CENTER." The Defendant
does, not at any point in time, state the original or current
creditor, the lawsuit says.

Account Services is engaged in the business of a collection agency,
using the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally
owed to others.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

ADF MIDATLANTIC: Appeals Decision in Keim TCPA Suit to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants ADF Midatlantic, LLC, ADF PA, LLC, ADF Pizza I, LLC,
American Huts Inc. and Pizza Hut, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brian Keim v. ADF Midatlantic,
LLC, et al., Case No. 9:12-cv-80577-KAM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 20, 2018, the Hon.
Kenneth A. Marra granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit.

The certified class consists of:

     all persons in the United States who received a text message
     from Defendants wherein their cellular telephone number was
     provided by a third party and said text messages were sent
     using hardware and software owned or licensed to Songwhale
     or Cellit between November 2012 and January 2013.  Excluded
     from the class are all persons who received a text message
     from Defendants wherein their cellular telephone number was
     provided by a subscriber of the calling plan.

The appellate case is captioned as ADF Midatlantic, LLC, et al. v.
Brian Keim, Case No. 18-90034, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent BRIAN KEIM, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Katherine Bowen, Esq.
          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Amy L. Wells, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: kbowen@keoghlaw.com
                  Keith@Keoghlaw.com
                  awells@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Sean Martin Holas, Esq.
          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, PA
          3800 S Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          E-mail: sean@scottdowens.com
                  Scott@ScottDOwens.com

Defendants-Petitioners ADF MIDATLANTIC, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company; AMERICAN HUTS INC., a foreign corporation; ADF
PIZZA I, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ADF PA, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; and PIZZA HUT, INC., a foreign
corporation, are represented by:

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
          BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          333 W Wacker Dr., Suite 1900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212-4949
          E-mail: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com
                  meisen@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jordan Scott Kosches, Esq.
          GrayRobinson, PA
          333 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 3200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-6880
          E-mail: jordan.kosches@gray-robinson.com


ADVANCED CALL: Israel Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Amrom Israel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07407 (E.D.N.Y., December 27, 2018), alleges that
the Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the Defendant's
deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices, which
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC is a "debt collector" with
an address for service in New York.  The Defendant is a company
that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages
in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect
debts alleged to be due another.  The identities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Perry Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andrea Perry filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit styled Andrea Perry v. Allstate Indemnity Company, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01522, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio at Cleveland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 27, 2018, the
District Court issued an Opinion granting the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case.

Ms. Perry filed a class action lawsuit alleging one count of Breach
of Contract against Allstate with the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas.  Ms. Perry's home suffered water damage on June 28,
2015, and she submitted a claim to Allstate requesting coverage.

Ms. Perry seeks to limit the definition of Actual Cash Value (ACV)
to exclude labor and contractor overhead and profit ("CO&P") from
depreciation.  The District Court noted that as used in the policy,
ACV cannot reasonably be interpreted to exclude labor and CO&P from
a depreciation calculation.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrea Perry v. Allstate
Indemnity Company, et al., Case No. 18-4267, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on February 11, 2019; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on March 11, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREA PERRY, individually and on behalf of all
other Ohio residents similarly situated, is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 S. Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY; ALLSTATE PROPERTY
& CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE
VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ENCOMPASS HOME AND AUTO
INSURANCE COMPANY; ENCOMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA;
ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY; ENCOMPASS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
COMPANY; and ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Gregory R. Farkas, Esq.
          FRANTZ WARD LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 3000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 515-1660
          E-mail: gfarkas@frantzward.com


AMERICOLLECT INC: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Voeks, Debbie Lemke and Jeffrey Merkovich move the Court to
certify the classes described in the complaint of their lawsuit
titled JULIE VOEKS, DEBBIE LEMKE, and JEFFREY MERKOVICH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
AMERICOLLECT, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00010-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and
further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant them (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
assert.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


APHRIA INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, disclosed that it
has filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Complaint")
against Aphria Inc. ("Aphria" or the "Company") (NYSE:APHA) and
certain of the Company's officers and directors (collectively, with
Aphria, "Defendants") for violating federal securities laws. If you
purchased Aphria securities between July 17, 2018 and December 4,
2018, you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott attorney at (844)
818-6982 for more information. Prior to November 2, 2018, Aphria
traded on the OTCQB Venture Market exchange under the symbol
"APHQF."

The action, which was filed today in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, asserts claims under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, on
behalf of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their
affiliates, that purchased or otherwise acquired Aphria securities
on U.S. exchanges between July 17, 2018 and December 4, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period") and suffered damages as a result of
the misconduct alleged in the Complaint (the "Class").

Aphria is a global cannabis company based in Canada.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) certain of the
Company's recent Latin American acquisitions were worth far less
than represented; (ii) the Company was engaged in undisclosed
self-dealing; (iii) the quality of Company's cannibus was inferior
to competitors; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, certain of
Aphria's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. On December 3, 2018, Hindenburg Research
released a report, titled "Aphria: A Shell Game with a Cannabis
Business on the Side." According to the report, which was also
released on Seeking Alpha, "Aphria is part of a scheme orchestrated
by a network of insiders to divert funds away from shareholders
into their own pockets." In addition, the report found that
Aphria's recent Latin American acquisitions are suspect, it engages
in undisclosed self-dealing, and its product is inferior.

On this news, the price of Aphria stock fell $3.39, or over 42%,
over the next two trading days.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Aphria stock between July 17, 2018 and December 4,
2018, or you have questions about your legal rights, please contact
attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Aphria investors have until February 4,
2019 to move for lead plaintiff.

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         Telephone: (844) 818-6982
         Email:jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


APHRIA INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Aphria Inc.
("Aphria" or the "Company") (NYSE: APHA and TSX: APHA) securities
between July 17, 2018 and December 4, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Shareholders who purchased shares of Aphria and suffered losses on
either the New York Stock Exchange and/or Toronto Stock Exchange
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Aphria Inc., you may,
no later than February 4, 2019, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Aphria Inc.

The filed complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

the Latin American assets acquired by the Company lacked adequate
licenses to operate and were overvalued;

the acquisition of the Latin American assets would enrich the
Company's CEO and other insiders at the expense of shareholders;
and as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On December 3, 2018, Hindenburg Research released a report, titled
"Aphria: A Shell Game with a Cannabis Business on the Side."

According to the report, which was also released on Seeking Alpha,
"Aphria is part of a scheme orchestrated by a network of insiders
to divert funds away from shareholders into their own pockets." In
addition, the report found that Aphria's recent Latin American
acquisitions are suspect, it engages in undisclosed self-dealing
and its product is inferior.

On this news, the price of Aphria stock fell $3.39, or over 42%,
over the next two trading days.

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone, Esq.
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Telephone: (800) 575-0735
                    (212) 545-4774
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over iPhone Pixel Count
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Peterson, writing for iDrop News, reports that a newly filed
lawsuit is accusing Apple of willfully deceiving consumers about
its OLED iPhone's pixel count -- and the notch.

The suit, which was filed in the Northern District of California on
December 14, alleges that Apple made fraudulent claims about the
display size and pixel count on its iPhone X, iPhone XS and iPhone
XS Max devices.

0The pixel deception is rooted in the misrepresentation of the
Products' screens, which do not use true screen pixels," the
plaintiff's lawyers wrote in the filing, adding that Apple
allegedly misled by "false pixels as if they were true pixels."

The suit claims that this is "in contrast to every other iPhone,"
and alleges that Apple misleads customers into believing its OLED
devices have more pixels and better screen resolution than its
other devices.

Those "false pixels" are essentially pixels that have two or fewer
subpixels. The suit claims that only pixels with red, green and
blue subpixels are "true pixels," while others are not.

It's worth noting that many televisions also display both "false"
and "true" pixels since they can include white subpixels instead of
red, green and blue ones.

The suit also claims that Apple lied about the true screen size of
the iPhone X, which is widely known to have a 5.8-inch display
measured on the diagonal.

According to the filing, the iPhone X's display is "only about
5.6875 inches" because Apple apparently pretended "that the screen
does not have rounded corners" or a sensor cutout.

Those aren't the only issues brought up in the filing, either. The
suit goes on to allege that Apple uses deceptive marketing —
specifically, wallpapers — to mislead consumers about the
existence of the notch on newer iPhones.

Basically, the lawsuit claims that the black portions of those
wallpapers have been intentionally included to hide the notch on
the iPhone XS and XS Max. The filing says that those images lead
one of the plaintiffs to believe that the iPhone XS Max she ordered
did not have a notch.

Of course, it may be a stretch to say that someone had no idea the
"notch" existed. The tech community made a fuss about the design
decision after the iPhone X's launch, and there are prominent
images in Apple's site depicting both the iPhone XS and XS Max with
a notch.

Christian Sponchiado and Courtney Davis are named as the plaintiffs
in the suit, which is being represented by the law offices of David
A. Makman. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status.

The complaint is asking for Apple to stop its alleged deceptive
practices, as well as damage payments for anyone participating in
the class action.

It's worth noting that the lawsuit isn't very likely to make it to
trial. Instead, Apple will probably seek to get it tossed out or
settle it out of court. The full suit is available to view here
(via Business Insider's Kif Leswing).[GN]


AR RESOURCES: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Kassin FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
in the case captioned RAFAEL KASSIN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. AR RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant. Civ. Action No. 16-4171 (FLW). (D.N.J.), and denying
Defendant debt-collection agency AR Resources, Inc. (ARR), move for
summary judgment.

The Plaintiff received a debt collection letter from ARR in an
attempt to collect a debt. Subsequent to the receipt of the debt
collection letter, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint, in which he
alleges that the letter is in violation of two separate sections of
the FDCPA, i.e., Section 1692g and Section 1692e.

Section 1692g

Relevant here, debt collectors must comply with the debt validation
provisions of Section 1692g, which were designed to guarantee that
consumers would receive adequate notice of their rights under the
FDCPA.

Specifically, Section 1692g(a) provides that, within five days
after an initial communication with a consumer in connection with
the collection of any debt, a debt collector must send the consumer
a written letter containing a validation notice with the following
information:

(1) the amount of the debt (2) the name of the creditor to whom the
debt is owed (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within
thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of
the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be
valid by the debt collector (4) a statement that if the consumer
notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period
that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt
collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a
judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or
judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector
and(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within
the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer
with the name and address of the original creditor, if different
from the current creditor.

Here, the Defendant argues that additional cases have been decided
since my ruling on the motion to dismiss that would change the
outcome of the legal questions previously resolved. But, before the
Court delve into the Defendant's arguments in that regard, the
Court notes that ARR had made identical contentions, and cited to
the same authorities, in a substantially similar FDCPA case before
me, Morello v. AR Res., Inc., No. 17-13706, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
138713 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2018).

Indeed, Morello involved similar insurance language in a
debt-collection letter sent by ARR to a different consumer. Having
considered Defendant's arguments in Morello, the Court rejected
them on ARR's motion to dismiss. Because those same arguments are
being presented here, again, to promote judicial economy, the Court
will incorporate, where appropriate, my Morello decision in this
matter.

While the Court acknowledge that the case before me presents a
close call, and appreciate the distinction that these courts have
drawn between disputing a debt and resolving a debt, under the
relevant standard, the Court finds that the insurance language in
this case is so closely related to disputing a debt that it could
mislead the least sophisticated debtor into foregoing his or her
statutory right to effectively dispute a debt, i.e., in written
form.

Indeed, to hold otherwise would undermine the least sophisticated
debtor standard altogether, by failing to protect those most
susceptible to the harms that Congress intended to prevent in
enacting the FDCPA. Viewed from this perspective, this Court
declines to impose on the least sophisticated debtor the obligation
to draw a narrow legal distinction between resolving and disputing
a debt. The court found that the least sophisticated debtor could
reasonably interpret language inviting a call in the event of any
discrepancy as providing that a dispute may be submitted by phone,
here, it does not require a bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretation
of the insurance language to find that the least sophisticated
debtor could read the same as providing that, where the debtor
believes his or her insurance carrier was liable for the debt, such
a dispute may be submitted by phone, rather than in writing.

Thus, the Court rejects the Defendant's argument as inconsistent
with the least sophisticated debtor standard hat the disputed
language is susceptible to only one interpretation.

In sum, while deciphering the sophistication level of a debtor is
an inherently difficult task, at a minimum, the Court finds that
language inviting a debtor to call the debt collector if another
party (i.e., his or her insurance carrier) is liable for all or a
portion of the debt obligation, rather than the debtor personally,
could mislead that debtor into foregoing his or her statutory right
to dispute a debt.

Accordingly, because the Court finds that the insurance language
contradicts the required language in the validation notice,
Plaintiff has proved that Defendant violated Section 1692g of the
FDCPA as a matter of law. In that regard, summary judgment is
entered in favor of Plaintiff on this claim.

Section 1692e

The Plaintiff also brings a claim under Section 1692e. Section
1692e(10) prohibits debt collectors from using any false
representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect
any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. The Third
Circuit has instructed that, when allegations under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e(10) are based on the same language or theories as
allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, the analysis of the
Section 1692g claim is usually dispositive. In that regard, because
the Court finds that the debt collection, by including the
insurance coverage language, violated Section 1692g, Defendant has,
therefore, also violated Section 1692e(10).

Summary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff on this claim, as
well.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbonsn9 from Leagle.com.

RAFAEL KASSIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC.

AR RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, represented by MARK RICHARD FISCHER,
JR. -- mfischer@highswartz.com -- HIGH SWARTZ LLP.


AUSTRALIA: Live Cattle Export Class Action Waits on Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Shan Goodwin, writing for North Queensland Register, reports that
the waiting game now begins for a ruling in the the landmark class
action claim against the Commonwealth Government over the infamous
2011 Indonesian live cattle export ban.

The Northern Territory's Brett Cattle Company are lead litigants in
the legal action that is seeking to prove misfeasance in former
Labor Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig's decision to suspend the
live cattle trade to Indonesia for up to six months in mid-2011.

The minister's decision came in response to unprecedented public
backlash ignited by dramatic television footage of animal cruelty
filmed by animal activists in Indonesia abattoirs.

The Federal Court has this month heard evidence of detriment in the
second phase of the case, following the liability hearing in June.

The applicant's case centred around losses borne by Brett Cattle
Company.

In order to prove loss and damage, the legal team for the
applicants contested there were two counter scenarios that
existed.

The first was a control order where the flow of cattle was banned
to the 12 abattoirs involved in the television footage.

The second was trade continuing but being restricted to supply
chains that had proper slaughter practices, the ability to trace
back animals and were compliant with OIE (World Organisation for
Animal Health) standards.

Facilitator of the class action, former Northern Territory
Cattlemen's Association boss Tracey Hayes said the applicants
contested there were at least four supply chains operating in that
manner, between them there was a large capacity for trade and the
Bretts fell into those chains.

The core of the applicants' argument is that the government did not
need to ban the trade and therefor that decision was in fact
illegal.

If successful, this will be the first time a case of misfeasance
has been proven against an Australian Government minister.

Ms Hayes said the applicants' argument was the government at the
time failed to take its own advice, the advice of industry and to
understand the importance of the trade.

"Another failure really apparent was the lack of understanding of
long term and critical relationships developed with Indonesia," she
said.

The respondent's closing submission took those counter scenario
arguments to task, arguing the losses suffered by Brett Cattle
Company would have occurred anyway.

The respondents also argued there wasn't sufficient capacity under
the second hypothetical scenario for Brett Cattle Company to export
their cattle.

There was agreement the losses were close to $3 million for the
Brett Cattle Company, Ms Hayes said.

"That means if the judgement is in our favour, the principles that
determined that figure will apply to the wider class," she
explained.

The applicants are seeking $600m in compensation, which Ms Hayes
said was the estimate of the losses incurred by the 300 entities
involved.

It is anticipated a decision from Justice Steven Rares will be
given in the first quarter of 2019.

"We've been able to argue the case in its fullest form on the
behalf of NT and that has happened because of the support of the
Australian Farmers Fighting Fund," Ms Hayes said.

The fund was set up more than 35 years ago in the aftermath of the
Mudginberri abattoir dispute, where unions picketed a processing
facility in the NT forcing it to shut down, leaving workers without
jobs and producers reliant on the abattoir without a market. The
abattoir was successful in the legal battle for compensation.

"If nothing else, this live export class action has sent a signal
to governments that this is no way to conduct their business," Ms
Hayes said.

"Entire industries are becoming increasingly nervous about the
reactions of governments to clicks of a mouse."

The story Live-ex class action waits on judgement first appeared on
Farm Online.[GN]


BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC: Sued for Overpaid Property Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------
Alec Snyder, writing for The Island Packet, reports that between
40,000 and 50,000 residents who paid their county property taxes
late may be affected by a class-action lawsuit against the Beaufort
County Treasurer's Office, according to a Nov. 15 court filing.

Russell Patterson, Esq. -- russell@russellpattersonlaw.com -- the
attorney representing a group of plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit
against the county, alleges that the Treasurer's Office -- under
incumbent Treasurer Maria Walls and her predecessors -- has
collected over $3 million in profits in the last 10 years. These
profits stem from what the lawsuit refers to as $125 in "disputed
fees."

"The county is charging more in treasurer and execution fees,
neither of which is allowed by statute," Patterson said in phone
calls on Nov. 30 and on December 12. "Beaufort County consulted an
attorney general opinion and still charged these fees."

The two opinions cited are from 1993 and 2012, the latter of which
involved Beaufort County directly. One sentence Patterson points to
reads: ". . . .  we believe a court would likely conclude that any
fees imposed by a county treasurer in addition to the penalties and
costs expressly permitted . . . .  are invalid as being not
authorized by statute."

Mary Lohr, who represents Walls and the Treasurer's Office in the
suit, would not comment because the lawsuit is pending.

The lawsuit is not against Walls outside her capacity as the county
treasurer. The official class-action suit lists seven plaintiffs,
but Patterson said on Decenber 12 that the number of people
affected is much larger.

"We're representing all delinquent taxpayers over the last three
years," he said.

Patterson said there are between 17,000 and 21,000 who miss the due
date to pay taxes each year.

Patterson said the named plaintiffs discovered the $75 treasurer
fee and $50 execution fee when one of them lost property at a tax
sale.

The lawsuit alleges taxpayers are being overcharged.

"The only amount that should be charged in connection to those
charges should be the actual cost of the ads, the mailing, the
postage and the cost to post, which is substantially lower than
$125 per person," Patterson said. " . . . .  There shouldn't be any
excess funds."

The suit was slated to go before the 14th Circuit Court on Dec. 20,
but Patterson granted the county an extension to respond to the
suit. Beaufort County will have until Jan. 15 to respond. [GN]


BIPI NORTHERN: Ankit Sapra Seeks Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------
ANKIT SAPRA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BIPI NORTHERN NY, INC., BIPI ELIOT NY,
INC. and SHAHEEN M. REZA, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07257
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff (and all similarly situated
employees) to work in excess of 40 hours a week without paying them
overtime as required by federal and state laws. The Plaintiff was a
victim of the Defendants' common policy and practices which violate
their rights under the FLSA and New York Labor Law by, inter alia,
not paying him the wages he was owed for the hours he worked. As
part of their regular business practice, the Defendants
intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed Plaintiff by
engaging in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the
FLSA and the NYLL, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two gas stations.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Arthur H. Forman, Esq.
          98-20 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 268-2616

BOARDWALK 1000: Breeze Suit Asserts Civil Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boardwalk 1000, LLC.
The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Boardwalk 1000, LLC, a
New Jersey limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00120 (D. N.J., January 4, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as a violation of
civil rights.

Boardwalk 1000 LLC d/b/a Hard Rock Hotel Casino is a Casino and
Restaurant. 1000 Boardwalk at Maryland Avenue Atlantic CIty, New
Jersey 08401.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ERIK MATHEW BASHIAN, Esq.
   BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
   500 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 302
   GARDEN CITY, NE 11530
   Tel: (516) 279-1554
   Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com



BOEING: Workers' Party Class Action Blocks Embraer Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Joana Cunha, writing for Folha De S. Paulo, reports that a
Brazilian Federal court decision put the forming of a joint venture
between airplane makers Boeing (US) and Embraer (Brazil). The
preliminary ruling was in favor of class action brought forth by a
group of Federal Representatives from the Workers' Party (PT) and
can be appealed.

The court order was announced on December 5. The ruling, written by
the São Paulo federal judge Victorio Giuzio Neto orders the
suspension of any practical measures taken by Embraer's board to
transfer its commercial jets division to Boeing.

PT representatives Paulo Pimenta (RS) Carlos Alberto Zarattini
(SP), Nelson Pellegrino (BA), and Vicente Cândido (SP) submitted
the class action.

Boeing's purchase of 80% of Embraer's commercial jet division for
US$ 3,8 billion was settled last July with a memorandum of
understanding, but the deal is still incomplete.

In his ruling, judge Giuzio Neto argues that it's in the country's
best interest not take irreversible measures during a transition
period between administration as it is the case right now. [GN]


CANADA: ENvironnement JEUnesse Files Climate Change Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Waitzer, Esq. -- ewaitzer@stikeman.com -- of Stikeman
Elliott LLP, in an article for The Globe and Mail, reports that a
Quebec environmental group is taking the federal government to
court. ENvironnement JEUnesse filed a class-action suit on behalf
of Quebeckers aged 35 and under seeking a declaration that the
government's behaviour in the fight against climate change
infringes on their human rights. The claim also seeks punitive
damages.

They are not alone. Similar claims have been filed on behalf of
young people in other jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, the
United States and Colombia.

Understanding and addressing the challenges of climate change is
rapidly becoming the next legal frontier. As environmental lawyer
David Boyd recently noted, litigation is one of the most powerful
tools for holding governments' feet to the fire and demanding
accountability. The same is true in respect to corporate actions.
This raises some interesting concerns.

Consider some of the challenges in addressing systemic risks. They
are fraught with complex causal chains, with potential triggers
occurring at distant points in time, space and degrees of apparent
relatedness. Predicting the probability, cost and magnitude of
risk, or anticipating where an impact will be felt most acutely, is
difficult. Our legal systems are based upon learning through trial
and error. This model may not be well-suited to risks where the
potential damage is so severe that we may no longer be able to
learn a lesson if it occurs.

On the other hand, courts are uniquely situated to address the
"tragedy of the commons," where individuals or institutions act in
their own immediate self-interest, contrary to common welfare, by
depleting or degrading a public resource. Likewise with the
"tragedy of the masses," where values important to each of us lose
their salience in the context of group behaviour. Larger groups are
attracted by simplistic ideas and momentary impulses and are easily
stampeded into unreflective, emotion-driven behaviour.

Courts can also address what the Bank of England Governor Mark
Carney dubbed a "tragedy of the horizon," where the catastrophic
impacts of climate change impose a cost on future generations that
the current generation has no direct incentive to fix.

Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus characterizes efforts to
legislate solutions to systemic challenges such as climate risk as
"super wicked problems." He observed that "climate-change
legislation is especially vulnerable to being unravelled over time
… especially because of the extent to which it imposes costs on
the short term for the realization of benefits many decades and
sometimes centuries later."

It is no wonder, then, that courts have become a popular venue for
achieving policy ends. This is a default response to thin political
markets where the rules that emerge from the political process tend
to focus on short-term outcomes and favour those with the strongest
commercial interest in a particular policy outcome.

Issues arise as to the impact of such judicialization on democratic
accountability. Judges are not elected, and judicial activism can
become self-reinforcing. Activist positions generate precedents and
the legal basis for intervention in other areas. To the extent
judicial activism is grounded in international standards (which
articulate objective benchmarks for evaluating conduct), this
concern is lessened. Relevant standards include the Paris
Agreement, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
adopted by 193 countries in 2015.

The evolving state of climate research better enables courts to
adjudicate cases. Research that untangles causal chains will help
courts apportion responsibility for the effects of climate change
and ascertain damages. Evidence of the potential impact of
responses to climate change will help shape standards of prudent
stewardship. So, too, does evidence of the opportunities available
to those that react to climate risk proactively; it has been
projected that the 60 fastest-growing sustainable market
opportunities relating to the SDGs could generate revenues and
savings of US$12-trillion by 2030 and create about 380 million
jobs.

Some have advocated precommitment reforms to minimize the influence
of short-term interests on public planning and priorities.
Independent public-value rating agencies have been proposed as a
mechanism to assist in assessing the value of reform proposals.
Others have proposed agents for the environment or future
generations, or the gradual transfer of a significant minority
ownership interest in private entities to charitable trusts with a
future-oriented remit -- much like the focus of many sovereign
wealth funds today.

Increasingly, governments, corporations and major investment
institutions find themselves overwhelmed by the short-term demands
being placed on them, and are inclined to ignore the impact of
their decisions on long- term risks (and the creation of long-term
wealth). In the face of such myopia, resort to judicial activism is
becoming a default response. Just as courts have historically
stepped in to protect minority rights, they are likely to enforce
societal rights -- by aggressively refining our understanding of
the obligations of the state and private actors to address
fundamental governance misalignments between risk-taking private
interests and the public interest in controlling systemic harms.
[GN]


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Good Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Penn.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The case is styled as Bradley Good and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and Cavalry
SPV I, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00059-NIQA (E.D. Penn.,
January 4, 2019).

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
   FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
   450 N. NARBERTH AVE, SUITE 101
   NARBERTH, PA 19072
   Tel: (610) 822-0782
   Fax: (610) 667-0552
   Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Katz Files Suit Under FDCPA in NY
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Cavalry Portfolio Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Darrin Katz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC, John Doe 1-10, the owner of
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and Cavalry SPV I, LLC and John Doe
1-10, the owner of the debt, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00074
(E.D. N.Y., January 4, 2019).

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

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHEETAH MOBILE: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Cheetah Mobile Inc.
(NYSE: CMCM) ("Cheetah" or the "Company") securities during the
period between April 26, 2017 and November 27, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively involved
in the litigation have until January 29, 2019 to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff.

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 Cheetah securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that: Cheetah's apps
had undisclosed imbedded features which tracked when users
downloaded new apps; Cheetah used this data to inappropriately
claim credit for having caused the downloads; and, Cheetah's
revenues were in part the product of improper conduct and thus
unsustainable.

According to the complaint, following a November 26, 2018 article
reporting that Cheetah apps then available in the Google Play store
were found to be exploiting user permissions as part of an ad fraud
scheme, the value of Cheetah shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Cheetah securities purchased on or after April 26, 2017 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the
end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this
lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410)
415-6616.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


CHRISTAL & SMITH: Garrett Sues Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Leslie Garrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Christal & Smith Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a
JVS Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00011-JDK (E.D. Tex.,
January 8, 2019) seeks to end violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff has suffered damages
including but not limited to, fear, stress, mental anguish,
emotional stress and acute embarrassment. Plaintiff and putative
class members seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
including, declaratory relief, and damages.

On or about June 28, 2018, JVS sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter. In the letter the Defendant attempts to shame Plaintiff
regarding her credit to coerce her into making a payment on the
alleged debt that she may not have otherwise made. The Defendant
essentially accuses Plaintiff of not only having poor credit, but
of attempting use roundabout and questionable means to improve that
credit.

Plaintiff suffered injury-in-fact by being subjected to unfair and
abusive practices of the Defendant, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target of the
Defendant's misleading debt collection communications. The
Defendant also violated the Plaintiff's right not to be the target
of misleading debt collection communications and right to a
truthful and fair debt collection process.

Plaintiff Leslie Garrett is a natural person currently residing in
the State of Texas. Ms. Garrett is a "consumer" within the meaning
of the FDCPA.

Christal & Smith Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a JVS Group, Inc. ("JVS") is
a Texas corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts,
using mails and telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHRYSLER: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Cybersecurity Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Marks, writing for The Washington Post, reports that two
class-action lawsuits that could come before the Supreme Court this
term seek to determine just how bad a cybersecurity lapse must be
before customers can sue.

In both cases, federal appeals court judges formally approved
lawsuits by thousands of consumers who want to collectively sue
major companies for cybersecurity failures -- even though the
customers couldn't prove they'd suffered any direct financial harm
from the companies' digital negligence.

The companies are asking the high court to overturn the lower court
decisions allowing the lawsuits. They argue that customers must
suffer some concrete financial or physical harm before they can
demand compensation for a data breach or for hackable
vulnerabilities discovered in their products.

Consumers, however, contend that setting such strict standards
would give negligent companies a pass for not sufficiently
protecting their products and data.

If the Supreme Court rules on either case, it  could fundamentally
reshape the responsibility the private sector has over the security
of Internet-connected products that could endanger consumers'
privacy or even their lives in the case of things like cars and
medical devices.

If the court sets a high bar for consumers to sue, it could prompt
companies to play fast and loose with their data. If that standard
is too low, however, it may deter companies from sharing
information about newfound computer bugs or investing in new
technologies out of fear they'll be on the hook for legal damages.

"You've potentially jacked way up the monetary costs from a
vulnerability that's disclosed down the road," Megan L. Brown --
mbrown@wileyrein.com -- an attorney with Wiley Rein who deals in
complex litigation and technology, told me. "That may affect a
company's risk calculation and make them not do some things."

The first class action suit was sparked after a viral 2015 Wired
article describing how two security researchers hacked through the
entertainment system in a Jeep Cherokee to kill the brakes -- all
while the Wired reporter was driving the vehicle at 70 mph through
downtown St. Louis.

After the article, Chrysler mailed 1.4 million vehicle owners a USB
stick with software to fix the vulnerability, and there's no
evidence malicious hackers ever exploited it. Jeep owners point to
the hack, however, as evidence that their vehicles are "excessively
vulnerable" and say they should get some money back, according to
Chrysler's petition to the high court.

The issue is particularly complicated because cybersecurity experts
warn there's no way to ensure any system is 100 percent digitally
secure.

Even major digital consumer products such as Microsoft's Office
suite or Apple's iPhone aren't invulnerable. Security researchers
find hackable vulnerabilities in those products every week. The
most mature and cyber-sensitive companies, however, usually manage
to find and patch the most dangerous vulnerabilities before
malicious hackers exploit them.

If the Jeep plaintiffs are successful, "it opens the door to
litigation of all stripes and flavors over any consumer product
that connects to the Internet," Chrysler attorney Thomas H. Dupree
Jr. told me. "Any product, hypothetically, can be hacked and any
plaintiff can hire a lawyer who says, 'In my opinion the product
has inadequate cybersecurity even though it hasn't been
breached.'"

In the second case, the online retailer Zappos did suffer a
malicious breach of a database containing customers' information,
including names, contact information and possibly credit card data.
The company says, however, that there's no evidence the hackers
used that data to impersonate customers or to make phony credit
card charges.

The customers dispute that characterization, however, and say
hackers used their information to hack other accounts.

The Zappos and Jeep cases are being litigated at the U.S. District
Court level while the lower courts wait to learn whether the
Supreme Court will hear the cases. Neither case has moved
substantially past the questions of whether the plaintiffs have
standing to sue and who should be included in the plaintiffs'
class.

The high court held a conference on the Zappos case in December and
was scheduled to meet on the Jeep case Jan. 4. The court probably
will decide whether to grant hearings in the cases in January.

Meanwhile, industry groups are worried about the potential
implications. Trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
the National Association of Manufacturers and CTI, the wireless
association, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the
companies.

They have reason to be concerned if the high court does take the
cases. Lawsuits where there's much clearer harm from a data breach
have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements. Target, for
example, paid $18.5 million to settle cases brought by state
attorneys general over its 2013 breach of credit and debit card
information for at least 40 million customers and personal
information about many more. The retailer is trying to conclude a
$10 million settlement on a consumer class action stemming from
that breach.

In other cases, assessing whether hack victims have suffered harm
can be far more difficult.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, for example, is
mulling a case filed by federal employee unions over the 2015
Office of Personnel Management data breach. Most cyber experts
believe that breach was launched by Chinese government hackers who
want to use the data for blackmail or other espionage.

That means it's unlikely the data stolen from more than 21 million
current and former federal employees and their families will be
used for identity theft or to make phony credit card charges. The
stolen data, however, included extremely personal background check
information, including lengthy questionnaires about finances,
housing, family relationships and drug and alcohol use.

An appeals court judge said during a Nov. 2 hearing that the
government faced an "uphill battle" arguing the plaintiffs didn't
have grounds to sue in that case, as reported by GovExec.

The harm caused by that kind of hack is far different from the
nebulous damage caused by a breach involving only information such
as names and addresses, Joe Hall, chief technologist at the Center
for Democracy and Technology think tank, told me.

"Trivial harm should not be something that keeps us from building
wonderful things," Mr. Hall said. "But we really need to find a way
to articulate harms that are not economic but really affect
people's ability to trust each other or to participate in the
world." [GN]


CITIGROUP INC: Mintz Attorneys Discuss TCPA Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Lopez, Esq. -- ECLopez@mintz.com -- and Joshua Briones,
Esq. -- JBriones@mintz.com -- of Mintz, in an article for The
National Law Review, report that despite the overwhelming focus in
2018 on the issue of what constitutes an automatic telephone
dialing system, defendants should not ignore other defenses that
could substantially gut TCPA class action lawsuits. Ten years ago,
in a seminal case, the Fifth Circuit held that TCPA class actions
could not be certified unless there is common proof on the issue of
consent. See Gene & Gene LLC v. BioPay LLC, 541 F.3d 318, 329 (5th
Cir. 2008). Earlier this fall, a federal judge in the Northern
District of Illinois reminded defendants that individualized
questions of consent defeat class certification in TCPA class
action suits.

In Tomeo v. Citigroup, Inc., Eduardo Tomeo alleged that Citi used
an automated telephone dialing system to contact accountholders in
violation of the TCPA. He sought to certify two classes: (1) a
"cease and desist" class of plaintiffs who continued to receive
calls or texts after they requested not to be called, and (2) a
"wrong number" class of those who continued to receive calls after
telling Citi it had called the wrong number. Citi argued that the
court should not certify either class because individual issues
concerning consent predominated. Citi supported its argument with
(1) evidence that establishing that a significant percentage of the
putative class consented to receive calls, (2) evidence that three
different types of computerized records contain information
relevant to whether Citi has the necessary consent to contact a
given phone number, and (3) expert reports noting that "the only
way to determine whether an individual consented to calls would be
to individually review each of the accounts." 2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS
166117, at *7.

The court determined that the issue of consent was decisive and
found that "because individual questions of consent predominate,
Tomeo has not carried his burden of establishing that common issues
predominate." 2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 166117, at *27. The court
reasoned "[t]his is not a situation where individuals filled out
standard forms, checking whether or not they consent to
contact—there is no one word that [the plaintiff's expert] could
search to determine the consent status for each potential class
member at the time of each potential violation." Id. at *33. "[T]he
Court would still need to conduct individual inquiries into whether
the interactions described in [the computerized records]
constituted a change in the status of consent." Id. at 35. The
named plaintiff's specific situation also informed the court's
decision. To determine whether Citi had consent to call Tomeo, the
parties reviewed the three different types of computerized records
kept for Tomeo and engaged in three depositions—and yet remained
in dispute as to whether consent existed. "[A] fact finder would
need to sort through this evidence to determine whether Citi had
consent to place calls to Tomeo," explained the court. Id. at 36.
Plaintiff argued that even if consent requires some individual
attention, it is not significant enough to prevent other common
issues from predominating. The court rejected plaintiff's argument
and denied class certification concluding "consent is inextricably
intertwined with the primary issue of liability to the point where
it predominates over the other common issues in the case." Id. at
41.

Tomeo demonstrates that while a dispute as to whether the named
plaintiff's consent existed could defeat summary judgment, it can
also be used as a sword to defeat class certification. Of course,
TCPA defendants must also be sure to set forth specific evidence
showing that a significant percentage of the putative class
consented to the communication at issue before a court can find
that issues of individualized consent predominate over any common
questions of law or fact. [GN]


CORNING INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Read Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN READ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORNING
INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-6131L (W.D. N.Y.),
Judge David G. Larimer of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
Stay.

The action was brought by four property owners in Corning, New
York, against Corning, Inc., asserting claims under the
Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), and under New York state law.  the
Plaintiffs seek damages and "response costs" due to alleged
contamination by hazardous substances of property owned by the
Plaintiffs.  The complaint is ostensibly brought on behalf of a
class of owners, occupants an residents of the area in question
("Houghton Plot"), but at this point no class has been certified.

The Houghton Plot encompasses areas in which Corning released or
disposed of fill containing hazardous substances, including
arsenic, cadmium and lead.  It appears that this occurred prior to
the Plaintiffs' acquisition of their particular plots.  The
Plaintiffs do not allege that any contaminants have been deposited
in the Houghton Plot since they purchased their properties.

According to the complaint, on June 27, 2014, Corning entered into
an Order on Consent with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), following the discovery of
contamination at a location in Corning.  The Order on Consent
itself does not appear to be in the record, but the parties do not
dispute that it was issued.  The gist of it was that Corning would
undertake a study to determine the extent of the contamination, and
recommend an appropriate plan to remediate the contamination.
Corning commissioned a private firm, Weston Solutions to undertake
the study and prepare the report.

During the course of that study, Weston submitted a "Focused
Feasibility Study/Alternatives Analysis" ("FFS") dated March 23,
2017.  After a period in which members of the public were invited
to submit comments, the DEC in July 2017 issued a Final Decision
Document ("FDD"), setting forth a remedy for the subject area.  The
DEC stated that the remedy will consist of excavation and removal
of target fill to conform to DEC standards and excavation and
removal of soil within the top two feet.

On Dec.4, 2017, Corning and the DEC entered into another Order on
Consent and Administrative Settlement, which superseded the 2014
Order.  The 2017 Order stated that commencing upon the effective
date of the Order which was specified as the tenth day after the
order was signed by the DEC commissioner, Corning will implement
the remedial activities required by the Final Decision Document.
The DEC also stated that it accepted Weston's FFS.  The 2017 Order
also provided that Corning would submit a Remedial Action Work Plan
("RAWP") to the DEC, which sets forth the details of implementing
the DEC-approved remedy of excavation and removal of the top two
feet of soil in the subject area.

The Plaintiffs filed the complaint in the action on Feb. 9, 2018.
They have asserted five causes of action, on behalf of themselves
and other owners, occupants and residents of properties in the
Houghton Plot: (1) a claim for response costs under CERCLA, based
on Corning's disposal of hazardous substances on the subject
property; (2) a state-law claim for negligence, based on the
disposal of hazardous substances, and defendants' failure to warn
plaintiffs of the danger ensuing from that disposal; (3) strict
liability, based on a theory of abnormally dangerous activity; (4)
private nuisance; and (5) public nuisance.  The Plaintiffs seek
response costs, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive
relief requiring Corning to undertake additional remediation
efforts, beyond what was approved by the DEC.

The Defendants now ask the Court to: (1) dismiss all the
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief because of their alleged
failure to exhaust their administrative remedies, and based on the
DEC's primary jurisdiction over the remediation of the subject
property; (2) dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' common-law causes of
action, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted; and (3) stay any remaining damages claims, under the
primary-jurisdiction doctrine.

Having considered the relevant legal factors and the facts
presented, Judge Larimer concludes that under the
primary-jurisdiction doctrine, it would be better for the Court to
stay its hand in the case, in favor of the DEC proceedings.  In
fact, the decision is not even a close one.

First, the questions presented plainly involve matters that are not
within the conventional experience of judges, and which involve
technical or policy considerations within the agency's particular
field of expertise.  For similar reasons, the underlying question
at issue -- how best to remediate the contamination -- has been
committed to the DEC's discretion by the New York legislature.
Third, if the Judge were to grant the relief sought by the
Plaintiffs, there would obviously be a significant risk of
inconsistent rulings.  fourth, late-in-the-day meddling by the
Court would serve little if any useful purpose.  Finally, the Judge
holds the Court should not now step in and interfere with an
ongoing process being conducted by a state administrative agency
that has been charged with authority to address the matters at
issue, particularly where the Plaintiffs deliberately chose not to
pursue the avenues of relief that are or were available to them in
the state courts.

As to the second cause of action, the Judge finds that there are no
facts alleged that would support an inference that Corning knew of
the contamination but failed to disclose it, to the Plaintiffs or
anyone else.  Absent such allegations, he cannot simply fill in the
blanks to supply what is missing, on a motion to dismiss.

In their third cause of action, the Plaintiffs assert a claim
sounding in strict liability, based on the Defendants' alleged
engagement in an abnormally dangerous activity: the disposal of
hazardous substances at the site in question.  The Judge finds that
there is no support in the case law, or in the factual allegations
of the complaint, to support an inference that Corning's disposal
of these industrial wastes was "abnormally dangerous," as that term
has been construed by the courts.

As to the Plaintiff's fourth and fifth causes of action assert
claims for private and public nuisance, the Judge holds that the
Plaintiffs have not alleged facts supporting a finding of a public
nuisance, or of special injury, so as to give rise to a private
cause of action.

And finally, the Judge will grant the Defendants'motion for a stay
of the Plaintiffs' claims for damages under CERCLA.  The Court has
rejected the premise of the Plaintiffs'argument.  It would thus
make no sense to attempt to calculate the Plaintiffs' money damages
now, while the DEC-ordered remedial process is continuing.  To
allow the Plaintiffs to pursue such claims now, while the remedial
process moves forward, would accomplish little other than to
dissect this case into piecemeal litigation, with consequent delay
and multiplicitous appeals, and attendant attorney's fees.  It
makes eminent sense to stay the claims for response costs and other
damages until after the DEC-ordered remediation has been
implemented.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Larimer granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Stay.  He dismissed the Plaintiffs' second,
third, fourth and fifth causes of action in their entirety.  He
stayed the Plaintiffs' first cause of action, seeking response
costs under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980, are stayed, pending further order of the
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/zadfes from Leagle.com.

John Read, Thomas R. McGrew, Jr., Suzanne Annunziata, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Francis A.
Annunziata, Plaintiffs, represented by Alan J. Knauf --
aknauf@nyenvlaw.com -- Knauf Shaw LLP & Melissa M. Valle --
mvalle@nyenvlaw.com -- Knauf Shaw LLP.

Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Carolyn G. Nussbaum
-- cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP, Meaghan Goodwin
Boyd -- meaghan.boyd@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Scott A. Elder -- scott.elder@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro
hac vice & Steven M. Maffucci, Nixon Peabody LLP.


CROWN ASSET: Chambers Files Class Suit, Seeks Damages
-----------------------------------------------------
Pamela Sheree Chambers, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 18CV338800 (Cal. Super., December 4, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the California Fair
Debt Buying Practices Act.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages against the Defendants
arising from their routine practice of sending initial written
communications which provide the notice required by the CFDBPA in
smaller than 12-point type. As a result, the Defendants have
engaged in unlawful acts in connection with their attempt to
collect charged-off consumer debts from the Plaintiff and the
Class.

The Plaintiff Pamela Sheree Chambers is a natural person residing
in Santa Clara County, California.

The Defendant Crown Asset Management, LLC is a Georgia limited
liability company engaged in the business of purchasing and
collecting charged-off consumer debts in this state with its
principal place of business located at 3100 Breckinridge Blvd.,
Suite 725, Duluth, Georgia 30096-7605. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
      1435 K011 Circle, Suite 104
      San Jose, CA 951124610
      Tel: (408) 294-6100
      Fax: (408) 294-6190
      E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


CURO GROUP: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Curo Group Holdings Corp. ("Curo Group" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CURO) in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Curo Group securities between July
31, 2018 through October 24, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Curo Group's conversion from Single-Pay Loans to Open-End
Loans was materially undermining its ongoing financial performance
and 2018 full-year guidance, including massively diluting its
adjusted EBITDA and net revenue; and (2) consequently, Curo Group's
2018 full-year fiscal guidance was materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the Complaint alleges that investors suffered damages as a result.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the February 4, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston
         Website: www.gme-law.com  
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


EDISON HOME: Sued Over Use of Captive Insurance Companies
---------------------------------------------------------
Captive Insurance Times reports that class action attorneys have
filed a class action lawsuit against two home care agencies, Edison
Home Health Care and Preferred Home Care of New York, in the first
lawsuit targeting the use of captive insurance companies to provide
health benefits.

The suit, alleges that Edison and Preferred used a captive,
Healthcap Assurance, to cheat their home care workers out of
millions of Wage Parity Act (WPA) dollars.

The suit was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), the federal statute governing EB plans, as
well as the WPA.

It alleges that Edison and Prefered used the captive to avoid
paying their Medicaid funded home care workers the full $4.09 WPA
package of additional wages and benefits, instead returning the
WPA-credited benefit dollars to the agencies and their owners.

Allegedly, Healthcap Assurance held $35.5 million WPA-credited
benefit dollars earmarked to pay for home care worker health
insurance benefits for 4,000 workers but paid out less than $10
million between 2015 and 2017.

The remaining dollars were returned as 'surplus' or other financial
benefits to the agencies and their owners.

These returned dollars are the focus of the suit, as the WPA
prohibits any 'refund' or 'dividend' to an agency of monies
contributed toward the WPA package, and an agency must guarantee
that the WPA credit taken is not more than the amount of the
contribution actually used for benefits.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants, therefore, violated the
WPA by taking a full credit against the WPA package for the entire
amount of $35.5 million, despite this amount not being the cost of
the benefits actually incurred.

Additionally, it is alleged that all named defendants, Edison,
Preferred, Healthcap Assurance, Berry Weiss and Samuel Weiss
(owners of Preferred and Edison, respectively), and 15 unnamed
individuals are fiduciaries who breached their fiduciary
responsibilities and/or parties in interest that benefitted from
prohibited transactions.

The repercussions for the defendants could be severe, under ERISA,
the agency owners can be held personally liable to make the plan
whole for any losses resulting from the fiduciary breaches, and for
disgorging assets and profits wrongfully taken.

In addition, there is a mandatory 20 percent civil penalty that is
assessable by the US Department of Labor on any recovery for a
fiduciary breach.

The parties in interest are also liable for an excise tax penalty
with respect to any prohibited transactions they engage in, which
ranges between 5 and 100 percent of the amount involved.

Improperly benefiting from the assets of an ERISA, which includes
receiving kickbacks or anything of value, is a felony prosecutable
by the US Justice Department.

Penalties for not complying with the WPA, which is enforced by the
New York State Departments of Health and Labor, as well as the
State Attorney General's Office, are also severe.

They include liability for unpaid wages and benefits, withdrawal of
an agency's home care license, and potential civil and criminal
Medicaid fraud prosecution.

US labour and employment law firm Ford & Harrison noted that as "no
prior lawsuit has targeted use of captive insurance companies in
this way . . . the progress of this lawsuit will be closely
watched".

Edison and Preferred did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. [GN]


EL BADIA: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Marco Garcia Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mufig Awraid individually and El Badia Live
Poultry Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00097 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 7, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages and related damages
for unpaid overtime hours worked, while employed by Defendants.
Plaintiff seeks damges under the applicable provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
and for minimum wage violations under the NYLL.

Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs often worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants unlawfully failed
to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay hours worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek. The Defendants also did not pay Plaintiff a
spread of hours premium pursuant to New York state law when his
workdays lasted 10 or more hours, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Marco Garcia Garcia, a resident of New York, was employed
as a butcher for Defendants from on or about July 2013 through
April 28, 2018.

El Badia, a New York corporation, is a butcher shop/slaughterhouse
located at 4113 2nd Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11232.

Mufig Awraid is an owner and operator of El Badia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
     THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
     39 Broadway Suite, Suite 1530
     New York, NY 11021
     Phone: 212-344-9022
     Fax: 212-344-0301


FEDEX GROUND: Denial of Cond. Class Cert. Bid in Nelson Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP NELSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, Defendant, Civil Action No.
18-cv-01378-RM-NYW (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recommended the
denial of Nelson's Motion for Conditional Certification.

Nelson filed the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); the Colorado Wage Claim Act; and the Colorado Minimum
Wage Act, as implemented by the Colorado Minimum Wage Order, on
June 5, 2018.  The Plaintiff is a delivery driver who worked for
Harmony Express, Inc., an independent service provider ("ISP") in
the broader FedEx distribution network that makes deliveries to
individual recipients, i.e., the final phase of a package's
shipment.  FedEx's business model relies on the use of ISPs, who in
turn hire drivers like the Plaintiff, to deliver packages to
customers, and to this end FedEx utilizes standardized operating
agreements with ISPs.

In the course of performing his work for Harmony Express, the
Plaintiff was not paid for hours he worked in excess of f40 per
week or 12 per day.  This non-payment forms the basis of the
litigation and the putative collective class.  The Plaintiff has
provided declarations from other ISP drivers (and the putative
opt-in Plaintiffs) to support the contention and in support of the
instant Motion.

On July 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Approval of
Hoffman-LaRoche Notice, whereby he seeks conditional collective
action certification for all current or former Colorado FedEx
drivers from June 5, 2015 to present.  The Defendant opposes the
Motion.

The Defendant argues that conditional certification is not
warranted at this stage because, however light the burden, the
Plaintiff has failed to make substantial allegations that the
putative class was subject to a single policy, decision, or plan
that resulted in the harm, and additionally the putative class is
not similarly situated.  It further objects to conditional
certification on the basis that the FLSA overtime requirements will
not apply to all ISP drivers, as at last some drivers qualify for
exemptions from overtime requirements under Motor Carrier Act
("MCA") exemptions.

Magistrate Judge Wang finds that the declarations are simply
insufficient to set forth substantial allegations of a single
decision, policy, or plan affecting the Plaintiff's pay that was
specifically undertaken by FedEx.  The Plaintiff has failed to
carry his burden, while admittedly light, at this first stage, and
she declines to make assumptions to fill the interstices of the
Plaintiff's Motion and supporting declarations.

The Magistrate also finds that the initial certification stage of a
collective action, the "similarly situated" inquiry is a question
of whether the plaintiffs are similarly situated to each other in
suffering the same harm, and inquiring which defenses may apply if
the Plaintiffs did suffer the same harm is not appropriate at this
stage.

Finally, the Magistrate declines to address the form and contents
of the proposed notice.  If the presiding judge, the Hon. Raymond
P. Moore, grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification in whole or in part, then the court will convene a
status conference to discuss the proposed notice if such matter is
referred by Judge Moore.

For the forgoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Wang recommended that
the Nelson's Motion for Approval of Hoffman-LaRoche Notice be
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2018 Recommendation is
available at https://is.gd/MdBxfl from Leagle.com.

Phillip Nelson, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Dustin Thomas Lujan --
wyoadvocate@gmail.com -- Dustin Thomas Lujan, Attorney at Law &
Brian David Gonzales -- BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- Brian D.
Gonzales, PLLC.

Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., doing business as FedEx Home
Delivery, Defendant, represented by Jessica Goneau Scott --
scott@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Joseph Peter
McHugh, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc..


FLAGSHIP RESORT: Breeze Says Website Not ADAAG Compliant
--------------------------------------------------------
Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Flagship Report Development Corporation, a
New Jersey corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00183 (D. N.J.,
January 7, 2019) seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and
litigation costs, including but not limited to disbursements, court
expenses, and other fees, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, ("ADA") and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines.

The Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and all other
mobility-impaired individuals, including the Class, by denying full
and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations offered on
its Websites. The Defendant has had 8=eight years to bring the
Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable)
into compliance with the ADAAG revisions, but has failed or refused
to do so, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Byron Breeze, Jr., was born without legs and without
complete hands, and uses a wheelchair for mobility. Plaintiff thus
has a "qualified disability" as that term is defined by the ADA.

Defendant is a New Jersey corporation conducting business in the
State of New Jersey and is the owner and/or operator of the Hotel
and has control over the content of the Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
     Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C.
     500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 279-1554
     Fax: (516) 213-0339
     Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


FLORIDA FIRST: Court Narrows Documents Production in Cooper
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents in the
case captioned DONNA COOPER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA FIRST INSURANCE AGENCY,
LLC, Defendant. Case No. 18-61694-CIV-MORENo/SELTZER. (S.D. Fla.).

This is a class action brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
contacted the Plaintiff and class members on their telephones using
an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice without
their prior express written consent within the meaning of the
TCPA.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's response of None to
Request for Production Numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 is
improper and requests an order compelling responses to those
requests. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks an order overruling the
Defendant's objections to Request Numbers 12 and 13.

In response, the Defendant states that it responded None to Request
for Production Numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 because the
Plaintiff narrowly and specifically defined telephone dialing
equipment in its Request for Production and, therefore, there are
no responsive documents. The Plaintiff described telephone dialing
equipment as follows: Any telecommunications, telemarketing or
computer equipment, including but not limited to, ringless
voicemails or other voicemail system used to make PHONE CALLS. The
Defendant seemingly takes a very narrow view of the Plaintiff's
description of "telephone dialing equipment."

The Court does not.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel responses to Request
Numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 will be granted.

Request Numbers 12 and 13 seek the following information: DOCUMENTS
sufficient to IDENTIFY ALL CALL RECIPIENTS during the CLASS PERIOD
and DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of CALL
RECIPIENTS during the CLASS PERIOD. The Defendant responded to
Request Numbers 12 and 13 with the objection that the requests are
unduly burdensome and are not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence and violates the Defendant's proprietary
business information.

The Defendant argues that Request Numbers 12 and 13 ask for
documents well beyond the scope of this lawsuit and that the
responses would include all of the Defendant's clients and
potential clients, which is proprietary and confidential
information. The Defendant asks that if production is required,
that it be subject to a confidentiality order.

In light of the allegations of the Complaint, the Court concludes
that Request Numbers 12 and 13 seek information that is both
relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The Court,
however, agrees with the Defendant that the information sought is
proprietary and confidential. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel responses to Request Numbers 12 and 13 will be granted,
subject to the entry of a confidentiality order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 17, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycsvmn76 from Leagle.com.

Donna Cooper, on Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Blair E. Reed --
breed@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice & Scott A.
Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Florida First Insurance Agency, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Brett Russell Bloch, Shendell & Pollock, P.L.


FLORIDA: Bilal Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rebecca Kapusta
Secretary, Department of Children & Families. The case is styled as
Jamaal Ali Bilal formerly known as: John L. Burton and all other
FCCC Residents similarly situated in the 22 other SVP Units,
Plaintiff v. Rebecca Kapusta Secretary, Department of Children &
Families, DCF Secretaries of unnamed State Officials overseeing the
other 22 SVP Units in America, Kristen Kanner Director of the DCF
Sexual Violent Predator Unit, Florida Legislature, Donald Sawyer
Director of the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC), Jeanine
Cohen, John Hodges PH.D., Jeffery Benoit PH.D., Rick Scott in their
official capacity as Govenor of Florida and Member of the State of
Florida's Executive Clemacy Board, Ron Desantis in their official
capacity as Governor of Florida and Member of the State of
Florida's Executive Clemacy Board and Wellpath Recovery Solutions,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00008-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., January 4,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as a Conditions of
Confinement filed pursuant to Prisoner Civil Rights.

Wellpath Recovery Solutions is a Correction Facility Prison in
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FUTURE US: Web Site Not Accessible to Deaf Users, Sullivan Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FUTURE US, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-12315
(S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2018), accuses the Defendant of failing to
design, construct, and/or own or operate a Web site --
https://www.space.com/ -- that is fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, deaf and hard-of-hearing people like the
Plaintiff and the class.

Future US, Inc., is a foreign for-profit corporation organized
under the laws of the state of California and has a principal
executive office in New York City.

Future US operates as a media and digital publishing company.  The
Company creates magazines, Web sites, applications, media
platforms, and events.  The Company's solutions include content
marketing, custom publishing, experiential, rich media development,
video production, and Web development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


G&K SERVICES: Settlement in Hoffman Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Parties
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned JESSE HOFFMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. G&K SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 17-CV-04465-LHK. (N.D.
Cal.).

The Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel conducted sufficient
investigation and research, and that they were able to reasonably
evaluate the Plaintiff's position and the strengths and weaknesses
of their claims and the ability to certify them. The Plaintiff has
provided the Court with enough information about the nature and
magnitude of the claims being settled, as well as the impediments
to recovery, to make an independent assessment of the
reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed.

The Court also finds that settlement now will avoid additional and
potentially substantial litigation costs, as well as delay and
risks if the Parties were to continue to litigate the Action.

The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the
proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement as amended.

The named Plaintiffs, Jesse Hoffman and Philip Dolan, are suitable
class representatives and are appointed Class Representatives for
the Settlement Class conditionally certified by this Order.

The Court appoints The Bainer Law Firm as Class Counsel. The Court
finds that the Plaintiff's Counsel has demonstrable experience
litigating, certifying, and settling class actions, and will serve
as adequate counsel for the Class conditionally certified by this
Order.

The Court further approves and appoints CPT Group as the Settlement
Administrator.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybsrzeyu from Leagle.com.

Jesse Hoffman & Philip Dolan, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew
Roland Bainer -- mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com -- The Bainer Law Firm.

G&K Services, LLC, erroneously served as G&K Services, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Mei-Lin
Full -- michelle.full@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,
Marisol Corral Mork -- marisol.mork@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, Melissa Beth Black -- melissa.black@squirepb.com --
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP &Michael W. Kelly --
michael.kelly@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.


GFE DISTRIBUTION: Flores Sues Over FLSA, Wage & Hour Law Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA FLORES v. GFE DISTRIBUTION, LLC d/b/a CAPITAL MEAT COMPANY OF
MARYLAND and FRANK ALAFOGINIS, Case No. 8:18-cv-03997-TJS (D. Md.,
December 28, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals, who were employed by the Defendants
at a meat processing warehouse in Landover, Maryland, for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law.

Ms. Flores alleges that the Defendants paid employees flat weekly
salaries that denied her and the class overtime wages.  She adds
that once terminated from their employment, the Defendants did not
pay employees for unused leave that had accrued prior to their
final day of employment.

Based in Potomac, Maryland, GFE Distribution, LLC, is a Maryland
corporate entity and does business as Capital Meat Company of
Maryland.  Frank Alafoginis, an adult resident of Virginia, is an
owner and officer of GFE.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
          DCWAGELAW
          519 H Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 803-6083
          Facsimile: (202) 683-6102
          E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


GLOBAL TEL: Garson Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------
Joel M. Garson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global Tel*Link Corporation aka Global Tel Link
Corporation, Case No. 8:18-cv-02152 (C.D. Calif., December 4,
2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for the Defendants'
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff brought the class action case against the Defendant
for unauthorized recordings of telephonic conversations with
Plaintiff and other persons without a proper warning. In a letter
dated July 27, 2018, GTL informed the Orange County Sheriff's
Department that it audio recorded 1,079 inmate telephone calls over
approximately a three-year period to telephone numbers that were
designated by the County as "do not record," and that the Sheriff's
Department staff, and some GTL technicians, accessed 58 of those
recorded calls a total of 87 times. On numerous occasions since at
least February of 2015 through approximately July of 2018, GTL
audio recorded telephone conversations between inmates at the
Orange County Jail and the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is an individual citizen and resident of the State of
California, County of Orange, in this judicial district. The
Plaintiff has been a licensed attorney since 1989, and practices in
criminal law defense.

The Defendant GTL conducted business in the State of California, in
the County of Orange, within this judicial district. The Defendant
offers technology services and solutions for correctional
facilities, including integrated inmate call-processing and
recording technology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              jason@kazlg.com
              nicholas@kazlg.com


GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Furman Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for BMs
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FURMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GODIVA CHOCOLATIER, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-12269
(S.D.N.Y., December 27, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation for the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals,
who have worked as Boutique Managers or in comparable roles with
different titles ("BMs") for Godiva anywhere in the United States.

Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with a
principal place of business in New York City.

Godiva is a Belgian manufacturer of fine chocolates and related
products.  Godiva operates hundreds of retail stores worldwide,
including approximately 150 stores in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Logan Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com


HUAZHU GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Huazhu Group Ltd ("Huazhu") (NASDAQ: HTHT) between
May 14, 2018 and August 28, 2018. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/huazhu-group-limited-loss-form?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate security measures
to protect customer information; (2) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company would be susceptible to increased litigation risk and
higher expenses; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
goodwill would potentially suffer, leading to lower revenues; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you suffered a loss in Huazhu you have until December 7, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


HUMANA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Under FLSA, Indian Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN SUE INDIAN, MARY CREER, JARE OUBRE, BRANDY HOLMES, ANGULIQUE
GLAPION, LYNNE ROCK, JULIE TURRISI, AND TERESA ROBERTS, on Behalf
of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
HUMANA INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01125 (W.D. Tex., December 27, 2018),
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and Class Members for their
overtime hours at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay.

Humana Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware
and headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.

Humana operates in the healthcare services field and sells health
insurance policies to businesses, individuals, and the government.
The Defendant operates from administrative offices around the
country, including offices in Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia,
California, Arizona, Louisiana, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Georgia,
Tennessee, North Carolina, Nevada, South Carolina, Indiana, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


IKEA: Quebec Court Authorizes Class Action Over Furniture Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Bruemmer, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a Quebec
Superior Court judge has authorized a class-action suit against
Ikea on behalf of owners who claim the company's recall procedures
make it too difficult to be compensated for furniture that has been
deemed a safety hazard.

The Quebec plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit alleges Ikea
violated Quebec's Consumer Protection Act "by failing to inform
consumers of the serious dangers associated with the chest of
drawers sold en masse by Ikea, including three deaths in the United
States."

In June 2016 the Swedish-based manufacturer issued a recall notice
for a series of 29 million chests and dressers because several
children had died after the furniture toppled onto them over a
period of decades.

Ikea agreed to pay a $50-million settlement in December 2016 to the
families of three children who died when the MALM dresser tipped
over on them.

In Canada, there were 4.5 million dressers purchased between 2002
and 2016 eligible for recall. But in 2017 Ikea Canada said only
111,642 units had been returned, CBC News reported. Another 192,941
units had been secured using wall-anchoring kits provided free of
charge. Ikea has contended the furniture was never meant to be
free-standing, but rather tethered to the wall with safety straps
that are provided.

In the U.S., the recall stipulated Ikea would collect units and
refund customers. But in Canada, the company's refund was only
offered to those who returned their units to stores. The
stipulation resulted in a low number of returns, because many
owners don't have the means to disassemble the products and
transport them, said lawyer Joey Zukran, Esq.-- jzukran@lpclex.com
-- of LPC Avocat Inc., who is representing the class-action
members.

"Our position is that the recall program is inadequate, that it
dissuades people from taking part in it and benefitting from the
refund," Zukran said. "The company said they would refund everyone
their money, but then they changed the modalities of the agreement
and they ended up keeping the money. Ninety-eight per cent of
Quebec consumers still have the dressers in their homes. We want
the money being offered to go into their hands."

Estimating that one million of the 102 brands of Ikea furniture
that fall under the recall (child dressers purchased between 2002
and 2016 higher than 60 centimetres and adult dressers higher than
75 centimetres) were sold in Quebec, with an average price of $200,
Zukran estimates the total worth of the class-action suit at close
to $200 million.

"The proof is in the pudding -- no one is using the recall," he
said. "We want a condemnation against Ikea. I consider these
ill-gotten gains. They put products on the market that are
dangerous."

The law firm is still working out the details of how class-action
members can prove ownership, how much they will receive in
compensation, and how much Ikea will be charged in punitive
damages.

A spokesperson for Ikea Canada said on December 7 the company could
not comment because the matter is before the courts.

About 40 people have signed on to the suit. Anyone wishing to join
can go to lpclex.com/IKEA.[GN]


ILLINOIS: DCFS Sued Over Foster Youth Psychiatric Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Christy Gutowski, Elyssa Cherney and Jason Meisner, writing for
Chicago Tribune, report that Cook County's public guardian sued the
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services on December 13,
alleging the beleaguered child welfare agency is causing "immense
harm" to mentally ill foster children by keeping them in
psychiatric hospitals beyond medical discharge dates as it
struggles to find them homes with appropriate services.

"It's hard to imagine anything that says to a child more, 'You
don't matter,' than being in a locked psychiatric hospital when
there's absolutely no reason for you to be there," said Charles
Golbert, the county's acting public guardian.

The federal class-action lawsuit, which seeks an end to the
practice, was filed on behalf of more than a dozen Illinois foster
youths against DCFS and several employees, including the estates of
two deceased past agency directors.

The suit alleges that state officials have known for decades about
the lack of suitable placements, and that they worsened the tragic
circumstances of the children's lives by repeatedly cutting budgets
for appropriate treatment facilities and foster homes.

The "inhumane" practice, known as "beyond medical necessity," costs
taxpayers more than $125,000 a month, the suit alleges. From 2015
through 2017, more than 800 children were held this way, including
more than 30 percent of children in DCFS care who were
hospitalized, the suit states.

The problem is so well known, according to the suit, that in 2015
state lawmakers directed DCFS to formally track children and teens
in foster care who languish after being medically cleared for
discharge. The lawsuit also follows a ProPublica Illinois
investigation into the problem published in June.

Two 19-year-old plaintiffs shared their experiences at a news
conference about the suit. The Tribune is not using full names to
protect the privacy of the teens, who remain under DCFS
guardianship.

Skylar L. was 15 when she stayed in a psychiatric hospital for 79
days beyond medical necessity, according to the lawsuit. In the six
months she spent there in 2015, Skylar said she was allowed to go
outdoors only once.

"I felt like a prisoner," she said at a news conference at the
Loevy & Loevy law firm, which helped bring the suit. "I felt very
depressed. . . . I don't want anybody to go through what I went
through."

Skylar, who now lives in Des Plaines, said she received just one
hour of daily schooling, which she said consisted of doing word
puzzles.

Burl F. entered DCFS care after experiencing extreme abuse from his
father and was placed in a psychiatric hospital in 2008, according
to the suit. He stayed in the hospital for about two months beyond
his discharge date.

"I didn't get a chance to see my family," said Burl, who now
resides in Calumet City. "I was behind in school. There were days I
woke up feeling I was at home and just realizing I was at the
hospital. I stayed there Christmas. I missed my birthday. It was
hard."

DCFS spokesman Neil Skene said the agency had no comment on the
lawsuit. He called it a "very complex challenge" to find placements
for youths with severe behavioral or mental health needs. Some of
these children may display adverse behaviors, including
fire-setting and self-harm practices, that get them rejected from
private providers, foster homes or their own families, he said.

"The availability of community resources and facilities to handle
complex behavioral and physical health needs of children and
teenagers is a serious need in Illinois," Skene said in a
statement. "This is a decades-long problem in Illinois that has now
fallen to the current leadership of DCFS. We are at the deep end of
a challenge within the health care system. . . . Rebuilding the
capacity of the mental health system will require more than a
lawsuit."

Also on Decenber 13, a federal judge put a hold on a U.S.
government attempt to cut off funding for an Uptown psychiatric
hospital that is struggling to survive amid complaints that young
patients face unsafe conditions. Chicago Lakeshore Hospital had
gone to court to try to stop a Saturday cutoff date for the
facility to continue billing Medicare and Medicaid for new
patients.

At a hearing, Meredith Duncan, Esq. -- mduncan@polsinelli.com -- an
attorney for the hospital, said an abrupt cutoff federal funding
would eliminate a unique facility that "takes the most difficult
cases, the youth that other providers cannot and will not take."

Duncan said Chicago Lakeshore has put in place a corrective action
plan and substantial changes already have been made to the way it
handles allegations of abuse. The hospital presented the changes to
the government, but officials have refused to even consider it and
the two sides "are at an absolute impasse," she said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Valerie Raedy, Esq. who represents the
government, said "there is damage being done" by having children
remain in the hospital's care. She said the facility has repeatedly
failed to take corrective action even after the issues were exposed
in the media.

"(The hospital) was unable to keep its patients -- vulnerable young
kids -- safe from sexual and physical abuse," Raedy said. "They
were aware of the ProPublica and Chicago Tribune reports and still
were not in compliance."

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman opted to keep the
federal money flowing while the issues are sorted out. The next
court date is Jan. 2.

DCFS stopped admitting children in its care to Chicago Lakeshore
several weeks ago amid an increased number of calls to the state's
child abuse hotline this year. The final DCFS teen was transferred
out Nov. 30.

The child welfare agency has launched at least 20 hotline
investigations in 2018. Many of the complaints alleged inadequate
supervision by staff as young patients fought or engaged in sexual
activity. In some investigations, staff members were accused of
being physically or sexually abusive. A Nov. 19 complaint involved
a 9-year-old patient who accused a staff member of choking her
while trying to restrain the child.

Most of the hospital's inspection violations this year related to
regulatory issues such as the length of telephone cords or
improperly secured doors. But a Nov. 21 inspection cited the child
abuse investigations and found hospital policies and procedures
were inadequate and constituted an "immediate threat to patient
health and safety."

Chicago Lakeshore is one of the largest hospitals for psychiatric
services in Illinois, serving more than 5,000 patients a year in
two buildings, including one for children and teens. An estimated
one-quarter of DCFS children who need inpatient psychiatric
services are treated there, with many languishing beyond their
scheduled discharge date as the state agency struggles to find them
homes.

This was the second time in recent months that the hospital asked a
federal judge to intervene. After an earlier threat to cut off
government funding, the hospital filed a similar request Sept. 27,
then promptly withdrew it when regulators agreed to give the
hospital more time.

In their latest legal filing, hospital officials said they have
appealed directly to federal officials but cannot get a hearing
until February -- weeks after the Dec. 15 deadline. The hospital
has another 30 days after this weekend's deadline to bill for
current patients.

Hospital administrators said they installed new security cameras in
early November, replacing an old system that at times resulted in
inoperable cameras and crippled complaint investigations.

"The expectation of allegation-free acute psychiatric care to
traumatized children and adolescents, especially those who are a
product of the public system, is unequivocally unrealistic," Dr.
Peter Nierman, the hospital's chief medical officer, wrote in an
attachment in this week's court filing. "While it is incumbent upon
our staff to limit the opportunities for abuse and neglect to
occur, an expectation of zero tolerance for allegations constitutes
a complete lack of understanding of the psychopathology of what we
do as providers in this field."[GN]


IN-N-OUT BURGERS: Victor Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
VICTOR RAMIREZ, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IN-N-OUT BURGERS,
a California corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 30-2018-01039394-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Sup. Ct., Dec. 20, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, failed
to pay wages at time of termination, and failed to provide proper
wage statement under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not compensate
Plaintiffs' hourly non-exempt employees for all the minutes that
they worked. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants altered the time
cards to reduce the hours worked by Plaintiff and the members of
the class in order to avoid payment of meal break penalties, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who acquired India Globalization Capital, Inc. ("India
Globalization" or the "Company") (NYSE: IGC, OTC: IGCC ) securities
between October 25, 2017 and October 29, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until January 2, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) India
Globalization's business model was in a state of change in order to
lure potential blockchain and cannabis investors; (2) India
Globalization had overstated the benefits of its relationships with
manufacturers, partners and distributors in order to inflate its
potential commercial success in the blockchain and cannabis
markets; and (3) as a result, the New York Stock Exchange delisted
India Globalization's shares from its exchange. When the true
details entered the market, India Globalization stock fell $1.96
per share, or over 78%, from its previous closing price to close at
$0.53 per share on October 30, 2018.

If you acquired India Globalization securities, have information,
or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact
Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181207005588/en/

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


INUVO INC: Akerman Seeks to Enjoin Vote on ConversionPoint Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS AKERMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INUVO, INC., RICHARD HOWE, G. KENT BURNETT, PAUL L.
FOSTER, GORDON CAMERON, CHARLES MORGAN, and PATRICK TERRELL, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02407-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., December 20, 2018), seeks to
enjoin the Defendants from holding a stockholder vote on a proposed
merger and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger
unless and until certain material information is disclosed to Inuvo
stockholders.

On November 2, 2018, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger by and among,
ConversionPoint Technologies Inc., ConversionPoint Holdings, Inc.
("New Parent"), Inuvo, CPT Merger Sub, Inc., and CPT Cigar Merger
Sub, Inc.  Upon completion of the merger between Inuvo and a
subsidiary of New Parent, each share of Inuvo common stock will be
converted into the right to receive $0.45 in cash and
0.18877 shares of New Parent common stock, which the Merger
Agreement calls the "Inuvo exchange ratio."

The consummation of the Proposed Merger is subject to certain
closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders of
Inuvo.  The Company expects the Proposed Merger to close in the
first quarter of 2019.

On December 17, 2018, in order to convince Inuvo shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the
filing of a joint materially incomplete and misleading registration
statement, which was filed by New Parent on Form S-4 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, notes the complaint.  

The S-4 discloses that the Company entered into non-disclosure
agreements with, at least, Parties A, B and C.  The S-4, however,
fails to disclose whether these non-disclosure agreements (or any
other non-disclosure agreements or similar agreements in effect)
contain don't-ask-don't waive ("DADW") standstill provisions that
are currently precluding any of these 3 or more interested parties
from making a topping bid for the Company, according to the
complaint.

Inuvo, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The Company was
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in October 1987.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Inuvo is a technology company that provides data-driven platforms
that can automatically identify and message online audiences for
any product or service across devices, channels and formats,
including video, mobile, connected TV, display, social and
native.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter C. Wetherall, Esq.
          WETHERALL GROUP, LTD.
          9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (702) 838-8500
          Facsimile: (702) 837-5081
          E-mail: pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com

               - and -

          Aaron Brody, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL, & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com
                  mklein@ssbny.com


IOOF: Class Action Lawyers Considering a Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
James Mitchell, writing for Investors Daily, reports that a
national law firm is considering a class action against embattled
wealth giant IOOF.

APRA recently took measures to disqualify several key employees,
including the chairman and CEO, from acting as a responsible
officer or trustee of the group's superannuation entity, IMIL.

IOOF managing director Christopher Kelaher and chairman George
Venardos consequently agreed to step aside from their respective
positions three days after APRA's announcement.

Shine Lawyers has now taken a stance against IOOF and revealed it
is currently proposing a claim against the company.

The law firm said it has undertaken a year-long investigation into
alleged corporate misconduct within IOOF, with backing from ICP and
Litigation Lending. The proposed claim will be subject to the
finalisation of that investigation, as well as interest from IOOF
shareholders.

"[] action by APRA comes after revelations of alleged corporate
misconduct within IOOF in the media in June 2015, followed by
appearances by IOOF's managing director and other senior executives
at a Senate Inquiry in July and August 2015 and at the banking
royal commission earlier this year. IOOF's alleged misconduct dates
back to at least 2007," Shine Lawyers said in a statement.

Adding to this, Shine Lawyers special counsel for class actions,
Craig Allsopp, Esq. -- craig.allsopp@acalawyers.com.au -- who was
formerly a senior lawyer in ASIC's enforcement area, said: "We have
been reviewing IOOF's documents and preparing a claim against IOOF
on behalf of shareholders".

"We are investigating a number of instances of alleged misconduct,
as well as whether IOOF had appropriate policies and processes to
identify and report misconduct to regulators," Mr Allsopp added.

"We welcome APRA's actions against IOOF and we will look closely at
what the regulator has to say about alleged misconduct by IOOF."

Morningstar this week warned that class action lawsuits pose a
significant risk to the listed wealth manager.

In a research note, analyst Chanaka Gunasekera noted that "several"
class action lawyers are now indicating an interest in commending
proceedings.

"At this early stage, estimating the cost of a class action has a
high degree of uncertainty. As a reference point, a few years ago
QBE Insurance settled a class action for about $132.5 million and
we have forecasts likely class actions costs to IOOF of $150
million spread over fiscal 2020 and 2021," he said.

Morningstar also expects ASIC to investigate the company over
potential breaches of directors' duties and the FOFA legislations.


The analyst has forecasted costs of around $50 million over the
next two fiscal years.

"Notably, this is significantly higher than the maximum exposure to
the royal commission recently guided to by the company, which in
current circumstances, we expect is overly optimistic."[GN]


ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Yom Kippur War Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Assa Sasson, writing for Haaretz, reports that for more than 20
years starting in 1961, the Israeli government required citizens to
lend it money in times of crisis, when it suddenly was confronted
with unexpected and costly crises like the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

But the loans were never repaid. Indeed, the state stopped paying
interest and inflation-linkage on them in 2012, 15 years after the
last of the loans, which were taken during the First Lebanon War in
1982, were supposed to have been repaid.

An estimated 300,000 Israelis who lent the state money in those
years, a sum now estimated at 500 million shekels ($133 million),
not only haven't been repaid, but the value of the money is being
constantly eroded.

Now a non-profit organization Tzedek Financi (Financial Justice) is
seeking to get it back through a class action suit. What it has
found out so far from the government's response is that officials
have done nothing to try to locate the lenders and return their
money.

Government attorneys contend that it's up to the lender to identify
themselves if they want their money back.

"The responsibility for redeeming the loans applies, under the
lending laws, to those who made the loans, and the relevant
legislative provisions set dates and ways of redeeming the loans
that the lenders have to follow," the government said in response
to the lawsuit.

The claim is doubtful because the government requires private
sector financial service companies, like banks and insurers, to
find clients they have lost touch with over the years.

Indeed, the genesis of the Financial Justice lawsuit was the fact
that two women, Ora Bar and Shoshana Viner, used a treasury program
to help people find lost financial assets at banks and insurance
companies. The treasury's Har Hakesef (Money Mountain) website also
included information on the compulsorily loans, which the two had
made to the government during the years 1961-1982.

The two realized they were not the only ones who had forgotten
about the loans and turned to Financial Justice for help with a
class action suit.

In principle the Bank of Israel, which holds the money, has said it
will seek to find 4% of the lenders every year, with the goal of
finding all of them within 25 years. In practice, in the last 15
years it has issued no written appeals at all.

The loans came in two forms -- one strictly compulsory in the form
of deduction directly from paychecks that were invested in bearer
bonds. The bonds were not negotiable. Other loans were somewhat
more voluntary in the sense that the lender had the right to refuse
-- although he or she had to refuse rather than opt to lend the
money.

In defending itself against the need to find the lender, the
government is arguing that the compulsory nature of the loans means
they aren't really investments at all.

"These were not voluntary investments made by the public but an
obligation made under the law and mandated by the state. . . .
There is no issue of investor protection or of a voluntary loan,"
it told the court.

The government argues that the voluntary loans also don't count as
investment. "The voluntary loans were made out of generosity to the
state in its hour of need . . . It should be noted that at the time
a minority refused to volunteer their money," it said.

Needless to say, Financial Justice doesn't buy the argument. "You
can't call the situation anything but completely absurd," it said
in court documents.

"The state raised funds from the public and promised a return on
the investment. This is a financial investment in every respect,
which is essentially similar to a debenture (and as mentioned, the
loan law is explicitly defined as a "bond"). The state certainly
did not prove that the lenders did not expect to receive money in
the future," it said.

The two sides were due to meet in court to see whether Financial
Justice class action suit would be recognized. [GN]


JELD-WEN INC: Settlement in Crane Wage Suit Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON CRANE on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JELD-WEN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17cv455-L (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (i) granted the Plaintiff's amended motion for
preliminary approval of the Amended Joint Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement; and (ii) granted in part the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
failure to pay all wages owed upon termination in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 510, 226(a), 201, and 202.  The same
claims were also brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 ("PAGA").  Finally, they alleges a claim for violation of the
Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, civil penalties,
restitution, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees on his own
behalf and on behalf of the putative class, as well as civil
penalties under PAGA on behalf of the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency.  The action was removed from State court.  The
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

After investigating he Plaintiff's claims through formal and
informal discovery, the parties reached settlement in private
mediation.  The Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary class
action settlement approval.  The motion was denied because the
Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's amended motion for
preliminary approval of the Amended Joint Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement, which together with attached exhibits, sets
forth the terms and conditions of the class action settlement as
currently proposed.  He also seeks class action certification for
settlement purposes and approval of the proposed notice of class
action settlement.  The Defendant does not oppose.

Having read and considered the Motion, including supporting
declarations, exhibits and the Settlement, Judge Lorenz certified
for settlement purposes only the class consisting of all of the
Defendant's hourly, non-exempt production line and line-supporting
employees who worked in the State of California at any time between
Feb. 1, 2013 and March 26, 2018; and a subclass consisting of those
members of the Class who, at any time from Feb 1, 2014 through
March 26, 2018, were separated from employment with the Defendant.

The Judge appointed the Plaintiff as the Class and the Subclass
representative for settlement purposes only; his counsel Alexander
I. Dychter as the counsel for the Class and the Subclass; and
Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the Claims Administrator.
Because the Plaintiff has not provided any information about his
other counsel, Walter L. Haines; accordingly, his request to
appoint him is denied.

The Judge finds that the terms of the Settlement are within the
range of possible approval as fair, reasonable and adequate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), and that there is a
sufficient basis for notifying the Class and Subclass of the
Settlement.  Accordingly, he granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement.  The parties will comply with their respective
obligations under the Settlement.

The Notice attached to the Settlement is approved with the changes
indicated in Exhibit A to the Order.  The Judge has revised the
Notice for clarity and brevity, and to comply with the law
regarding class member objections to a proposed settlement.  The
deletions are indicated by strikethroughs, additions are indicated
in bold italicized font, and instructions to counsel are indicated
in all caps in underlined italicized font.


No later than Feb. 18, 2019, the Class Counsel will file a motion,
if any, for attorney's fees and costs of the Class Counsel and
enhancement payment to the Class Representative.  No later than
March 11, 2019, the putative members of the Class or the Subclass
will submit their requests for exclusion, if any, by following
instructions in the Notice.

Any putative member of the Class or Subclass may request exclusion.
Any member of the Class or the Subclass may dispute the number of
work weeks stated in the Notice.  The members are encouraged to
notify the Claims Administrator of the dispute and submit
information no later than 45 days after Notice mailing by following
instructions in the Notice.

No later than March 25, 2019, the Plaintiff will file his motion
for final approval of the Settlement, if any.

The final approval hearing is set for April 22, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tYD6DV from Leagle.com.

Jason Crane, an individual, on behlaf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander
Isaac Dychter -- alex@dychterlaw.com -- Dychter Law Offices, APC,
Walter L. Haines -- whaines@uelglaw.com -- United Employees Law
Group, PC & Seth Adam Spiewak -- adam@damanllp.com.

Jeld-Wen, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Alexander Raffetto Stevens -- astevens@mcginnislaw.com -- McGinnis
Lochridge, Matthew E. Costello -- matthew.costello@haynesboone.com
-- Haynes and Boone & Tamara I. Devitt --
tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com -- Haynes and Boone, LLP.


JPAY INC: Reyes Files Appeal vs. USDC-CALA in 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joe Rudy Reyes filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit titled JOE RUDY REYES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JPAY, INC.; SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; PRAXELL INC.; AND SUNRISE BANKS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00315-R-MRW (C.D. Cal.).

The appellate case is captioned as JOE RUDY REYES, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Petitioner v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, Respondent; JPAY, INC., PRAXELL, INC., AND SUNRISE
BANKS, N.A. Real Parties in Interest, Case No. 18-73493, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Reyes seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to
vacate its order compelling his claims into arbitration on an
individual basis and to enter an order denying the motion to compel
arbitration brought by Defendants JPay, Inc., Praxell, Inc., and
Sunrise Banks, N.A.

The Plaintiff wants the Ninth Circuit to determine whether the
District Court clearly erred in granting a motion to compel
arbitration:

   1) without addressing the ways in which the inherently
      coercive nature of the prison environment, and the role of
      state actors in providing Defendants' products to
      Petitioner and other putative class members, make this
      situation different from a typical consumer transaction
      between private contracting parties;

   2) by ruling against Petitioner as a matter of law on the
      question of contract formation rather than finding that his
      declaration created a genuine dispute of material fact over
      whether he ever received the Cardholder Agreement, and
      without discussing the legal significance of the undisputed
      fact that the action indicating acceptance of the agreement
      to arbitrate -- activation and initial use of the debit
      card -- was taken by someone other than Petitioner; and

   3) without analyzing whether and how two of the three
      defendants, neither of which is named as a party in the
      arbitration clause, have the authority to enforce it?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
moved the Court for an order certifying this class:

     All persons who, from applicable statutes of limitation
     through the present, upon their release from a California
     Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility, were
     given the balance of their inmate trust account and/or all
     or a portion of the funds owed to them under Cal. Penal Code
     Section 2713.1 on a "JPay Progress Card," as issued and/or
     serviced by JPay, Inc., Praxell, Inc., and Sunrise Bank
     National Association.

The Plaintiff also moved the Court for an order to certify this
Subclass:

     All persons who, from applicable statutes of limitation
     through the present, upon their release from a California
     Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility, were
     given all or a portion of the funds owed to them under Cal.
     Penal Code Section 2713.1 on a "JPay Progress Card," as
     issued and/or serviced by JPay, Inc., Praxell, Inc., and
     Sunrise Bank National Association.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Petitioner is represented by:

          Mark Griffin, Esq.
          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  lgerber@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Sabarish Neelakanta, Esq.
          Masimba Mutamba, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
          P.O. Box 1151
          Lake Worth, FL 33460
          Telephone: (561) 360-2523
          Facsimile: (866) 228-1681
          E-mail: sneelakanta@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
                  mmutamba@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

               - and -

          Karla Gilbride, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
          1620 L St. NW, Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 797-8600
          E-mail: kgilbride@findjustice.com

Defendant-Real Party in Interest JPAY INC. is represented by:

          Devin (Velvel) M. Freedman, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-8400
          Facsimile: (305) 357-8538
          E-mail: vfreedman@bsfllp.com

Defendant-Real Party in Interest PRAXELL INC. is represented by:

          George F. Verschelden, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1201 Walnut, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 842-8600
          Facsimile: (816) 412-9344
          E-mail: George.verschelden@stinson.com


KING COUNTY, WA: Petition for Writ in Moore Suit Due Feb. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Elena Kagan extends to February 7, 2019, the time to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter captioned MITZI
JOHANKNECHT, in her official capacity as King County Sheriff,
Petitioner v. EVA MOORE AND BROOKE SHAW, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Case No. 18A675, in the Supreme
Court of United States.

The Lower Court Case is styled EVA MOORE; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. JOHN URQUHART, in his official capacity as
King County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-36086, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court case is titled EVA MOORE; et al. Plaintiffs v.
JOHN URQUHART, in his official capacity as King County Sheriff,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01123-TSZ, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court granting the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.  The District Court
dismissed the action with prejudice on grounds that the Sheriff
rightly does not attempt to defend on appeal.

The case is a class action challenging the constitutionality of a
Washington statute that allows tenants to be evicted from their
homes without a court hearing.  The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief against the Sheriff of King County, whose office
enforces the challenged statute by executing the eviction orders.

Because the Plaintiffs' action challenges the constitutionality of
a state statute, the District Court invited the State of Washington
to intervene to defend the statute.  Before the State entered an
appearance, though, the District Court granted the Sheriff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c).[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Elizabeth Anne Adams, Esq.
          Toby James Marshall, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: tmarshall@tmdlegal.com
                  eadams@terrellmarshall.com
                  tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Rory B. O'Sullivan, Esq.
          KING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 267-7019
          Facsimile: (206) 267-7099
          E-mail: roryo@kcba.org

The Defendant-Appellee-Applicant is represented by:

          Daniel T. Satterberg, Esq.
          David J. W. Hackett, Esq.
          KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          500 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 477-9483
          E-mail: dan.satterberg@kingcounty.gov
                  David.Hackett@KingCounty.gov


KIRCHHOFF AUTOMOTIVE: Green Sues Over Time-Shaving Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Green, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kirchhoff Automotive USA, Inc.,
Kirchhoff Automotive Manchester, Inc., Kirchhoff Automotive Dallas
Inc., Kirchhoff Automotive Waverly, Inc., Kirchhoff Automotive
Tecumseh, Inc., and Kirchhoff Automotive Lansing, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00003 (E.D. Tenn., January 7, 2019) is a
collective action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), brought on behalf of all current and former hourly-paid
factory/production employees of Defendants within the United States
for "off-the-clock" and "edited-out/shaved" unpaid straight time
and overtime compensation against Defendants.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Green has been employed by and worked for
Defendants as an hourly-paid factory/production employee at their
Manchester, Tennessee production plant within the 3 year period
preceding the filing of this action. The Defendants have had a
common policy, practice and plan of inducing, expecting, and
suffering and permitting Plaintiff and similarly situated
hourly-paid factory/production employees to work "off-the-clock",
during all relevant times herein, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid factory/production
employees performed work duties before being "clocked-in" to
Defendants' timekeeping system prior to their scheduled starting
times, without being compensated for such "off-the-clock" work
during weekly pay periods, during all times material. Additionally,
Defendants have had a common timekeeping "rounding-off" policy that
benefitted Defendants but did not benefit Plaintiff and similarly
situated hourly-paid factory/production employees.

As a result of Defendants' bad faith and willful failure to pay
Plaintiff and class members in compliance with the requirements of
the FLSA, Plaintiff and class members have suffered lost wages in
terms of lost straight and overtime compensation as well as other
damages, the complaint says.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to him and all other
similarly situated hourly-paid factory/production employees who
have worked for Defendants at any time within the 3 years preceding
the filing of this lawsuit.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Green was a resident of Tennessee and worked as
an hourly-paid factory/production employee while employed by
Defendant.

Kirchhoff Automotive USA, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation and has
its principal offices at 2600 Bellingham Drive, Troy, Michigan
48043.

Kirchhoff Automotive Manchester, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation
with its principal office located at 1021 Volunteer Parkway,
Manchester, Tennessee 37355-0460.

Kirchhoff Automotive Dallas, Inc. is a Michigan Corporation and has
its principal office at 3901 W. Miller Road, Garland, Texas 75041.

Kirchhoff Automotive Waverly, Inc. is a Michigan Corporation and
has its principal office at 611 W. 2nd Street, Waverly, Ohio
45690.

Kirchhoff Automotive Tecumseh, Inc. is a Michigan Corporation and
has its principal offices at 1200 east Chicago Blvd., Tecumseh,
Michigan 49286 and 5550 S. Occidental Highway, Tecumseh, Michigan
49286.

Kirchhoff Automotive Lansing, Inc. is a Michigan Corporation and
has its principal office at 16325 Felton Road, Lansing, Michigan
48906.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
     Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
            rbryant@jsyc.com
            rturner@jsyc.com


LA-Z-BOY INC: Vasquez Sues Over False Ad
----------------------------------------
Jeff Vasquez, Plaintiff, v. La-Z-Boy Incorporated, La-Z-Boy
Furniture Gallery, and John Doe La-Z-Boy Furniture Gallery,
Defendants, Case No. CV-19-909275 (Cuyahoga Cty. Clerk of Ct.,
Ohio, January 8, 2019) seeks to represent a class of Ohio residents
and remedy La-Z Boy's ongoing violations of the Ohio Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("DTPA") and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices
Act ("CSPA") in its false advertising of prices. Plaintiff seeks
equitable and monetary relief to remedy La-Z-Boy's ongoing
violations of the CSPA and DTPA.

Sometime before October 6, 2018, Vasquez saw an advertisement for
La-Z-Boy furniture. On or about October 6, 2018, Vasquez went to
the Store specifically to purchase some of the furniture
advertised. The ad said nothing about limitations on the type of
material to cover the sofa or additional costs for certain fabric.
The ad said nothing about delivery costs.

The sofas come with a warranty that states: "With every La-Z-Boy
product, you receive the famous La-Z-Boy limited warranty; one of
the best in the industry." La-Z-Boy assures customers "If anything
goes wrong, we will fix it." The sofas delivered to Vasquez were
defective. However, instead of honoring the warranty, and promises
made, La-Z-Boy refused to fix the problem, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as
an award of appropriate damages, including return of all improperly
collected monies, compensatory damages, statutory damages,
reasonable attorney fees, and such other and further relief as the
Court deems appropriate.

Plaintiff Vasquez is an Ohio consumer who purchased two sofas from
the Store and who saw the advertisement in his home.

La-Z-Boy Incorporated is one of the largest retailers of furniture
in Ohio. La-Z-Boy advertises throughout Ohio.

La-Z-Boy Furniture Gallery is the store from which Plaintiff Jeff
Vasquez purchased the advertised furniture.

John Doe La-Z-Boy Furniture Gallery are all non-company owned
stores in Ohio that sell furniture based on the La-Z-Boy
advertisements and do not honor advertised prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James S. Wertheim, Esq.
     James S Wertheim LLC
     24700 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 309
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: 216-902-1719
     Email: wertheimiim@gmail.com


LG&E: Residents Near Coal Plant Seeking Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Rust, writing for Wave 3 News, reports that a lawsuit
against LG&E hit court on December 12, seeking class action
certification.

Four residents that live near the Cane Run power plant filed the
suit, seeking monetary damages after coal ash plagued their
neighborhood for years.

The Cane Run site operated as a coal-fired power plant until June
2015, when LG&E converted it to natural gas.

Coal ash is the by-product of burning coal and contains carcinogens
like arsenic, lead, chromium, silica, and other hazardous
substances.

From around 2008 to 2015, clouds of coal ash would blow from the
plant and into homes up to three miles away, according to the
lawsuit.

One of the residents that has filed the suit is Kathy Little, who
has lived across from the plant for 39 years.

Little said she never really noticed the problem until around 2008.
She said at that time, the plant changed the amount of coal ash
they would allow to be dumped in the landfill.

That's when she started noticing it in the air. Little said that's
when her uphill battle began.

"The more I tried to get it taken care of, the more resistance I
came upon," Little said.

So, Little began to take legal action in 2013, along with
neighbors.

This most recent suit cites eight violations issued by Metro
Government between 2011 and 2014.

LG&E tried various methods to control the coal ash, eventually
filling in the coal ponds and covering the landfill.

LG&E said all landfills and ponds have been capped, closed, and
covered. They are inspected monthly, by LG&E and the city.

Little said it's still not over and she still sees coal ash.

"It's just not going to go away," a tearful Little said.

She fears for her 15-year-old granddaughter, Brianna, who has lived
with her since she was a baby and has grown up living with the
toxic particles.

"It circulates through your system and then you see your filters
are black," Little said, adding that she can't help but feel
responsible for exposing the young girl.

She said Brianna has symptoms like nose bleeds, migraines, and
neurological issues that correlate with coal ash exposure. Brianna
is part of a study the University of Louisville is conducting on
children that have grown up exposed to coal ash.

Little said she hasn't seen anything done for her community and
that's why she is still trying to bring the issue to court.

The judge has asked for all documents to be submitted by Jan. 18,
then a ruling will be made to determine whether this is a class
action lawsuit or not. If it is certified, 9,800 homes will be
included in the suit.

LG&E released this statement:

"We were pleased to present our arguments to the Judge in today's
hearing. We believe this is a case that involved a small handful of
neighbors, who are upset about past operations at the plant and
that there is no basis in the law to certify this as a class
action."

The residents' attorney Tad Thomas, Esq. --
tad@thomaslawoffices.com -- released this statement:

"It is clear that coal ash causes adverse health effects and that
Kentucky law provides residents around the Cane Run plant a remedy
to have this toxic substance cleaned from their homes. We
appreciate the judge allowing thorough argument on the issues today
and hope that the ruling comes down in favor of our clients."[GN]


LINDENHURST, NY Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Street Flooding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer McLogan, writing for CBSNewYork, reports that homeowners
on Long Island say they are frustrated with chronic street
flooding.

Near the Great South Bay, streets can go from bone dry to being
under two feet of water within minutes.

Now, those homeowners are planning to sue.

Robert and Faye Anastasio and a dozen other families in Lindenhurst
are uniting for a possible class action lawsuit against the south
shore village they love.

"Yes we are all contemplating taking legal action," the couple told
CBS2's McLogan. "Because nothing's being done."

Daily life in Lindenhurst continues to be a tug of war with water
woes. High tides, full moon, and winds all wreaking havoc on local
properties.

Residents say they are tired of having to wait for a fix. Flooding
has now gone from inches to feet on a regular basis.

"I've got hip boots from an uncle of mine who was a fireman… and
I have to wear them this high to get up and down the block,"
homeowner John Bucalo said.

"We are doing every possible thing we can within our means it's a
costly operation trying new methods," DPW commissioner
Rick Sorrentino said.

Check valves and back flow prevention devices -- designed to allow
water to flow out but not back into streets -- reportedly only work
some of the time.

Lindenhurst is now considering electric pumps. It's something
already successful in nearby Freeport according to Mayor Robert
Kennedy.

"We've put in pumps into these catch basins so that in the event of
high tide and rain water collecting in the streets," Mayor Kennedy
explained.

"The pumps will bypass the check valves and pump the water back
into the bay."

There are health and safety issues as well.

"I have a cane. It's very hard to navigate," one resident said.

"Long term is put in flood gates," Mr. Sorrentino answered when
asked about a solution to the possible lawsuit.

"Surge barrier gates. Very similar to what they have up in New
Bedford, Massachusetts. Put them in 48 years ago. Haven't flooded
since."

South shore mayors are meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to determine if it's feasible to build flood gates at
Jones and Fire Island inlets. [GN]


LOMA NEGRA: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC has filed a class action lawsuit against Loma Negra
Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima (NYSE: LOMA) ("Loma
Negra" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's American Depository Shares ("Shares") issued pursuant or
traceable to Loma Negra's November 2017 initial public offering
(the "IPO" or "Offering").

Investors who purchased Loma Negra's Shares and suffered an
investment loss in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact
Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258-1585 or
(888) 715-1740 to discuss their important legal rights and options.
Additional information about this action may also be found at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/loma-negra/.

In November 2017, Loma Negra completed its IPO by issuing
approximately 53.5 million Shares to the investing public at $19
per share.  As detailed in the complaint, the IPO offering
documents are alleged to have (i) contained untrue statements of
material fact and (ii) omitted to state material facts required by
governing regulations.  At the time the complaint was filed, Loma
Negra's Shares traded below $11 per share -- a decline of more than
40% in value from their offering price.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Loma Negra's Shares in
connection with the Company's November 2017 IPO may, no later than
February 4, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


MARK HJELLE: Court Narrows Claims in RICO Suit
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
a Memorandum and Order granting in part Defendant's Motion To
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint in the
case captioned ORION PROPERTY GROUP, LLC, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARK HJELLE,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 17-2738-KHV. (D. Kan.).

Orion Property Group, LLC asserts putative class claims against
Mark Hjelle for violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that
defendant used a corporate entity, CSC Service Works, Inc., as a
vessel to engage in a scheme to defraud customers of CSC.

Defendant urges the Court to dismiss plaintiff's claims for lack of
personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., and for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Personal Jurisdiction

RICO

Orion asserts that RICO authorizes nationwide service of process on
Hjelle.   

In a federal question case, the Court can assert personal
jurisdiction if (1) the applicable statute potentially confers
jurisdiction by authorizing service of process on defendant and (2)
the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.

Minimum Contacts

Under Rule 4(k)(1)(A), service of summons establishes personal
jurisdiction over a defendant who is subject to jurisdiction in the
state where the district court is located, here, Kansas.  

Kansas Long-Arm Statute, K.S.A. Section 60-308(b)

To meet its prima facie burden to show personal jurisdiction, Orion
must allege that Hjelle committed one of the enumerated acts listed
in the Kansas long-arm statute. Here, however, Hjelle apparently
concedes that Orion can meet the requirements of Section 60-308(b).
In light of defendant's position, the Court proceeds to the due
process analysis.  

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "protects an
individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding
judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful
contacts, ties, or relations. Plaintiff may satisfy this standard
by showing that defendant has purposefully directed his activities
at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged
injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.

Assignment Of Claims

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that although Orion is
located in Kansas, it asserts the claims of Chequers Apartments,
which is located in Missouri and is owned by the Kansas City Art
Institute, also located in Missouri. As assignee of the claims, it
stands in the shoes of the assignor, i.e. Chequers Apartments.
Orion only has standing to assert the rights of Chequers
Apartments. Thus, for purposes of determining personal
jurisdiction, the Court looks to whether the claims of Chequers
Apartments sufficiently arise from defendant's Kansas-related
activities.

Purposeful Direction

Hjelle asserts that Orion has not adequately alleged that he
purposefully directed his activities to residents of Kansas. In
considering whether Hjelle purposefully directed activities toward
Kansas, the Court examines both the quantity and quality of his
Kansas contacts. Orion may demonstrate purposeful direction by
showing that Hjelle committed (1) an intentional act that was (2)
expressly aimed at the forum state with (3) knowledge that the
brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state.

Intentional Action

To demonstrate purposeful direction, Orion must first show that
Hjelle committed an intentional act.  Orion alleges that Hjelle
committed numerous intentional acts including (1) using CSC as
vessel to commit a pattern of racketeering activity; (2) drafting
and signing the letter of May 17, 2017 to fraudulently
misappropriate proceeds owed under the lease agreements; (3)
fraudulently imposing an unauthorized 9.75 per cent administrative
fee to deprive CSC customers of their rightful lease payments; (4)
sending monthly statements and payments which did not disclose that
the lease agreements did not authorize the administrative fee; and
(5) setting up a website to trick CSC customers into believing that
the leases permitted and authorized the administrative fee.  

Expressly Aimed At Forum State

The second prong requires that Orion show that Hjelle aimed his
intentional action at the forum state.  

Hjelle asserts that Orion can point to only one act which he
directed to Kansas, i.e. his letter of May 17, 2017 which it
received in Kansas. Orion asserts that Hjelle also directed the
following acts toward Kansas: (1) the transparency website which
CSC set up to purportedly explain the 9.75 per cent administrative
fee; and (2) monthly statements and wire transfers which reflected
reduced monthly lease payments as a result of the administrative
fee. Hjelle asserts that CSC not him personally performed the
additional acts, i.e. establishing the transparency website and
sending monthly statements and wire transfers. Construed in the
light most favorable to plaintiff, the factual allegations support
a reasonable inference that as CEO, Hjelle directed CSC to perform
these actions.

Brunt Of Injury Felt In Forum State

Orion has also failed to demonstrate the third prong, i.e. that
Hjelle committed the intentional acts with knowledge that the brunt
of the injury would be felt in the forum state  Orion asserts that
Hjelle engaged in a nationwide scheme which involved likely
hundreds of systematic contacts with Kansas every month" directed
at Orion and potentially hundreds of others in Kansas.  Even
accepting Orion's facts as true, the brunt of the injury was
necessarily in Missouri, i.e. the place where the laundry services
occurred, where the proceeds were collected and where the property
owner was located. On this record, Orion has not alleged facts
which support its position that with respect to the assigned claims
of Chequers Apartments, the brunt of the injury was felt in Kansas.


The Court finds that plaintiff has not adequately alleged that
defendant purposefully directed his activities to residents of the
forum state, i.e. Kansas. Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown
sufficient minimum contacts to confer personal jurisdiction over
defendant.

Jurisdictional Discovery And/Or Evidentiary Hearing

The Plaintiff asserts that if the question of personal jurisdiction
is even a close call, it respectfully requests either an
evidentiary hearing or 60 days to serve written discovery requests
and to take Hjelle's jurisdictional deposition. Orion does not
state what information it would seek to discover or present at a
hearing.  

When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, either
party should be allowed discovery on factual issues raised by the
motion. The Court, however, is vested with broad discretion in
deciding whether to allow discovery. The Court abuses its
discretion if the denial of discovery results in prejudice to
plaintiff. Such prejudice exists where pertinent facts bearing on
the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more
satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary. Here, the question
of personal jurisdiction does not involve controverted facts.
Moreover, plaintiff points to no specific evidence which it seeks
to discover.

On these facts, the Court declines to allow jurisdictional
discovery.
  
Accordingly, the Court sustains in part Defendant Mark Hjelle's
Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.


A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybazp6rx
from Leagle.com.

Orion Property Group, LLC, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland
-- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Brennan P. Fagan
-- bfagan@fed-firm.com -- Fagan Emert & Davis LLC, Christopher C.
Gold -- cgold@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Larkin E. Walsh -- lwalsh@midwest-law.com -- Rex A.
Sharp, PA, Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro
hac vice, Rachel L. Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro
hac vice, Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp,
PA, Ryan C. Hudson -- rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA,
Scott B. Goodger -- sgoodger@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA,
Stuart A. Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro hac vice
& William Skepnek, Skepnek Law Firm, PA.

Mark Hjelle, Defendant, represented by Kelly H. Foos --
kfoos@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Paul A. Williams --
pwilliams@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Robert J. McCully
-- rmccully@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Emerson Has Ongoing Class Action Lawsuit Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Firm PLLC ("Emerson") disclosed its class action lawsuit
investigation on behalf of 500 million or more Marriott
International, Inc. ("Marriott") customers and others. Marriott is
a hotel operator with over 177,000 employees and is based in
Bethesda, Maryland. Marriott disclosed November 30th that the
Starwood guest reservation system had been hacked in a breach
dating back to 2014.

You may be affected by this data breach if you were a customer of a
Marriott-owned Starwood hotel such as Sheraton, W Hotels, Four
Points, Aloft, Le Meridien, Tribute, Design Hotels, Element, the
Luxury Collection, St. Regis and/or Westin between 2014 and
September 2018.

Marriott stated that for 327 million people, the exposed
information includes names, phone numbers, email addresses,
passport numbers and dates of birth. For millions of others, credit
card numbers and card expiration dates were potentially
compromised. This kind of information could be used to steal your
identity and open bank accounts, credit cards or loans in your
name. These records are a treasure trove for hackers seeking to
profit from stolen identities and this data may already be for sale
by criminals on the "Dark-Net."

Emerson is filing a class action lawsuit to recover to recover
damages on behalf of all Marriott-Starwood customers and others
whose personal and financial information was compromised. Houston,
Texas-based firm of Emerson with offices there and in Little Rock,
Arkansas is a boutique law firm specializing in results, integrity,
and personal service. Emerson represents consumers throughout the
nation and has significant cyber-attack and data breach experience
in such data breach cases as Anthem, Premera, Experian, Vizio,
Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"). Medical Informatics
Engineering, Inc. ("MIE"), Valley Anesthesiology, Equifax and
Wendy's. Emerson and its predecessor firms have devoted their
practice to complex commercial litigation for almost 40 years and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for consumers in
class actions throughout the United States.

IMPORTANT: If you were a customer of one of the Starwood hotels
named above or if you have received an email, a letter or other
notification from Marriott or Starwood that your personal and/or
financial information has been compromised or hacked then please
contact us immediately to protect your rights. It makes no
difference what state you reside in. Contact plaintiff's counsel:

         Tanya Autry, Esg.
         John G. Emerson, Esq.
         Emerson Firm PLLC
         Toll-free number: 800-551-8649
         Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com  
                tautry@emersonfirm.com [GN]


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Suit Alleges Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------
David Bernstein, Richard Davis, Daniel Meyerson, Joel Nice, and
Seraphin Nicholson, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Marriott International, Inc.,
Case No. 8:18-cv-03726 (D. Md., December 3, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment and for violation of the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Marriott for its
failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding
its guests' sensitive personal information ("SPI"), including its
guests’ names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses,
passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account information,
date of birth, gender, arrival and departure information,
reservation date, communication preferences and payment card
information.

The Plaintiffs are members of the Starwood Preferred Guest loyalty
program prior to its merger with the Marriott Rewards program in
August 2018 and had their SPI on file with Marriott as part of
their membership in the program. The Plaintiffs' information was
accessed as part of the unauthorized access.

The Defendant Marriott, Inc. is a corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, Maryland
20817 (Montgomery County). Marriott's securities trade on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "MAR." Marriott is one of the
largest hotel chains in the World. Upon information and belief,
approximately 500 million people have stayed at Marriott and
Marriott-owned properties since 2014. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mila F. Bartos, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      3201 New Mexico, NW Suite 395
      Washington, DC 20016
      Tel: (202) 337-8000
      Fax: (202) 337-8090
      E-mail: mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com


MDL 2626: Alcon Appeals Ruling in Contact Lens Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Bausch & Lomb, Inc., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the matter entitled In Re:
Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla.).

The appellate case is captioned as Alcon Laboratories, Inc., et al.
v. Miriam Pardoll, et al., Case No. 18-90036, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 20, 2018, the Hon.
Harvey E. Schlesinger grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  The Court certifies these classes as to the
Plaintiffs' claims brought in Plaintiffs' Interlineation to
Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint:

   * Horizontal Class:

     All persons and entities residing in the United States who
     made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
     manufactured by Alcon, JJVC, or B&L from June 1, 2013 to the
     present (the "Class Period") for their own use and not for
     resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
     subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the purchase
     occurred during the period when the Unilateral Pricing
     Policy was in effect.  Excluded from the Class are any
     purchases from 1-800 Contacts of disposable contact lenses
     subject to B&L's Unilateral Pricing Policy, where the
     purchase occurred on or after July 1, 2015.  Also excluded
     from the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
     subsidiaries and affiliates, any coconspirators, all
     governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned
     to hear any aspect of this action.

The Horizontal Class consists of these subclasses:

   (1) Maryland Subclass:

       All persons and entities residing in Maryland who made
       retail purchases of disposable contact lenses manufactured
       by Alcon, JJVC, or B&L from June 1, 2013 to the date the
       Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
       resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
       subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the purchase
       occurred during the period when the Unilateral Pricing
       Policy was in effect.  Excluded from the Class are any
       purchases from 1-800 Contacts of disposable contact lenses
       subject to B&L's Unilateral Pricing Policy, where the
       purchase occurred on or after July 1, 2015.  Also excluded
       from the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
       subsidiaries and affiliates, any coconspirators, all
       governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned
       to hear any aspect of this action.

   (2) California Subclass:

       All persons and entities residing in California who made
       retail purchases of disposable contact lenses manufactured
       by Alcon, JJVC, or B&L from June 1, 2013 to the date the
       Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
       resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
       subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the purchase
       occurred during the period when the Unilateral Pricing
       Policy was in effect.  Excluded from the Class are any
       purchases from 1-800 Contacts of disposable contact lenses
       subject to B&L's Unilateral Pricing Policy, where the
       purchase occurred on or afler July 1, 2015.  Also excluded
       from the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,
       subsidiaries and affiliates, any coconspirators, all
       governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned
       to hear any aspect of this action.

   * Vertical Classes:

     (1) The JJVC Class:

         All persons and entities residing in the United States
         who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
         manufactured by JJVC from June 1, 2013 to the date the
         Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
         resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
         subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
         purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
         Pricing Policy was in effect.  Excluded from the Class
         are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
         and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
         entities, and any judges, justices, or jurors assigned
         to hear any aspect of this action.

     (2) The Alcon Class:

         All persons and entities residing in the United States
         who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
         manufactured by Alcon from June 1, 2013' to the date the
         Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
         resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
         subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
         purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
         Pricing Policy was in effect.  Excluded from the Class
         are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries,
         and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
         entities, and any judges, justices, or jurors assigned
         to hear any aspect of this action.

     (3) The B&L Class:

         All persons and entities residing in the United States
         who made retail purchases of disposable contact lenses
         manufactured by B&L from June 1, 2013 to the date the
         Court certifies the Class for their own use and not for
         resale, where the prices for such contact lenses were
         subject to a "Unilateral Pricing Policy" and the
         purchase occurred during the period when the Unilateral
         Pricing Policy was in effect.  Excluded from the Class
         are any purchases from 1-800 Contacts of disposable
         contact lenses subject to B&L's Unilateral Pricing
         Policy, where the purchase occurred on or after July 1,
         2015.  Also excluded from the Class are Defendants,
         their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any
         co-conspirators, all governmental entities, and any
         judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of this
         action.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents MIRIAM PARDOLL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; DANA TRAVIS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; MEGAN NEFOROS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; BENETA D. BURT, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and JUDY
DILLON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Emily C. Aldridge, Esq.
          Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD, LLP
          555 12th St., Suite 1600
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 445-4013
          E-mail: ealdridge@bfalaw.com
                  MWeiler@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP
          1101 Market St., Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          John A. DeVault, III, Esq.
          BEDELL DITTMAR DEVAULT PILLANS & COXE, PA
          101 E Adams St.
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 353-0211
          E-mail: jad@bedellfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          Manfred Patrick Muecke, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, LLP
          230 Park Ave., Floor 17
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          1700 K St NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          MILLER FAUCHER & CAFFERTY, LLP
          30 N Lasalle St., Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602-3349
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880

               - and -

          Abbye Klamann, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery St., Floor 29
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: aklamann@lchb.com

               - and -

          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          Gregory Harrison Lercher, Esq.
          LEAVENLAW
          3900 1st St N, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
                  glercher@leavenlaw.com

               - and -

          J Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          J. ANDREW MEYER, PA
          15565 Gulf Blvd.
          Redington Bch, FL 33708
          Telephone: (727) 350-3246
          E-mail: andrew@jandrewmeyer.com

               - and -

          Eamon O'Kelly, Esq.
          Hollis L. Salzman, Esq.
          Benjamin Steinberg, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP
          399 Park Ave., Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          E-mail: eokelly@robinskaplan.com
                  hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
                  bsteinberg@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Bonnie E. Sweeney, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          655 W Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., is represented by:

          A. Graham Allen, Esq.
          Samuel Joseph Horovitz, Esq.
          James M. Riley, Esq.
          ROGERS TOWERS, PA
          1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 1500
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 398-3911
          E-mail: gallen@rtlaw.com
                  shorovitz@rtlaw.com
                  jriley@rtlaw.com

               - and -

          Evan Chesler, Esq.
          David R. Marriott, Esq.
          Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          Lauren A. Moskowitz, Esq.
          CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
          825 8th Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 474-1000
          E-mail: echesler@cravath.com
                  dmarriott@cravath.com
                  cfitzpatrick@cravath.com
                  lmoskowitz@cravath.com

               - and -

          Samuel Olds Patmore, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, PA
          150 W Flagler St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-3200
          E-mail: spatmore@swmwas.com

Defendant-Petitioner BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., is represented by:

          Robin D. Adelstein, Esq.
          Mark A. Robertson, Esq.
          Eliot Fielding Turner, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6022
          Telephone: (212) 318-3108
          E-mail: robin.adelstein@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  mark.robertson@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  eliot.turner@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Jerome Wayne Hoffman, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          315 S Calhoun St., Suite 600
          Tallahassee, FL 32301-1872
          Telephone: (850) 224-7000
          E-mail: Jerome.Hoffman@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer L. Kifer, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          50 N Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202-3622
          Telephone: (904) 353-2000
          E-mail: Jennifer.Kifer@hklaw.com


MOINIAN LLC: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------
Moinian 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. Moinian LLC doing business as: MarcNY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00123 (S.D. N.Y., January 5, 2019).

Moinian LLC is a developer of commercial, retail, hotel and
residential properties in NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONARCH RECOVERY: Smith Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Emanuel Smith, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monarch
Recovery Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00072 (E.D.
N.Y., January 4, 2019).

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

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., an accounts receivable
management company, provides financial recovery solutions. It
offers collection and payment processing services in various asset
classes and industry sectors, including auto deficiencies,
commercial paper, credit union accounts, government receivables,
student loan receivables, bank credit card receivables, retail
credit card receivables, sub-prime credit card receivables, debt
buyer paper, lines of credit, skip to collect, mortgage
delinquencies, direct merchant accounts, dismissed bankruptcy, and
department of defense.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


NAVIHEALTH INC: Fetterolf Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Fetterolf, Karen Lynn James, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Navihealth, Inc. and Cardinal Health, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00238 (D. N.J., January 8, 2019) is an
opt-in collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, ("FLSA").

Plaintiff KF worked as a Care Coordinator for Defendants from
approximately August 2015 to February 2018. Plaintiff KLJ worked as
a Care Coordinator for Defendants from approximately January 2017
to September 2018.

As Care Coordinators, Plaintiffs routinely worked 50 or more hours
per week during their employment. However, the Defendants did not
pay Plaintiffs overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per
workweek. Instead of providing Plaintiffs with overtime pay,
Defendants misclassified them as exempt and paid them a salary with
no overtime pay for their many hours of overtime work, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff KF worked for Defendants as a "Care Coordinator" for over
40 hours during one or more workweeks during the last three years.

Plaintiff KLJ worked for Defendants as a "Care Coordinator" for
over 40 hours during one or more workweeks over the last three
years.

Navihealth is a Delaware corporation while Cardinal is an Ohio
corporation .[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
     THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
     116 Village Blvd #200
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: (609) 216-7042
     Facsimile: (609) 799-1267
     Email: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

          - and -

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Travis Gasper, Esq.
     Lee & Braziel, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     Web: www.overtimelawyer.com
     Email: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
            gasper@l-b-law.com

          - and -

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
     2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: 214.790.4454
     Web: www.4overtimelawyer.com
     Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

          - and -

     Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
     THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
     5438 Rutherglenn Drive
     Houston, TX 77096
     Phone: (512) 417-5716
     Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com


NEVADA GOLD: Faces Fuller Suit Over Maverick Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Fuller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-11286 (S.D. N.Y., December 4, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The class action is in connection with the proposed merger between
Nevada Gold and Maverick Casinos LLC.

The Plaintiff alleges that on December 3, 2018, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act that recommends shareholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Merger. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the
Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy,
they have failed to disclose material information that is necessary
for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
incomplete and misleading, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff is the owner of Nevada Gold common stock.

The Defendant Nevada Gold is a Nevada corporation with its
principal executive offices located at 133 E. Warm Springs Road,
Suite 102, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.  Nevada Gold is a gaming
company involved in financing, developing, owning, and operating
gaming properties and projects. Nevada Gold's common stock trades
on the NYSE under the symbol "UWN."

The Individual Defendants are members of Nevada Gold's board of
directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 4405
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 971-1341
      Fax: (212) 202-7880
      E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


NISSAN MOTOR: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a global investors rights law
firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Nissan
Motor Co., Ltd. ("Nissan" or the "Company") (OTC:  NSANY )
securities between December 10, 2013 and November 16, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Nissan investors have until
February 8, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Nissan's
business and financial condition. Specifically, Nissan has been
materially understating its expenses -- and overstating profits --
by concealing half of the annual executive compensation it was
obligated to pay its former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and
Chairman of its Board of Directors ("Board"), defendant Carlos
Ghosn ("Ghosn"), in order to avoid shareholder scrutiny of Ghosn's
inordinately high executive compensation. Over the past decade,
Nissan reported paying defendant Ghosn JPY1 billion per year in
compensation. In truth, Nissan paid defendant Ghosn an additional
JPY1 billion per year in the form of deferred compensation I.O.U.s,
but failed to disclose these payments in the Company's publicly
filed financial reports. As a result, Nissan underreported
defendant Ghosn's true pay over the decade by an estimated JPY10
billion. The Company also concealed from investors the significant
defects in its corporate governance and internal controls that
facilitated this false financial reporting, and affirmatively
failed to heed the express direction of its outside auditors dating
back to at least 2013 to accurately report its executive
compensation. Not only did the underreporting deceive Nissan's
investors, it violated the pay cap Nissan shareholders approved. As
a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the
price of Nissan ADRs was artificially inflated to more than $22 per
share during the Class Period.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased shares of Nissan during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than  February 8, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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


NY RESTAURANT STAFFING: Arcos Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
IVAN ARCOS, on behalf of himself, Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. NY
RESTAURANT STAFFING GROUP, INC., DRITON LLC d/b/a NINO'S, 301 E.
47TH ST. REST. CORP. d/b/a NINO'S POSITANO, ARBESA REST. CORP.
d/b/a NINO'S TUSCANY, SHEMSI SELIMAJ, the Defendants, Case No.
161939/2018 (NY Sup. Ct., Dec. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid wages due to time shaving,
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants' corporate-wide policies and
practices affected all Class members similarly, and Defendants
benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to
each Class member.  Plaintiff and other Class members sustained
similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful
policies, practices and procedures.  Plaintiff is able to fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the Class and have no
interests antagonistic to the Class.  Plaintiff is represented by
attorneys who are experienced and competent in both class action
litigation and employment litigation and have previously
represented plaintiffs in wage and hour cases, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016

OHM CONCESSION: Komorskiv Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Sylvia Komorski, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. OHM Concessions
Group, LLC, OHM Chicago, LLC, Global Payments, Inc. d/b/a Heartland
Payment Systems, and Cross Match Technologies, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2017-CH-12838 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 8, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-00157.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Crossmatch and co-defendants
have violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
("BIPA") by purportedly "capturing, storing, using, and
disseminating her biometrics" allegedly in direct violation of the
BIPA, among other things.

Plaintiff's claims against OHM rest upon the same factual
allegations; namely, that OHM required its employees to scan their
fingerprints in order to "clock" in and out of work, all in a
manner that violated BIPA each time she and other employees were
required to do so. Plaintiff further alleges that OHM "uses, and
relies on, biometric technology and associated services" provided
by Crossmatch to "monitor and track its employees', including
Plaintiff's, time."

Based on these and other allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims for
violation of the BIPA, fraudulent inducement by omission, breach of
express contract, breach of express contract implied-in-fact,
negligence and intrusion upon seclusion and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief as well as statutory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     Jad Sheikali, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
            jsheikali@mcgpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Mark S. Mester, Esq.
     Kathleen P. Lally, Esq.
     Peter A. Shaeffer, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: (312) 876-7700
     Facsimile: (312) 993-9767

          - and -

     Michael K. Grimaldi, Esq.
     LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
     633 W. 5th Street, Suite 400
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213)-599-7761
     Fax: (213) 250-7900
     Email: Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com

          - and -

     Ethan E. White, Esq.
     3 Grant Square, Suite 268
     Hinsdale, IL 60521
     Phone: (630) 984-0339
     Email: ewhite@emerlawltd.com


OLDCASTLE BUILDING: Walton et al. Seek Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Prentis Walton, Jason McCullum, Victor Colbert, and Justin Morel,
On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. Oldcastle Building Envelope, Inc. c/o Corporation
Service Company 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1330 Columbus, Ohio
43215, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02936 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 20,
2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, Colbert worked as an hourly, non-exempt
"employee" of Defendant as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts in
the positions of unloader and, most recently, machine operator from
around October, 2015 until around June 2018. Colbert primarily
performed non-exempt duties for Defendant. Colbert was not fully
compensated for all overtime wages during the last three years of
his employment, the lawsuit says.

Oldcastle Building Envelope, Inc. designs, manufactures, and
supplies building envelope solutions in the United States. Its
products include custom-engineered curtain walls and window walls,
architectural windows, entrances, storefront systems, doors,
skylights, and architectural and structural glass products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: 614-386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614-704-0546
          Facsimile: 614-573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

OPERATING ENGINEERS: Appeals Ruling in Furwa Suit to 6th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Nicole Furwa, et al. v. Douglas Stockwell, et al., Case
No. 2:18-cv-12392, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan at Detroit.

The Defendants-Appellants are Dan Boone, Kenneth Dombrow, Scott
Hart, Lisa Lauzon, James Oleksinski, Operating Engineers Local 324
Health Care Plan, Operating Engineers' Local 324 Defined
Contribution Plan, Operating Engineers' Local 324 Pension Plan,
Operating Engineers' Local 324 Retiree Benefit Fund, Operating
Engineers' Local 324 Vacation and Holiday Fund, Douglas Stockwell
and M.E. Woodbeck, Jr.

The lawsuit is brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Nicole Furwa, et al. v. Douglas
Stockwell, et al., Case No. 18-2437, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees MATTHEW LEWIS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated; ANDREW GIBBS, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated; NINA BIERMANN, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated; and NICOLE FURWA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Donald H. Scharg, Esq.
          BODMAN
          201 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 500
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 743-6000
          E-mail: dscharg@bodmanlaw.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Daniel G. Levan, Esq.
          Nancy Harris Pearce, Esq.
          Michael L. Weissman, Esq.
          FINKEL WHITEFIELD SELIK
          32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334-1567
          Telephone: (248) 855-6500
          E-mail: mweissman@fwslaw.com


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Brady Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Frederick Michele Brady, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Patenaude & Felix, and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 18CV338737 (Cal. Super., December 3, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the California Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages against the Defendants
arising from their routine practice of sending initial written
communications which failed to provide the "Consumer Collection
Notice" required by the California Civil Code.

The Plaintiff Frederick Michele Brady is a natural person residing
in Santa Clara County, California.

The Defendant Patenaude & Felix is a California corporation engaged
in the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts in this
state with its principal place of business located at: 4545 Murphy
Canyon Road, 3rd Floor, San Diego, California 92123-4363. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
      1435 K011 Circle, Suite 104
      San Jose, CA 951124610
      Tel: (408) 294-6100
      Fax: (408) 294-6190
      E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


PAULS VALLEY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------
Sylvia Corkill, writing for News 9, reports that the City of Pauls
Valley is facing a class action lawsuit.

The suit was filed on December 13 in Garvin County and represents
around 150 employees who haven't been paid.

Michelle Simmons worked for the hospital for two years, time she
says she and her co-workers cherished until the end.

"There's is no reason any of us should have to fight for what is
owed to us after we gave so much to that facility and the City of
Pauls Valley," said former officer manager Michelle Simmons.

Just before it's closure, Simmons was promoted to office manager.
But she says in the months leading up to the hospital's sudden
closure she and her family could no longer depend on her income.

"It was a wing and a prayer for a long time. Every time a paycheck
would roll around we would just wonder if we would be able to make
it," she said.

Simmons, a military veteran is fortunate that she has her military
benefits to fall back on. But she says many others weren't so
lucky.

"People are getting sick from the stress of worrying about when
their vehicle is going to be taken away, if they're still going to
have home to go to. If there is a foreclosure notice coming in the
mail," said Simmons.

She says even worse, employees were forced to up and leave without
giving word to their patients.

"All of us that worked there, we don't know what happened to our
patients. We don't know how any of them are doing. We worry about
the community and the patients that come in there and that is the
most heartbreaking thing," said Simmons.

She says she hopes this class action lawsuit will soften the sting
of the damage already done.

"I doubt very seriously that they are going  to pay us for any pain
and suffering. And when I say pain and suffering I mean the
collection fees that are coming, the accounts that have already
gone to collections over this," said Simmons.

The lawsuit is suing for a minimum of $250,000.[GN]


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Sgarlata PSLRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned RONALD SGARLATA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL
HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-06956-EMC. (N.D.
Cal.).

Defendants PayPal Holdings, Inc., TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks
USA, Inc., Schulman, Rainey, Kunze and Shahbazi filed motions to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (FRCP) and Rule 9(b) of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA).

PayPal issued another press release which disclosed that a review
of TIO's network has identified a potential compromise of
personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6 million
customers. Plaintiffs allege that after Defendants released this
information in December, PayPal's share price fell $4.33, or 5.75%,
to close at $70.97 on December 4, 2017, the following trading day.
Plaintiffs contend that the press releases were materially false or
misleading because they disclosed only a security vulnerability,
rather than an actual security breach, which PayPal and TIO did not
acknowledge had been detected.

When evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, a court must accept as true all
factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. However, in order for
Plaintiffs to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, they must plead
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 makes it
unlawful for any person to use or employ, in connection with the
purchase or sale of any security registered on a national
securities exchange any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the
Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors.

To succeed on a claim under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a
plaintiff must show: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission
(2) scienter (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or
omission and the purchase or sale of a security (4) reliance (5)
economic loss and (6) loss causation.

Falsity

The Plaintiffs contend that the November 10 press releases were
false because they disclosed only a security vulnerability, rather
than an actual security breach, which PayPal and TIO did not
acknowledge had been detected. In particular, the Plaintiffs allege
that an unknown but unauthorized person or entity was at that time
logged in to TIO's networks and had access to the financial
information of 1.6 million users.

The Defendants argue that to find the November 10 press releases
misleading, the statements must have affirmatively created the
impression that the TIO network had not been breached.
Furthermore, Defendants contend that because they made assurances
that the PayPal platform was secure but made no such assurances
regarding TIO's platform, the obvious implication was that TIO's
customers' data did not remain secure.'

The Defendants purported to disclose a vulnerability in TIO's
security which triggered an investigation and review. This
disclosure could plausibly have created an impression that only a
potential vulnerability and not an actual breach had been
discovered, and certainly not one which threatened the privacy of
1.6 million users.  

Scienter and Loss Causation

In the instant case, scienter must be viewed in the context of
Plaintiffs' loss causation theory. The Plaintiffs allege that the
public's awareness of a data breach of 1.6 million customers led to
the 5.75% drop in the price of PayPal's stock. According to
Plaintiffs, Defendants' fundamental misrepresentation of the
timeline of events concealed (a) the compromise of personally
identifiable information for approximately 1.6 million customers
and (b) the failure of PayPal to protect users' highly sensitive
financial information led to the drop in price.  

Therefore, to succeed based on the Plaintiffs' theory of loss
causation, they must plead in a manner that meets the heightened
pleading requirements for scienter that Defendants knew not only of
an actual breach, but that the privacy of 1.6 million customers had
been potentially compromised.  

The Plaintiffs rely on the three FEs to support a finding of
scienter. FE1 stated that on November 10, 2017, we were told they
suspected or saw that someone had access to confidential
information for customers and that they shut down service to
complete the investigation. Similarly, FE2 stated that in early
November 2017, they discovered `someone in the system. FE3 shared a
similar account that employees of TIO learned of a security breach
in early November when TIO announced it had discovered a
vulnerability.

The three FEs at most establish that some of the Defendants may
have known that there was some breach in TIO's platform. They do
not substantiate allegations that Defendants on November 10, 2017,
determined that an unknown but unauthorized person or entity was at
that time logged in to TIO's networks and had access to the
personal financial information of 1.6 million users. None of the
FEs state Defendants knew on November 10, 2017 of the magnitude of
the breach affecting 1.6 million customers or the fact that
personal identifiable information of those customers had been
accessed.

The Plaintiffs' FAC and its reliance on the three FEs fail to
satisfy the scienter of the falsity upon which their alleged loss
is predicated.

Control Liability 20(a)

Section 20(a) provides:

Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person
liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or
regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally
with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person
to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling
person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly
induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of
action.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Shahbazi continued to direct
the operations of PayPal's TIO services in his capacity as Vice
President of Bill Pay for PayPal, a position that Shahbazi held
through the class period. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Shahbazi
reported directly to Kunze, who oversaw the integration of TIO into
PayPal on a day-to-day basis and was the President of TIO USA, at
all relevant times.

The FAC also asserts that Defendant Shahbazi has continued to
direct the operations of PayPal's TIO services. Throughout the
Class Period, Shahbazi was responsible for the operations of TIO
and its subsidiaries. These conclusory allegations of control over
day-to-day activities are insufficient to establish control person
liability. For these reasons, Defendant Shahbazi's motion to
dismiss is granted for the additional reason that the Plaintiffs
have not alleged sufficient factual allegations to establish
control person liability.

Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
FAC without prejudice pursuant Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6).  

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybloj5xh from Leagle.com.

Ronald Sgarlata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@ pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Louis C. Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice &Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice.  

PayPal Holdings, Inc., Daniel H. Schulman & John D. Rainey, Jr.,
Defendants, represented by James Neil Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com
-- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Alexander K. Talarides --
atalarides@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP &
Suzette Barnes -- sbarnes@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe LLP.

Hamed Shahbazi, Defendant, represented by Jay L. Pomerantz --
jpomerantz@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West.

TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks USA, Inc. & John Kunze, Defendants,
represented by James Neil Kramer, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP & Suzette Barnes, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.


PAYTIME INC: U.S. Judge Weighing Settlement of Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for Pennsylvania Real-Time News, reports that
more than four years after an expansive data breach occurred,
customers of a Cumberland County-based payroll firm are asking a
federal judge to approve a settlement of a class-action lawsuit.

The agreement before U.S. Middle District John E. Jones III calls
for Paytime Inc. to provide 740 customers who joined the class
action with a year of free credit monitoring and $1 million in
identity theft insurance.

It also requires the company to pay "incentive awards" of $2,500 to
each of the six lead plaintiffs in the case. In addition, Paytime
is to cover more than $200,000 in fees amassed by lawyers
representing the customers.

If approved by Jones, the settlement will avert any appeal of a
ruling he issued in March 2015 dismissing the case. At that time,
Jones found the customers who filed suit had suffered no financial
injuries on which to recover damages because none of them had been
hit with identity theft.

The customers contended in their suit that their finances were put
at risk when hackers breached Paytime's system in April 2014. The
firm estimated the breach placed about 233,000 clients at risk
nationwide.

Soon after the hacking was discovered Paytime offered customers
free credit monitoring and identity restoration services.[GN]


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Suit Over Misleading Ad for Texas Toasts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emoney Gibbs individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, Case No. 1:18-cv-07411
(E.D.N.Y., December 27, 2018), alleges that the Defendant's
representations of its frozen "Texas Toast" are misleading because
despite the centrality of butter to the Products' representations,
the Products contain 2% or less of butter and actually contain palm
and soybean oils as the primary fat agent applied to the bread.

Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, is a Connecticut corporation with
its principal place of business in Norwalk, Connecticut.

The Company manufactures, markets, and sells frozen "Texas Toast",
sold to consumers by third parties from stores and online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com


PG&E CORPORATION: Borders Suit Seeks Damages Over Camp Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC BORDERS and VICTORIA BORDERS; SEAN BOWERS and ALISHA
BALENTINE; GERALD MCCLEAN and JOYCE MCCLEAN; CHRISTINE NYSTROM and
FLINT NYSTROM; CHRISTOPHER NYSTROM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PG&E CORPORATION, a California
Corporation; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-18-572390 (Cal. Super.,
San Francisco Cty., December 28, 2018), seeks to redress the
damages the Plaintiffs suffered arising out of a fire allegedly
ignited by PG&E on the early morning of November 8, 2018, at Camp
Creek Road in the town of Paradise, Butte County.

The fire, named the "Camp Fire," has been an unprecedented
traumatic event for its victims, who through no fault of their own
incurred tremendous losses in real and personal property, as well
as businesses in a matter of hours and/or days, the Plaintiffs
contend.  The Camp Fire resulted in the destruction of the towns of
Paradise, Magalia, Pulga, Mineral Slide, Irish Town, Centerville,
Parkhill, and Concow, and terrorized numerous neighboring towns
including Oroville, Gridley, and Chico.  To date, it has taken 85
lives with 11 people unaccounted for, destroyed over 13,000 homes
and over 500 commercial structures, displaced more than 50,000
residents, and burned down more than 153,000 acres.

The Camp Fire started when a high voltage transmission line owned
and maintained by PG&E failed, igniting a vegetation fire,
according to the complaint.  To make matters worse, the Plaintiffs
allege, prior to the ignition of the Camp Fire, PG&E had been made
aware of the risk and probability that its high voltage
transmission line would result in a fire like the Camp Fire.
Still, the Plaintiffs assert, PG&E did nothing to prevent the Camp
Fire and breached its duty to the Plaintiffs and Class members.

PG&E Corporation is an energy-based holding company headquartered
in San Francisco, California, and parent company of Pacific Gas &
Electric Company.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company is incorporated in California and is
headquartered in San Francisco.  Pacific Gas & Electric Company
provides public utility services that include the transmission and
distribution of natural gas, and the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity to millions of customers in Northern
and Central California, including the residents of Butte
County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com


RE FLORIDA: Violates Privacy Rights Under TCPA, Edelsberg Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK EDELSBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RE FLORIDA HOMES, LLC, a California corporation, Case
No. 0:18-cv-63141-WPD (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2018), alleges that
the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
engaging in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective
customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights.

RE Florida Homes is a Florida limited liability company with a
principal address in Hollywood, Florida. RE Florida Homes directs,
markets, and provides business activities throughout the state of
Florida.
RE Florida Homes is a real estate brokerage company located in
Hollywood, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               - and -

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


ROYAL CUP: McDaniel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kamada McDaniel, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA");
Plaintiff, v. Royal Cup, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through l00, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. RG19001661 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., January 8, 2019) is a class action
brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a salaried "exempt" Territory
Manager at one of its branch locations in the State of California.
The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the
other class members were misclassified and were entitled to receive
wages for all time worked, minimum wage and overtime compensation,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kamada McDaniel is an individual residing in the State of
California and was employed as a salaried "exempt" Territory
Manager by Royal Cup, Inc. at one of its locations in Alameda
County from approximately June 2018 to present.

Royal Cup, Inc., is an employer whose employees are engaged
throughout the State of California, County of Alameda.

Does I through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who sues
said Defendants by such fictitious names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Han, Esq.
     Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
     Daniel J. Park, Esq.
     Arsine Grigoryan, Esq.
     JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
     751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
     Pasadena, CA 91103
     Phone: (818) 230-7502
     Fax: (818) 230-7259


SC JOHNSON: Crespo Files Suit Over Product's False Ad
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Crespo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06869
(E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
deceptive act or practices, false advertising, unjust enrichment,
breach of express warranty, fraud, and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Raid
Concentrated Deep Reach Fogger in the United States. The Plaintiff
alleges that Raid is ineffective for pest control because it cannot
reach into hiding spots where pests dwell and because the pests it
targets are resistant to cypermethrin, the product's active
ingredient. Accordingly, the product is ineffective and worthless,
asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff Robert Crespo is a citizen of New York who resides in
Brooklyn, New York. Mr. Crespo purchased Raid from a Lowe's store
located in Brooklyn, New York, in November 2016 for approximately
$8.

The Defendant S.C. Johnson & Son is a Wisconsin corporation with
its principal place of business in Racine, Wisconsin. Defendant
distributes Raid throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
      Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 837-7150
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com
              ykopel@bursor.com
              aleslie@bursor.com


SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Court Narrows Claims in UACs' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, Harrisonburg Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion
granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned JOHN DOE, by and through his next
friend, NELSON LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE
CENTER COMMISSION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-97.
(W.D.Va.).

Plaintiff John Doe 1 filed suit for declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking to protect the
rights and interests of himself and a putative class of
unaccompanied alien children (UACs) detained at the juvenile
detention center (Center) operated by defendant Shenandoah Valley
Juvenile Detention Center Commission (Commission).

Monell Standard

The Plaintiffs bring their Section 1983 claims against the
Commission as an entity and not against its employees or agents.
They assert liability for unconstitutional policies or customs and
practices under a theory first recognized in Monell v. Dept. of
Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 568 (1978). At the summary judgment hearing,
the plaintiffs' counsel conceded that they are not proceeding with
the theory that the Commission's written policies themselves are
unconstitutional, but rather that the Commission has an
unconstitutional custom or practice. In order to prevail on a
Monell claim involving unconstitutional customs or practices, a
plaintiff must first show an underlying constitutional violation by
an employee or agent of the defendant entity.

First Monell Element - An Underlying Constitutional Violation

Given the above proof requirements for a Monell claim, the court
first turns to whether Doe 4 has sufficient evidence of underlying
constitutional violations for excessive force, room confinement,
and inadequate mental health treatment.

Excessive Force

In order to prevail on an excessive use of force claim, all parties
agree that plaintiffs must show that the force was not objectively
reasonable under the circumstances. Doe 4's evidence establishes
genuine disputes of material fact with regard to whether he was the
victim of excessive uses of force. So summary judgment is not
available to defendant on its theory that Doe 4 cannot show an
underlying constitutional violation in this regard.

With regard to the instances of excessive force and use of
restraints, in the first incident described in the background
section, there is a dispute of fact about whether Doe 4 was forced
to lie on the floor of his room with mechanical restraints and
whether the force used in response to his anger was excessive. The
length of time that Doe 4 was in handcuffs also is directly in
dispute. In the second incident, there is also a dispute of fact
about whether the use of force against Doe 4 was excessive because
the two SIRs from the incident one recounting Doe 4's allegations
and one recounting the actions of the staff describe different
circumstances that ultimately led to the use of force. Although Doe
4 stated in his deposition that he was angry when the staff members
asked him to go to his room, this does not discount his statements
that he also asked to talk calmly and pulled himself off the wall
in response to their requests.   

Thus, there are disputes of fact as to the incidents of force and
whether the use of force was unconstitutional against Doe 4.

Room Confinement

In determining whether there are disputes of fact as to the room
confinement claim, it is worth noting that defendant simply does
not address some of the incidents set forth in Doe 4's responses to
interrogatories. For example, defendant does not present any
contrary evidence to Doe 4's description of the incident where he
requested to speak to his counselor and was placed in restriction
for seven or eight hours after his request was denied. Defendant
also does not address the alleged incidents when Doe 4 asked to
play video games or accidentally kicked a ball in soccer and was
placed in restriction.  

Thus, there are disputes of material fact regard the circumstances
of Doe 4's room confinement. Indeed, based on the record before it,
the court cannot say that a reasonable factfinder could not find in
Doe 4's favor on this issue, if it were to entirely credit his
accounts of these incidents. So, the court will deny summary
judgment on defendant's theory that Doe 4 cannot prove an
underlying constitutional violation with regard to room
confinement.

Inadequate Mental Health Care

The complaint alleges a claim for deliberate indifference to Doe
4's serious mental health needs as well as an alternative claim for
inadequate mental health care based upon failure to abide by the
professional judgment standard. For purposes of summary judgment,
plaintiffs' argument focused on the deliberate indifference
standard, and the court finds that the deliberate indifference
standard applies to plaintiffs' claims.

In order to prove deliberate indifference with regard to medical
care, a plaintiff must satisfy objective and subjective elements.
Objectively, he must show that he had a sufficiently serious
medical need.  A serious medical need exists when it has been
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so
obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity
for a doctor's attention.
  
Here, Doe 4 was evaluated following his arrival at the Center by a
psychologist. He was diagnosed with ADHD and PTSD, for which he
received medication. He saw a psychiatrist at least every six
weeks, and he met with a licensed mental health clinician for
individual counseling for about one hour once each week. Unlimited
additional meetings with the psychiatrist were available to him, as
was group counseling.

While Doe 4 states that he often asked to see a psychologist
instead of his licensed professional counselor, there is no
evidence indicating that a medical professional recommended that he
see a psychologist in order to adequately treat a serious medical
need. Doe 4 admits that he never thought of committing suicide,
that he had no thoughts of self-harm, and that the only incident
where he harmed himself was when he punched a wall in anger.

Doe 4 has not mustered sufficient evidence to show an underlying
constitutional violation with regard to his mental health claim,
and the court will grant summary judgment to defendant on the
mental health claim.

Remaining Monell Elements

An unconstitutional custom or practice

The Plaintiffs counter defendant's assertion by first citing to the
allegations in their complaint and concluding that they have
sufficiently pled a custom or usage. While this may be true, they
cannot rely on mere allegations at the summary judgment stage. They
also cite to case law regarding supervisory liability, but they
admitted at the hearing that they are not pursuing supervisory
liability, given that no individual persons are named as
defendants. They then turn to Diver's report, in which he examined
a spreadsheet prepared by the plaintiffs' counsel that summarizes
defendant's reports regarding use of force, use of restraints, and
use of room confinement. Using this summary, Diver notes a large
number of occasions on which the Center's employees violated the
Center's own policies regarding the use of force, restraints, and
room confinement. The Plaintiffs fail to recognize, however, that a
violation of internal policies or procedures does not establish a
constitutional violation.  This is even true of violations of state
law to the extent it is more demanding than the constitution.   

For the reasons stated in the court's opinion regarding defendant's
motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Diver, the
court will not consider Diver's opinions with regard to proof of a
custom or practice.

Attribution to the Commission

The Defendant points out that Doe 4 has only complained of alleged
mistreatment once to the Center's knowledge. It also notes that
reports are made to CPS whenever there is a complaint of excessive
use of force, even if defendant believes there is no merit to the
complaint. Additionally, defendant has terminated employees found
to have used excessive force, even a staff member who threw a punch
in self-defense while being assaulted.

In response, plaintiffs rely on the written reports regarding use
of force, restraints, and room confinement maintained by the
Center. The Plaintiffs argue that some of the reports reflect a
failure of the Center's employees to abide its internal policies
and that there is no evidence of corrective action regarding these
incidents. According to plaintiffs, this establishes awareness and
tacit approval on the part of the Commission that the Center
engages in a pattern of conduct with regard to force, restraints,
and room confinement that is unconstitutional. Moreover, Doe 4
states in his interrogatory responses that he has filed complaints
many times, but nothing happens, and he was told that they would
all be put in the archives if he filed another complaint.

This evidence is sufficient to show a dispute of fact precluding
entry of summary judgment.

Causal link

The Plaintiffs must show a causal link between the custom or
practice and the specific violation(s) at issue or, in other words,
that the custom or practice was the moving force behind the
specific harmful acts of which plaintiffs complain. A sufficiently
close causal link between such a known but uncorrected custom or
usage and a specific violation is established if occurrence of the
specific violation was made reasonably probable by permitted
continuation of the custom. The same evidence set forth above is
also sufficient with regard to this Monell prong, so summary
judgment is unavailable.

The court will grant in part and deny in part the defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018
Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ymkmj4
from Leagle.com.

John Doe 4, by and through his next friend, NELSON LOPEZ, on behalf
of himself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Benjamin Cairns Eggert -- beggert@wileyrein.com --
Wiley Rein, LLP, Hannah E.M. Lieberman, Washington Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, pro hac vice, James
Ryan Frazee -- jfrazee@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP, pro hac
vice, Mirela Missova, Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
and Urban Affairs, pro hac vice, Theodore Augustus Howard --
thoward@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP, pro hac vice & Tiffany S.
Yang, Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban
Affairs, pro hac vice.

Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission, Defendant,
represented by Harold Edward Johnson -- hjohnson@williamsmullen.com
-- Williams Mullen, Jason Botkins -- jason.botkins@littensipe.com
-- Litten & Sipe, L.L.P., Melisa G. Michelsen --
melisa.michelsen@littensipe.com -- LITTEN & SIPE LLP & Meredith M.
Haynes -- mhaynes@williamsmullen.com -- Williams Mullen.


SIBANYE GOLD: Court Consolidates PSLRA Actions in Brandel
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Order consolidating Related Actions in the case
captioned KEVIN BRANDEL, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SIBANYE GOLD LIMITED, NEAL
FRONEMAN, and CHARL KEYTER, Defendants. LESTER HEUSCHEN, JR.,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SIBANYE GOLD LIMITED, NEAL FRONEMAN, and CHARL
KEYTER, Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-03721 (KAM) (PK). (E.D.N.Y.)

Kevin Brandel, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint
captioned Brandel v. Sibanye Gold Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03721.

Lester Heuschen, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, filed a purported class action
complaint captioned Heuschen v. Sibanye Gold Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03902 (Actions).

The Actions allege violations of the federal securities laws and
are, therefore, governed by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

The PSLRA provides for consolidation of any related actions and
then the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, after a
60-day notice period expires following the publication of notice of
the filing of an initial securities class action.

The Actions should be consolidated into one Consolidated Action for
all purposes before Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto. The Consolidated
Action shall be captioned In re Sibanye Gold Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-03721 (KAM) (PK), and the files of this
action shall be maintained in one file under Master File No.
18-cv-03721 (KAM) (PK). The action captioned Heuschen v. Sibanye
Gold Ltd., et al., No. 1:18-cv-03902 shall be closed for
administrative purposes. The Clerk of the Court shall file a copy
of this Order in each of the individual Actions.

Every pleading filed in the Consolidated Action shall bear the
following caption:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re
SIBANYE GOLD LTD. SECURITIES Master File No. LITIGATION 18-cv-03721
(KAM) (PK) CLASS ACTION

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 17, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya8yuv89 from Leagle.com.

Kevin Brandel, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C.

Sibanye Gold Limited, Neal Froneman & Charl Keyter, Defendants,
represented by Adam Samuel Lurie -- adam.lurie@linklaters.com --
Linklaters LLP, Brenda D. DiLuigi -- brenda.diluigi@linklaters.com
-- Linklaters LLP, James R. Warnot, Jr. --
james.warnot@linklaters.com -- Linklaters LLP & Sean Paul Mooney --
sean.mooney@linklaters.com -- Linklaters LLP.


SILVER DOLLAR: Court Grants Arbitration in Hill-Smith FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, issued an Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned MYA HILL-SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SILVER DOLLAR CABARET, INC.;
PLATINUM CABARET, LLC; ANTHONY F. CATROPPA; and ANTHONYK.CATROPPA,
Defendants. No. 5:18-CV-5145. (W. D. Ark.).

Mya Hill-Smith filed the instant action claiming the Defendants
violated the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.   

The arbitration provision explicitly includes Fair Labor Standards
Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act claims as claims intended to be
covered by the arbitration provision.  

The Defendants argue that the arbitration provision requires this
Court to compel arbitration and dismiss this case. The Plaintiff
argues that the arbitration provision is unconscionable and
therefore unenforceable because it imposes a statute of limitations
period inconsistent with the limitations period articulated in the
FLSA.

Arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable unless they are
invalidated by generally applicable contract defenses, such as
fraud, duress, or unconscionability. An arbitration agreement is
not considered unconscionable simply because its remedial
limitations appear facially inconsistent with the FLSA statutory
claims.  

Mya Hill-Smith entered into separate but substantially similar
agreements with Silver Dollar Cabaret and Platinum Cabaret on
October 2, 2017. The agreements Hill-Smith signed included an
arbitration provision at Section 17.   

Hill-Smith does not argue that she entered into the contract with
these Defendants as a result of fraud or duress. Hill-Smith's only
argument is that enforcement of the arbitration agreement with
these Defendants would be unconscionable because it imposes a
six-month statute of limitations that is inconsistent with the
traditional two-year statute of limitations period imposed by the
FLSA. However, the Eighth Circuit has made clear that this
inconsistency alone fails to render an arbitration clause
unenforceable.  

Because the agreement is enforceable, the Court should next
determine whether the unpaid wage dispute falls within the terms of
the arbitration provision. Arbitration provisions are construed
liberally, resolving doubts in favor of arbitration.  

The agreements are clear that unpaid wage disputes under the FLSA
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act must be arbitrated. The
agreements state that claims to be arbitrated include, but are not
limited to, claims for wages or other compensation including but
not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, or
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Thus, it is clear that the plain
language and the intent of the parties dictate that Hill-Smith's
FLSA and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act claims are covered by the
agreements' arbitration provision. Therefore, arbitration is
required.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb4xqy9e from
Leagle.com.

Mya Hill-Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm PLLC & Stephen Rauls --
steve@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm, PLLC.

Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc., Platinum Cabaret, LLC, Anthony F.
Catroppa & Anthony K. Catroppa, Defendants, represented by Eric M.
Bernstein , Eric M. Bernstein Associates LLC.


SIRIS CAPITAL: Szoke Sues D&Os over Merger Deal with Mavenir
------------------------------------------------------------
ISTVAN SZOKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,Plaintiff, vs. PHILIPPE TARTAVULL, FRANK BAKER, MICHAEL
HULSLANDER, AND SIRIS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2018-0919 (Del. Ch., Dec. 20, 2018), seeks an order:

     -- declaring that Tartavull breached his fiduciary duties to
Xura, Plaintiff, and the Class and that Baker, Hulslander and Siris
aided and abetted those breaches,

     -- ordering that Defendants pay money damages to Plaintiff and
the Class for the losses caused by their misconduct, and

     -- ordering other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

According to the complaint, on August 19, 2016, Mavenir Private
Holdings II Ltd. completed the acquisition of Xura, Inc. for $25.00
per share. Tartavull served as Xura's CEO during the transaction
process. He owed Xura and its stockholders a fiduciary duty to take
reasonable steps to obtain the best price possible. Instead,
Tartavull acted to secure a going-private transaction with Siris
that he knew would guarantee his otherwise vulnerable position as
CEO and ensure a lucrative post-transaction compensation package.
Siris deliberately exploited Tartavull's conflict, because it stood
to gain millions from his misconduct.

Throughout the transaction process, Siris and Tartavull worked
around Goldman Sachs, Xura's board-selected financial advisor,
despite Goldman's repeated requests that it serve as the conduit
for all communications between the Company and potential bidders.
Although Tartavull and his handlers at Siris destroyed or lost the
vast majority of their apparently extensive text communications,
and although they denied discussing sensitive topics directly at
their depositions in connection with an appraisal action styled
Obsidian Management LLC v. Xura, Inc., C.A. No. 12698-VCS,
discovery unearthed in the Appraisal Action demonstrates that Siris
and Tartavull discussed price, potential M&A targets, transaction
timelines, key diligence items, and potential changes to Xura's
management at critical moments during the transaction process
without informing Goldman or the board.

Because of its backchannel communications with Tartavull, including
texts, emails and in-person meetings, Siris had unparalleled access
to Company information. In at least one instance, Siris surprised
Goldman with new information about the Company, leading one member
of the Goldman team to complain that it was the "first time I'm
hearing [about it.]" Siris used its information edge to retrade.
After convincing Xura to entertain an expression of interest by
offering $35 per share, Siris dropped its price to $28 per share.
After Xura turned away a competing expression of interest from
Carlyle at $26-$27, Siris dropped its price to $24.75.

In an effort to convince Siris to increase its bid, Goldman and
Company management determined to go "radio silent." But Tartavull
immediately undermined whatever leverage the Company hoped to gain
by communicating directly with Siris during the "radio silent"
period. Siris continued to pummel the Company with demands for
additional diligence information. The process put immense pressure
on Xura's finance personnel, who were already scrambling to
integrate a major acquisition. By the time Siris dropped its price
to $24.75, it was becoming clear that the Company would not be able
to meet the deadline to file its 10-K with the SEC.

Convinced by Siris's Tartavull-assisted negotiating tactics and
concerned that the Company's inability to file its 10-K on time
would upset its investors, the board agreed to extend Siris's
exclusivity at $25.00 per share. Public disclosure of the $25 price
immediately attracted interest from Francisco Partners, a private
equity firm knowledgeable about the industry and capable of
submitting a topping bid. But Francisco Partners did not bid.
Instead, it somehow learned that Siris was Xura's counterparty and
approached Siris about participating on the buy-side of the
transaction. Tartavull later approved co-investment negotiations
between Siris and Francisco Partners.

Xura's stockholders never learned about these events. When
Rigrodsky & Long P.A. filed a class action suit on behalf of Xura's
stockholders in Massachusetts federal court, Xura and Siris needed
only two weeks to convince them to settle for supplemental
disclosures that did not even scratch the surface. Xura's proxy
statement describes a rigorous process led by Goldman with
oversight from a transaction committee created to "review, evaluate
and negotiate the terms of a potential transaction with Siris."

In reality, the lawsuit contends, the transaction committee never
met with Siris, never made any decisions, never kept minutes and
abdicated its role to Tartavull, who cut out Goldman in an effort
to curry favor with Siris and secure his future as CEO of the
post-transaction entity. The Proxy does not even hint at key events
in the transaction process, including an undisclosed lunch meeting
between Tartavull and Siris that the board and Goldman apparently
never learned about (let alone authorized). Because of Defendants'
actions, Siris succeeded in acquiring Xura at an unfair price.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq.
          ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 778-1000

SITEL OPERATING: Foster Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Marquise Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sitel Operating Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00414
(S.D. Tex., December 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages,
liquidated damages and other applicable penalties under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Sitel has enforced a uniform
company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its non-exempt
hourly call-center employees to perform work off-the-clock and
without pay in violation of federal law.

The FLSA Collective Members are those current and former
call-center employees who were employed by Sitel anywhere in the
United States at any time from December 4, 2015, through the final
disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same
illegal pay system under which the Plaintiff Foster worked and was
paid.

The Plaintiff Marquise Foster was employed by Sitel in customer
service from approximately June 2012 until April 2017.

The Defendant Sitel operates call centers throughout the United
States and holds itself out as a "leading global outsourcing
provider of customer experience management with 150 offices across
25 countries." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com


SM ENERGY: Court Effectuates Severance of Released Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma issued an Order granting Joint Motion to Effectuate
Severance of the Released Claims in the case captioned CHIEFTAIN
ROYALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SM ENERGY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. CIV-11-177-D. (W.D. Okla.).

To effectuate prior orders severing the Plaintiffs claims against
the Settling Parties, which have been dismissed with prejudice
(Released Claims), from the Plaintiff's claims against SM Energy
Company (Remaining Claims), the Clerk will open a separate case for
disposition of the Remaining Claims.

The named parties in the case will be Plaintiff Chieftain Royalty
Company and Defendant SM Energy Company. The opening of a separate
case is merely an administrative matter and is not intended to
affect any substantive rights or remedies of the parties to the
Remaining Claims. The Clerk will transfer to the separate case
record the following documents from this case:

Upon receipt of this Order, the Plaintiff will submit to the
undersigned's mailbox (deguisti-orders.okwd.uscourts.gov) its
proposed Fourth Amended Complaint for filing in the separate case,
together with a redlined version for the Court's convenience.
Defendant SM Energy Company shall file its answer to the Fourth
Amended Complaint in the separate case within 7 days from the date
of this Order.

The Clerk will administratively close the case because the Judgment
dismissing the Released Claims has become final and only
post-judgment matters concerning attorney fees and compensation of
the class representative remain for decision.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 17, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaf8th8a from Leagle.com.

Chieftain Royalty Company, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley E.
Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson LLP, David N.
Smith -- dneilsmith@me.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP, Emily N.
Kitch -- rbarnes@barneslewis.com -- Barnes & Lewis LLP, Jeffrey J.
Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson LLP, Lisa P.
Baldwin -- lbaldwin@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson LLP, Michael B.
Angelovich, Sr. -- mangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson LLP, pro
hac vice, Patranell Britten Lewis -- plewis@barneslewis.com --
Barnes & Lewis LLP, Robert N. Barnes -- rbarnes@barneslewis.com --
Barnes & Lewis LLP, Susan R. Whatley -- susanwhatley@nixlawfirm.com
-- Nix Patterson LLP & Trey N. Duck, III -- tduck@nixlaw.com -- Nix
Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice.

SM Energy Company, including predecessors, successors and
affiliates, Defendant, represented by J. Kevin Hayes --
khayes@hallestill.com -- Hall Estill & Pamela S. Anderson --
panderson@hallestill.com -- Hall Estill-TULSA.

Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A LP, Enervest Energy
Institutional Fund XIII-WIB LP, Enervest Energy Institutional Fund
XIII-WIC LP, Enervest Operating LLC & Fourpoint Energy LLC,
Defendants, represented by Mark D. Christiansen --
mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft.


SONIA HOSPITALITY: Breeze Files Civil Rights Violation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonia Hospitality
Corporation. The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sonia
Hospitality Corporation a New Jersey corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00125 (D. N.J., January 4, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as violations of
civil rights.

Sonia Hospitality Corporation ie engaged in hotel business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ERIK MATHEW BASHIAN, Esq.
   BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
   500 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 302
   GARDEN CITY, NE 11530
   Tel: (516) 279-1554
   Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Huntsman Suit Asserts USERRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Huntsman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00083-EDL (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2019) is a class
action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act ("USERRA"), on behalf of current and former employees of
Defendant who took short-term military leave from Defendant
Southwest but were not paid their normal wages or salaries by
Defendant Southwest during these leave periods.

Since at least October 10, 2004, Defendant Southwest had a policy
and practice of continuing to pay its employees' normal wages or
salaries during certain leaves-of-absence from their employment
with Southwest, but not providing wages or salaries to employees
when they take short term military leave. For example, Southwest
has paid and continues to pay wages or salaries to employees who
took jury duty leave, bereavement leave, and sick leave, among
other types of leave, but not to employees who have taken
short-term military leave.

USERRA requires military leave to be treated no less favorably than
any other forms of comparable leave that an employer provides to
its employees. By paying employees who take jury duty leave,
bereavement leave, sick leave, and other comparable forms of leave,
Southwest was required by USERRA to do the same for its employees
who take short term military leave, asserts the complaint. By
failing to do so, Southwest violated USERRA's mandate to treat
military leave no less favorably than other comparable forms of
non-military leave.

This action seeks a declaration that Southwest violated USERRA by
failing to pay Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class during
their periods of short-term military leave, an order requiring
Southwest to pay its employees during their short-term military
leave in the future so long as Defendant continues to provide pay
to employees who take other forms of comparable leave, and an order
requiring Southwest to pay Plaintiff and members of the Class the
wages or salaries they should have earned during their periods of
short-term military leave, consistent with the requirements of
USERRA.

Plaintiff Jayson Huntsman is and has been employed as a pilot by
Southwest since February 2012. Huntsman serves as a First Officer
flying 737 passenger airplanes for Southwest.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a publicly traded company and, according
to Southwest's 2017 annual report, as of September 30, 2017,
Southwest was the largest domestic air carrier in the United
States, as measured by the number of domestic originating
passengers boarded.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent Cheng, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     610 16th Street, Suites 214-216
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (415) 968-8999
     Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
     Email: vincent@blockesq.com

          - and -

     Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     601 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
     Second Floor West Suite
     Washington, DC 20001
     Phone: (202) 847-4400
     Facsimile: (202) 847-4410
     Email: prf@outtengolden.com

          - and -

     R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     1735 20th Street NW
     Washington, DC 20009
     Phone: (202) 734-7046
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     Email: jbarton@blockesq.com

          - and -

     Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
     CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
     905 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 409
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Phone: (509) 850-7011
     Email: matt@crottyandson.com

          - and -

     Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS JARRARD PLLC
     1020 N. Washington Dt.
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Phone: (425) 239-7290
     Facsimile: (509) 326-2932
     Email: Tjarrard@att.net


STATE FARM: $250MM Settlement in Hale Has Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of Settlement in the case captioned MARK HALE,
TODD SHADLE, and LAURIE LOGER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, EDWARD MURNANE, and WILLIAM G.
SHEPHERD, Defendants. No. 12-0660-DRH. (S.D. Ill.).

In 1997, consumers filed a proposed nationwide class action, Avery
v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.(Avery), alleging that
State Farm violated consumer protection laws and breached its
contracts with policy holders by equipping their vehicles with
sub-standard non-OEM parts. A class of approximately 4.7 million
insureds was certified and, after a multi-week trial in 1999, they
secured a $1.18 billion verdict.

The Plaintiffs alleged in this lawsuit, State Farm and its
co-defendants engaged in a scheme to (1) secretly recruit
then-trial Judge Karmeier to run for the open seat on the Illinois
Supreme Court, before which the billion-dollar judgment against
State Farm in Avery was pending (2) help organize and manage his
campaign behind the scenes (3) covertly funnel millions of dollars
well over a majority of all reported campaign funds to support the
Karmeier campaign through intermediary organizations over which it
exerted considerable influence and (4) after helping to secure
Justice Karmeier's election, obscure, conceal, and misrepresent the
degree and nature of their support so that Justice Karmeier could
participate in the Avery deliberations.

Adequacy of Representation - Rule 23(e)(2)(A)

At the initial class certification stage, when class certification
was granted for trial purposes, the Court concluded that the Class
Representatives and Class Counsel were adequate.  This remains
true. The Class Representatives have no conflicts of interest and
have invested significant time and resources in this litigation for
more than six years. Class Counsel have extensive experience in
prosecuting RICO claims, class actions, and various complex cases
and have litigated this case intensively, and successfully, for
almost seven years.  Adequacy of representation is uncontested and
favors approval.

Arm's Length Negotiations and
Non-Collusiveness of Settlement
Process - Rule 23(e)(2)(B) and the
Seventh Circuit's First Factor

The settlement negotiations were conducted at arm's length and
overseen by two experienced, Court-appointed mediators. The first
mediation, overseen by Judge James F. Holderman (Ret.), failed
after more than a year of effort, after which the Parties remained
far apart. In the weeks leading up to trial, the Parties revived
the negotiations under the guidance of Court-appointed settlement
master Randi Ellis, and reached an agreement on the eve of opening
statements. After considering the extensive record, the Court
previously found that the Settlement Agreement has been negotiated
in good faith at arms' length between experienced attorneys
familiar with the legal and factual issues of this case, and
overseen by experienced and Court-appointed mediators.

No objector offers any reason to disturb this conclusion. This
factor, therefore, strongly favors final approval.  

Adequacy of the Relief
Provided by the Settlement -
Rule 23(e)(2)(C) and the
Seventh Circuit's Second Factor

The Settlement secures a non-reversionary, $250 million common fund
that after deducting the cost of settlement notice and
administration, attorneys' fees and costs, and class representative
service awards will be available in equal shares to all class
members.  The Court concludes that this relief is more than
adequate taking into account each of the Rule 23(e)(2)(C) factors.

The Costs, Risks, and
Delay of Trial and Appeal -
Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(i)

This case settled after a jury had been empaneled and after more
than six years of intensive and extremely hard-fought litigation.
Over the course of this litigation, the Court ruled on motions to
dismiss filed by all Defendants, a heavily contested class
certification motion, two different summary judgment motions and
accompanying Daubert motions, and literally dozens of pre-trial
Daubert motions and motions in limine, among many other disputed
issues. The Court also oversaw and regularly communicated with
Magistrate Judge Williams, who handled literally dozens of
discovery disputes and held almost monthly hearings and status
conferences. The Court, along with the parties, also prepared for
what was to be a six-week trial. As a result of these efforts, the
Court is completely, fully, and thoroughly familiar with the many
complex factual and legal issues involved in this case. Indeed, the
Court's and the parties' knowledge in this case is likely as close
to complete as one could ever achieve in a piece of litigation,
short of knowing what the jury and the court of appeals would do
with the trial for which the parties, and the Court, had fully
prepared.

The Court noted that real risk remained at trial on, among other
issues, the statute of limitations, RICO causation, and RICO
injury. On appeal, moreover, all issues were fair game, because,
contrary to Marlow's mistaken belief, the Seventh Circuit did not
issue any definitive rulings in its three orders denying State
Farm's petitions for interlocutory appeal. As to the amount of the
Settlement.

Marlow's assumption that post-judgment interest would automatically
have been applied is incorrect.

The Court had yet to decide that issue and State Farm adamantly
maintained that such interest was unsupported by the law.  

To reiterate, based on its extensive history and intimate
familiarity with this litigation, the Court easily concludes that
the relief secured by the proposed settlement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable in light of the costs, risks, and delay of trial and
appeal.  

The Effectiveness of Any Proposed
Method of Distributing Relief to the Class,
Including the Method of Processing
Class-Member Claims -
Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii)

Under the terms of the proposed Settlement, settlement funds will
be distributed automatically, with no need for a claim form, to the
approximately 1.43 million class members whose contact information
is known to the parties. The remainder of the class has only to
submit a relatively simple claim form with basic questions about
class membership. This procedure is claimant-friendly, efficient,
cost-effective, proportional and reasonable under the particular
circumstances of this case.

The Terms of any Proposed Award of Attorney's Fees,
Including Timing of Payment -
Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii)

The Court analyzes the terms of Class Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and expenses. In short, the Court finds the
requested fees and costs are reasonable and concludes that the
relief that remains for the class all of which will be distributed
without any possibility of reversion is adequate in light of all
the additional factors discussed herein. This factor favors final
approval.

Any Agreement Required To Be Identified
Under Rule 23(e)(3) -
Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iv)

The parties have not identified, nor is the Court aware of, any
agreement  other than the Settlement itself that must be considered
pursuant to Rule 23(e)(3). This factor is neutral.

Equitable Treatment of Class Members -
Rule 23(e)(2)(D)

All class members are entitled to the same relief under the
proposed Settlement. This proposal is fair and equitable because
the class members' interests in the Avery judgment were undivided
when they were lost and, thus, each class member's damages were
identical. The proposed Settlement therefore entitles each class
member to an equal, pro-rata share of the Settlement fund.  This
factor favors final approval as well.

The Amount of Opposition to the Settlement -
the Seventh Circuit's Third Factor

The Class here is estimated to include approximately 4.7 million
members. Approximately 1.43 million of them received individual
postcard or email notice of the terms of the proposed Settlement,
and the rest were notified via a robust publication program
estimated to reach 78.8% of all U.S. Adults Aged 35+ approximately
2.4 times. The Court previously approved the notice plan and now,
having carefully reviewed the declaration of the Notice
Administrator concludes that it was fully and properly executed,
and reflected the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can
be identified through reasonable effort. The Court further
concludes that CAFA notice was properly effectuated to the
attorneys general and insurance commissioners of all 50 states and
District of Columbia.  This factor strongly favors settlement
approval.

The Stage of the Proceedings and the
Amount of Discovery Completed -
the Seventh Circuit's Fifth Factor

The stage of the proceedings at which settlement is reached is
important because it indicates how fully the district court and
counsel are able to evaluate the merits of plaintiffs' claims.
Here, the parties settled after trial had begun and after more than
six years of intensive litigation.

The discovery process was exhaustive, and involved: hundreds of
thousands of documents exchanged and reviewed, including many
documents from third parties; dozens of depositions; and dozens of
discovery hearings and disputes resolved by Magistrate Judge
Williams. The motion practice was also extensive. Indeed, there
were approximately 100 contested motions filed in this litigation,
including motions to dismiss, motions for class certification,
motions for summary judgment, many Daubert motions and motions in
limine, and three separate petitions to the Seventh Circuit.  This
factor also strongly favors final approval.

Opinion of Qualified Counsel

In assessing the fairness of a proposed settlement, courts are
entitled to rely heavily on the opinion of competent counsel. As
noted above, Class Counsel are experienced class action litigators
whose knowledge of this case was built on years of intensive
litigation and was about as complete as can ever be achieved in
litigation short of completing a trial and appeal. Indeed, some of
the Parties' counsel had tried the underlying Avery case and/or
were involved in the underlying appeals. This track record of
familiarity spans three decades of first-hand experience. Class
Counsel's unanimous and strong endorsement therefore further
supports the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed
Settlement.

For all these reasons, and after considering all relevant factors
set forth in Rule 23 and the Seventh Circuit's jurisprudence, the
Court concludes that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and should be granted final approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 13, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycwmft6d
from Leagle.com.

Mark Hale, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove , Clifford
Law Offices PC, Charles F. Barrett -- cbarrett@nealharwell.com --
Neal & Harwell, PLC, Kevin P. Durkin, Clifford Law Offices PC,
Patrick W. Pendley -- pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Law Firm,
Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Stephen A.
Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg Attorney at Law, pro hac vice, W.
Gordon Ball, Gordon Ball, LLC, Brent W. Landau --
blandau@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, David T. Brown --
dbrown@muchlaw.com -- Much, Shelist et al., Elizabeth J. Cabraser
-- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser et al., Erwin S.
Chemerinsky, University of California -- School of Law, pro hac
vice, George S. Bellas, Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine M.
Kenney -- jkenney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Jessica A. Perez --
jperez@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, Patrick D. Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Ronald S. Safer -- rsafer@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, Harnaik Kahlon  -- nkahlon@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer et al, J. Timothy Eaton -- teaton@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP, James P. Gaughan  --
jgaughan@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al, Jonathan D. Parente  --
jonathan.parente@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan M. Redgrave -- jredgrave@redgravellp.com -- Partner,
Redgrave LLP, Matthew C. Crowl -- mcrowl@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer et al, Michael P. Kenny -- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Monica McCarroll --
mmccarroll@redgravellp.com -- Redgrave LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia
B. Holmes -- pholmes@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al & Patricia
T. Mathy -- pmathy@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al.


SWF FOOD: Franco Sues Over Retaliation and Unpaid OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FERMINA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SWF Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, JCA Food Corp. d/b/a
Foodtown, Mother Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, New Food Corp. d/b/a
Foodtown, Jason Ferreira and Fernando Pena, Case No. 2:18-cv-07444
(E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2018), seeks to remedy an alleged pattern
and practice of unlawful retaliation, and to recover unpaid
overtime and straight wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

SWF Food Corp., doing business as Foodtown, is a New York
Corporation with its principal place of business located in Jackson
Heights, New York.  New Food Corp., doing business as Foodtown, is
a New York Corporation with its principal place of business located
in New Hyde Park, New York.

JCA Food Corp., doing business as Foodtown, is a New York
Corporation with its principal place of business located in
Jamaica, New York.  Mother Food Corp., doing business as Foodtown,
is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business
located in Jamaica, New York.

SWF Food Corp., JCA Food Corp., Mother Food Corp., and New Food
Corp. (the "Ferreira Foodtown Enterprise"), acted as a unified
operation under common ownership and control, for a common business
purpose.  Jason Ferreira is a resident of Nassau County, New York,
and is an officer or shareholder of the Ferreira Foodtown
Enterprise.  Fernando Pena is employed by SWF Food Corp. and has
supervisory authority over the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven John Moser, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3 School Street, Suite 207B
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
          E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


TELADOC HEALTH: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Teladoc Health Inc.
("Teladoc" or the "Company") (NYSE: TDOC) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Teladoc securities between March 3, 2016, and December 5,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/tdoc.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Hirschhorn was engaged in an inappropriate
sexual relationship with a subordinate; (2) Hirschhorn and this
subordinate engaged in insider trading to provide themselves with
undue benefits; (3) Hirschhorn caused the subordinate to receive
promotions for which she was unqualified, thereby negatively
impacting the Company's operations; (4) the Company's enforcement
of its own purported employment and trading policies were
inadequate to prevent the foregoing conduct; and (5) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 5, 2018, the Southern Investigative Research Foundation
("SIRF") published an article reporting that Teladoc Health's chief
financial officer, Mark Hirschhorn, had engaged "in an affair with
. . . an employee many levels below him on the company's
organizational chart."  The SIRF article stated that "during their
relationship, [the employee] received a series of promotions over
colleagues with either more industry experience or better
credentials that stunned her former colleagues."  In addition, the
SIRF article reported that the employee and Hirschhorn "liked to
trade Teladoc Health's stock together," with Hirschhorn "tell[ing]
her when he thought there were good opportunities to sell some
shares."  Following publication of the SIRF article, Teladoc stock
dropped $4.00 per share, or 6.69%, to close at $55.81 per share on
December 6, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/tdoc or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Teladoc
you have until February 11, 2019 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


TELADOC HEALTH: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE:TDOC) from March 3, 2016
through December 5, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Teladoc investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Teladoc class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1469.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Teladoc's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating
Officer, Mark Hirschhorn, was engaged in an inappropriate sexual
relationship with a subordinate; (2) Hirschhorn and this
subordinate engaged in insider trading to provide themselves with
undue benefits; (3) Hirschhorn caused the subordinate to receive
promotions for which she was unqualified, thereby negatively
impacting Teladoc's operations; (4) Teladoc's enforcement of its
own purported employment and trading policies were inadequate to
prevent the foregoing conduct; and (5) as a result, Teladoc's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
11, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1469.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

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


TIGER BRANDS: Cooperates With Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Laura Pisanello, writing for Sandton Chronicle, reports that Tiger
Brands, whose head offices are based in Bryanston, have decided not
to oppose a class action lawsuit filed against the company
following a listeriosis outbreak.

An outbreak of the food-borne disease caused widespread panic
across the country and lead to the deaths of about 180 people. In
March, Enterprise Foods, which sells products such as Vienna
sausages and polony and is a subsidiary of Tiger Brands, recalled
some of its products.

The Department of Health identified the Enterprise Food Production
facility in Polokwane as the source of the outbreak, which was
caused in particular by cold-meats such as polony.

At the time Lawrence Mac Dougall, CEO at Tiger Brands said in a
statement, "We are being extra vigilant and cautious as consumer
safety remains our highest priority and therefore immediate action
is being taken. Additionally, we have suspended operations at both
Enterprise manufacturing facilities [Polokwane and Germiston] and
have halted supply to trade."

On 6 December the Polokwane facility was reopened and on 12
December the Germiston facility was reopened following rigorous
assessments which allowed the company to obtain an official
Certificate of Acceptability thereby giving the company licence to
resume production.

Shortly after the outbreak, it was announced that there would be
two class-action lawsuits by a number of claimants. The two
lawsuits were combined into one which was granted by the
Johannesburg High Court.

In a statement Tiger Brands reiterated that it had not been found
liable for the listeriosis outbreak, however, should it be found
responsible, it will respond appropriately to each of the claims.
Mary Jane Morifi, chief corporate affairs officer for Tiger Brands,
said that they had committed to working closely with the attorneys
to expedite the matter. This includes sharing the costs associated
with a communication campaign across the country to inform those
who might have a claim.

Notices of the class action will appear in newspapers, social media
postings and on the radio as well as on the websites of Tiger
Brands and the class action attorneys and health practitioners.

In the statement, Richard Spoor, Esq. -- Info@richardspoorinc.co.za
-- who is leading the class action against Tiger Brands, applauded
Tiger Brands for its willingness to assist and move the process
along as swiftly as possible.

"We are committed to ensuring that the legal process runs smoothly
and as quickly as possible. In managing the application for the
certification of the class action in this manner, we have been able
to substantially shorten the time taken for this part of the legal
process," concluded Morifi.

The Department of Health reiterated that while the source of the
outbreak had been identified, it does not mean that consumers are
at no risk of catching the food-borne disease. They encourage all
consumers to practice good food hygiene. [GN]


TRI-STATE AREA MOVING: Gaddy Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Gaddy, Kierre Wiggins, Kendale Getaw, Kyle Porterfield on
behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs' and the Class,
Plaintiffs, v. Tri-State Area Moving Corp., Coach Furniture
Services Inc., NY A to Z Construction Group Inc., Gavriel Avgi,
Michael Avgi, Hedva Bakal and Yosef Ben Hamo, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00118 (E.D. N.Y., January 7, 2019) alleges pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants
unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of
hour's premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs are former and current employees of Defendants.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without the proper minimum wage and overtime wages being paid to
the Plaintiffs for their hours worked in violation of both federal
and state laws and regulations, asserts the complaint. The
Defendants also willfully failed to maintain complete and accurate
payroll records including time sheets thereby disregarding the
recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL; and failed to
maintain accurate records for the hours that the Plaintiffs worked.
The Defendants further failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for the days that the Plaintiffs worked in
excess of 10 hours per day. The Defendants' business practice
intentionally and willfully harmed and deprived the Plaintiffs of
their rightful pay, says the complaint.

Defendants operate full-service moving, storage and construction
companies which provide moving, storage and construction services
for individuals, businesses, unions, schools for construction,
moving and/or storing contents and junk from homes, apartments,
businesses, laboratories and schools. Additionally, the Defendants
own and operate a furniture store.

Gavriel Avgi, was and is chief executive officer of the Corporate
Defendants. Michael Avgi is an officer and/or manager of the
Corporate Defendants. Hedva Bakal is an officer and/or manager of
the Corporate Defendants. Yosef Ben Hamo is an officer and/or
manager of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mitchell Segal, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL P.C.
     1010 Northern Blvd, Ste. 208
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 415-0100
     Fax: (516) 706-6631


TTEC HEALTHCARE: Beattie Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Sondra Beattie and Francis Houston, Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated individuals v. TTEC Healthcare
Solutions, Inc. and TTEC Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-03098 (D.
Colo., December 3, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants require Call Agents to
work a full-time schedule, plus overtime. However, Defendants do
not compensate Call Agents for all work performed; instead,
Defendants require their Call Agents to perform compensable work
tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and during their
unpaid meal periods, when they are not logged into Defendants'
timekeeping system. This policy results in Call Agents not being
paid for all time worked, including overtime.

The Plaintiff Sondra Beattie is a Florida resident who has worked
for Defendants as a Call Agent in Daytona Beach, Florida since July
2017.

The Plaintiff Francis Houston, Jr. is a Florida resident who worked
for Defendants as a Call Agent in Daytona Beach, Florida from
September 2017 until April 2018.

The Defendant TTEC Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and TTEC Holdings,
Inc. are Delaware corporations with a principal office at 9197
South Peoria Street, Englewood, Colorado 80112. The Defendant TTEC
Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of TTEC
Holdings, Inc. The Defendants are in the business of call center
services and taking inbound calls to answer queries from customers
of Defendants' clients. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
      Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, 17th Floor
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
              mturner@sommerspc.com
              rjohnston@sommerspc.com


UNITED STATES: Judge Hints Travel Ban Class Action Will Advance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge hinted on December 13 that he will likely advance a
lawsuit claiming the U.S. government uses a "sham" process to deny
waivers to nearly every immigrant coming from five Muslim-majority
nations under President Donald Trump's travel ban.

"A citizen has the right to say the government is putting up a sham
policy," U.S. District Judge James Donato said during a
motion-to-dismiss hearing.

Thirty-six plaintiffs filed a class action against the Trump
administration in March, claiming the government failed to create
proper guidelines and procedures for reviewing travel ban waiver
requests as required by law.

According to the suit, the waiver denials have prevented parents
from attending their children's weddings and being present for the
births of grandchildren. They have also separated sick and dying
parents from children in the U.S., blocked scientists from working
and doing research at U.S. universities, and made those who
invested $500,000 or more in U.S. businesses ineligible for visas
under the EB-5 immigrant investor program.

According to data cited in the lawsuit, the State Department
granted only two waivers for 6,500 applicants as of Jan. 8, 2018.
In March, the State Department said it had granted 100 waivers, but
the rejection rate remained higher than 98 percent.

Despite those statistics, a U.S. government lawyer argued in court
on December 13 that the lawsuit should be thrown out because courts
lack the power to review case-by-case visa determinations.

"They are envisioning a kind of micromanagement of those consular
decisions," Justice Department attorney August Flentje, Esq. said.

Donato disagreed, noting that the lawsuit alleges a "sham" policy
and guidelines that create the illusion of fairness while giving
the government cover to reject nearly every waiver request.

"I don't see why I'd have to look at any specific waiver
decisions," Donato said.

To obtain a waiver, applicants must show they do not pose a
national security threat, that a waiver denial would cause "undue
hardship," and that their entry into the U.S. would "be in the
national interest."

According to the lawsuit, several plaintiffs submitted documents
showing they meet the requirements, including scientists with
special expertise whose research at U.S. universities would "be in
the national interest." But the government rejected all of their
waiver requests.

Class attorney Sirine Shebaya, Esq. of the Washington, D.C.-based
group Muslim Advocates said the government has failed to make clear
how one can apply for a waiver, submit supporting documentation and
prove that one meets the requirements.

"They haven't given you any clue about what the [eligibility
criteria] definitions are, but it's your burden to show that you
meet those definitions," Shebaya said.

Flentje countered the U.S. does follow clear guidelines for meeting
the requirements, but some of those guidelines are hidden from the
public for national security reasons.

"The [presidential] proclamation for issuing guidance doesn't say
it's all outward facing, and a lot would need to be confidential to
avoid manipulation of the process," Flentje said.

Trump's third version of the travel ban was introduced in September
2017 and upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote in June.

On December 13, Donato cited Justice Breyer's dissent in that
decision, which focused on whether the waiver program is being
administered as stated in the president's proclamation.

Breyer noted that if the government was not granting waivers to
those that meet the three requirements, then arguments in favor of
the travel ban would be "significantly weaker."

"Denying visas to Muslims who meet the proclamation's own security
terms would support the view that the government excludes them for
reasons based upon their religion," Breyer wrote in an 8-page
dissent.

Donato recalled a footnote in Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion
upholding the travel ban, which cited a lack of evidence to support
Breyer's concern that the government was categorically denying
waiver requests.

"Frankly, he's skeptical that it's a sham, but we have to see the
evidence," Donato said. "Why isn't that the case here? Why
shouldn't this go to an evidentiary hearing?"

Before ending the hearing, Donato said he would issue a written
ruling "fairly soon," and that he will let the plaintiffs amend
their complaint if any claims are dismissed.

After the hearing, opponents of the travel ban gathered outside the
courthouse. Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates,
encouraged people to contact their congressional representatives
and urge them to use their oversight powers to investigate the
travel ban waiver system.

Countries subject to the travel ban include Iran, Libya, North
Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.


UNITED STATES: Law360 Reviews Most Consequential 2018 Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Vogt, Michelle Casady and Nicole Narea, writing for Law360,
report that from bail reform to class actions for veterans, 2018
was full of big cases in the realm of access to justice. Here,
Law360 takes a look at four of the most consequential court
decisions issued in 2018.

Veterans Win Class Action Ruling

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has refused to handle
class actions for most of its 30-year history, forcing veterans to
challenge decisions about their benefits on a case-by-case basis.

But that all changed in 2018, thanks to a case brought by Vietnam
War veteran Conley Monk.

In 2015, Mr. Monk had asked the court to rule that the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs must decide disability compensation
appeals within a year of their filing, challenging the systemic
delays that have long plagued the VA.

As part of his suit, Mr. Monk sought to represent himself and
thousands of other veterans, who often wait five to seven years
while the VA processes their claims.

Initially, the CAVC dismissed his petition, citing its 1991
Harrison v. Derwinski decision, which held that it lacked authority
to consider class actions or similar types of aggregate resolution.
But after Mr. Monk appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, a trio of circuit judges ruled in April 2017 that
the CAVC actually does have the authority to certify class
actions.

That ruling remanded the case to the CAVC, where an en banc court
affirmed its ability to hear class actions in August. Chief Judge
Robert N. Davis called the holding "a seismic shift in our
precedent."

"The court's decision will shape our jurisprudence for years to
come and, I hope, bring about positive change for our nation's
veterans and ensure that justice is done more efficiently and
timely," he wrote in the watershed opinion.

In Mr. Monk's specific case, the court refused to certify the class
because of individual differences in the reasons behind various
delays. Because there was no common question in play for the
proposed class regarding why their disability appeals had yet to be
heard, the CAVC held there could be no class certification.

Although it did not grant the class status Monk sought, the CAVC
decision opened the door to additional class actions. Bart
Stichman, executive director of the National Veterans Legal
Services Program, told Law360 that several collective suits have
since been filed, including one over emergency medical
reimbursements that could affect "tens of thousands of veterans"
who otherwise wouldn't have known they had a case to make.

"It's often true that there's a common issue in the way the VA
treats claimants," he said. "A class action is a tremendous tool to
make sure the VA treats people uniformly."

Texas County Ordered to Overhaul Bail Practices

Camera footage of Dallas County bail hearings, issued in September,
shows arrestees in a small courtroom. They appear before a
magistrate judge for 30 seconds or less before being assigned a
predetermined bail amount -- with no detailed discussion of their
alleged crimes, ability to pay or likelihood of returning to
court.

According to a class of arrestees, the video proved that the county
has routinely ignored an arrestee's ability to pay money bail,
instead relying on arbitrary bail schedules to set the price of
pretrial freedom.

A federal judge agreed with the class within weeks of the video
evidence's release, issuing a preliminary injunction against the
county that mandates individualized hearings within 48 hours of
each arrest.

In a memo accompanying the injunction, U.S. District Judge David C.
Godbey wrote that "[Dallas] County's post-arrest system
automatically detains those who cannot afford the secured bond
amounts . . . detention can last for days, weeks, and, in some
cases, even months.

"This detention results solely because an individual cannot afford
the secured condition of release," he added. "The county's policy
of routinely relying on the schedules thus causes the pretrial
detention of indigent arrestees."

The ruling was one of several wins in 2018 for bail reform
advocates, who have filed class actions in jurisdictions from Texas
to New York over pretrial bail proceedings that often leave
indigent arrestees wallowing behind bars.

Trisha Trigilio, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil
Liberties Union of Texas, said in a statement that the ruling was
significant because "it holds counties responsible for providing
fair bail hearings to people accused of felonies, which are the
majority of people held in jail."

In similar litigation against Harris County, home to the nation's
fourth largest city, Houston, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit issued a February ruling that found "the current
procedure does not sufficiently protect detainees from magistrates
imposing bail as an 'instrument of oppression.'"

That opinion mostly upheld a district court's 2017 decision to
overturn Harris County's bail system for people charged with
misdemeanors. The case was brought by Maranda O'Donnell, a woman
arrested for driving without a license who wound up spending three
days in jail because she couldn't afford $2,500 bail.

Wash. Justices Ban Juvenile Life Without Parole

In the more than two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ordered
parole or resentencing for all those previously sentenced to life
without parole as juveniles, states have come up with myriad ways
for carrying out the order.

Prisoners in states like Missouri are getting a shot at parole
after 25 years served; Pennsylvania and Michigan, on the other
hand, are resentencing inmates that fall under the high court's
order.

But many advocates say the punishment itself should be taken off
the table, as was the case this fall in Washington, when the state
became the 22nd U.S. jurisdiction to completely ban juvenile life
without parole sentencing.

The October decision by the Washington Supreme Court found that
sending those less than 18 years to die in prison was
unconstitutionally "cruel punishment." It noted that "states are
rapidly abandoning juvenile life without parole sentences, children
are less criminally culpable than adults, and the characteristics
of youth do not support the penological goals of a life without
parole sentence."

According to the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth,
Washington's decision will affect nearly a dozen people previously
sentenced to life in prison without parole as juveniles, including
Brian Bassett, the plaintiff who brought the underlying case.
Convicted in 1996 of killing his mother, father and brother when he
was 16 years old, the formerly homeless teenager had been sentenced
to life without parole when the sentence was still mandatory.

Heather Renwick, the CFSY legal director, told Law360 the ruling
marked a tipping point that shows "where the country is today, and
where the country will continue to move.

"Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court will look to state reforms
as objective indicia of evolving standards of decency and
ultimately will hold life without parole for children is cruel and
unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment," she added.

Detained Immigrants Lose SCOTUS Bail Battle

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained nearly 60,000
people through the first four months of the year, according to data
collected by researchers at Syracuse University.

No matter how long those immigrants remain in detention facilities,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February that they are not entitled
to bail hearings, reversing a Ninth Circuit decision that had
called for hearings in instances where detentions lasted longer
than six months.

The 5-3 decision, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, was a blow for
advocates who argued that locking people up without any finding of
dangerousness or flight risk violated due process rights. Alito
wrote that detaining those seeking asylum or fighting deportation
was necessary "to determine an alien's status without running the
risk of the alien's either absconding or engaging in criminal
activity."

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the majority's decision
was probably "the first time ever" that America's highest court had
found that people could be held for long periods of time without
trial or an opportunity to pursue bail.

The case's lead plaintiff, Alejandro Rodriguez, had been detained
after being convicted for "joyriding" and possessing a controlled
substance, according to court filings. The green card holder who
was brought to the U.S. as a baby ultimately kept his status, but
only after a three year stint in ICE custody.

President Donald Trump has publicly stated he aims to deport or
incarcerate 2 million to 3 million criminal immigrants. Since he
took office, the immigration court backlog has jumped to roughly
1.1 million cases, suggesting that wait times for case adjudication
will continue to grow. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Looks to Deport Vietnamese Immigrants Amid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KUT News' Alexandra Hart and Caroline Covington, citing Texas
Standard, report that when it comes to shifting racial and ethnic
demographics in Texas, often the first thing that comes to mind is
the state's growing Latino population. In fact, one of the
fastest-growing racial groups in Texas is Asian Americans. Two
Texas cities, Houston and Arlington, have some of the country's
largest Vietnamese populations, and those communities grew quickly
during the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. But reporting from
The Atlantic revealed that the Trump administration is looking to
deport some Vietnamese immigrants who've committed crimes in the
U.S.; some of them immigrated here after fleeing Vietnam during the
war.

Krishnadev Calamur is a staff writer at The Atlantic where he
covers global news, and says this proposed rule change has roots
back in 2008, when Vietnam agreed to take back Vietnamese nationals
who were living in the U.S. without citizenship, and who also had
criminal records.

"They finally agreed that they would take back anyone who came to
the U.S. after July 12, 1995 -- that's the date when the U.S. and
Vietnam agreed to set up diplomatic relations," Mr. Calamur says.

But he says Vietnam wouldn't agree to take back those nationals who
committed crimes and who came to the U.S. before that time, closer
to the war. That's because most of those people were from South
Vietnam, and Mr. Calamur says the Vietnamese government likely
viewed them as "politically tainted." Now, Mr. Calamur says the
Trump administration is looking to deport those people, too. He's
spoken with advocacy groups that say this change would have
profound consequences in Vietnamese communities.

"A lot of these people who have been convicted, they came as young
people to the United States, they were settled in pretty depressed
communities, they committed crimes, they were sentenced to prison,
they served their time and they came out," Mr. Calamur says. "They
have done their time, in the words of the advocates, and many of
them are married to American citizens and have American-citizen
children, they just are not U.S. citizens."

Mr. Calamur says deportation would hurt these families.

"About 5,000 people . . . would be immediately eligible for
deportation, should this rule change occur," Mr. Calamur says.

But he says Vietnamese community groups say it's more like 9,000
people.

Mr. Calamur says the Trump administration can make this change
without allowing time for public comment, because it's an
immigration issue.

"Because immigration falls under the federal jurisdiction, most
courts have recently sided with the executive branch's purview over
that matter," Mr. Calamur says.

He says any negotiation over this rule change would most likely be
between the U.S. and the Vietnamese government.

"The U.S. is hoping to persuade Vietnam to agree to the rule change
to take back these people," Mr. Calamur says.

Mr. Calamur says the rule change could face some legal challenges.
In fact, the Trump administration had already deported around a
dozen Vietnamese immigrants in 2017, but then faced a class-action
lawsuit.

"Because of the public pressure, [the administration] backed off,
and it seems to have revived those efforts last month," Mr. Calamur
says. [GN]


VENDRITE VENDING: Ambrosecchia Seeks to Recoup Unlawful Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Danien Ambrosecchia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Vendrite Vending Corporation and Carl Gerfo, Case No.
161340 (N.Y. Sup., December 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and unlawful deductions under the New York
Labor Law and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that since approximately December 4, 2012,
and continuing through the present, the Defendants engaged in a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and members of the
putative class to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing overtime compensation as required by applicable
state laws. The Defendants also engaged in a policy and practice of
making unlawful deductions from the wages of the Plaintiff and the
putative class, in violation of state laws.

The Plaintiff Danien Ambrosecchia is an individual who resides in
the State of New York and worked for Defendants as a driver during
the relevant time period.

The Defendants operate a vending machine business including
stocking and servicing vending machines, and the preparation and
delivery of fresh food. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERIFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Gray Sues Over Storage of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON GRAY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. VERIFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2018CH16054 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., December
28, 2018), is brought against the Defendant to stop its capture,
collection, storage, and use of individuals' biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Verificient Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that
conducts business throughout the state of Illinois, including in
Cook County.  Verificient captures the biometrics of Illinois
residents throughout the state of Illinois, including in Cook
County.

Verificient is a provider of identity verification services.  The
Defendant collects its users' biometric information in the form of
facial geometry and knuckle geometry through its Proctortrack
application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com


WASHINGTON: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Danielson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dale Danielson, Benjamin Rast and Tamara Roberson filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Dale
Danielson, et al. v. Jay Inslee, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-05206-RJB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on March 15, 2018, against Jay Inslee, in his official
capacity of Governor of the State of Washington; David Schumacher,
in his official capacity as director of the Office of Financial
Management; and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, Council 28, AFL-CIO, a labor organization.

The appellate case is captioned as Dale Danielson, et al. v. Jay
Inslee, et al., Case No. 18-36087, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Dale Danielson, Benjamin Rast and Tamara
      Roberson's opening brief is due on February 25, 2019;

   -- Appellees American Federation of State, County, and
      Municipal Employees, Council 28, AFL-CIO, Jay Inslee and
      David Schumacher's answering brief is due on March 27,
      2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DALE DANIELSON, a Washington State employee;
BENJAMIN RAST, a Washington State employee; and TAMARA ROBERSON, a
Washington State employee; as individuals, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          E-mail: jfmitchell@mac.com

Defendants-Appellees JAY INSLEE, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Washington; and DAVID SCHUMACHER, in his
official capacity as Director of Washington State Office of
Financial Management, are represented by:

          Kelly Woodward, Esq.
          Alicia Orlena Young, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          AGWA - OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL
          7141 Cleanwater Drive SW
          Olympia, WA 98504
          Telephone: (360) 586-0299

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 28, AFL-CIO, a labor organization, is
represented by:

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Edward Earl Younglove, III, Esq.
          YOUNGLOVE & COKER, P.L.L.C.
          1800 Cooper Point Road SW
          Olympia, WA 98502
          Telephone: (360) 357-7791
          E-mail: edy@ylclaw.com


WASHINGTON: Summary Judgment vs Former SEIU Members Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an Order
affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment in the case captioned BECKY FISK, Plaintiff,
and LINDA BOWMAN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAY INSLEE,
Governor; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-35957. (9th Cir.).

Appellants Linda Bowman, Nathaniel Israel, and Susan Nott appeal
the district court's order granting summary judgment to the State
of Washington and the Service Employees International Union 775 (or
SEIU).  

The Appellants are former SEIU members. When they enrolled in the
union, they signed membership cards that authorized SEIU to deduct
union dues for at least a full year and provided the Appellants
could opt out of dues payments only during a 15-day window each
year the dues irrevocability provision. Each of the Appellants
resigned from the union before their dues authorizations elapsed,
and the union continued to deduct dues from their paychecks until
the full year had passed or the appropriate 15-day window arrived.
The Appellants brought a putative class action alleging violations
of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because they were
unable to immediately cease dues contributions when they resigned.

The Appellees' deduction of union dues in accordance with the
membership cards' dues irrevocability provision does not violate
the Appellants' First Amendment rights. Although the Appellants
resigned their membership in the union and objected to providing
continued financial support, the First Amendment does not preclude
the enforcement of legal obligations that are bargained-for and
self-imposed under state contract law.  The provisions authorizing
the withholding of dues and making that authorization irrevocable
for certain periods were in clear, readable type on a simple
one-page form, well within the ken of unrepresented or lay parties.
Moreover, temporarily irrevocable payment authorizations are common
and enforceable in many consumer contracts, e.g., gym memberships
or cell phone contracts—and we conclude that under state contract
law those provisions should be similarly enforceable here.

Importantly however, the Ninth Circuit said this claim is not
properly before it and so it need not address the adequacy of the
Appellants' putative waivers. As the Appellants' counsel himself
acknowledged at oral argument, this broader claim is a departure
from the actual allegations of the complaint, which was never
amended. Nowhere in the complaint do the Appellants allege that
they did not initially consent to the dues deductions, nor did they
object to any fees deducted prior to their resignations or seek
recovery of pre-resignation dues deductions. The Appellants are
necessarily bound by the allegations and claims in their
complaint.
  
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order
granting summary judgment to Washington state and SEIU.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's December 17, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y87875n7 from Leagle.com.


[*] ILR Comments on New EU Collective Action Directive
------------------------------------------------------
Law Society Gazette reports that the US Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform has called on lawmakers to 'get it right first time' in
respect of the EU's new collective action directive.

The European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee in early December
passed rules allowing groups of consumers harmed by illegal
practices to launch collective actions and seek compensation.

"A new collective action directive will create a whole new world of
litigation in Europe and it is crucial that EU lawmakers get it
right the first time," Lisa A Rickard (President of the Institute
for Legal Reform) said.

Benefit
"The new directive must be for the benefit of European consumers
and not import the abuses of the US class action system, which
primarily benefits lawyers and profit-seeking third-party investors
in lawsuits," she said

"The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee report is poorly
written and lacks clear safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse.
Still missing is a requirement that consumers give their consent or
'opt-in' to join a collective claim, and clear criteria to
eliminate meritless claims.

Rush through
"Members of the European Parliament and Council should not rush
this proposal through the legislative process and must address
these and other critical issues," the institute says.

Currently, only 19 member states provide some form of legal remedy
to victims of mass harm, and proceedings can often be lengthy and
costly, especially if victims go to court individually.

The new rules will allow group action against trader violations and
aim to address concerns raised by recent mass-harm scandals with
cross-border implications.

The Institute for Legal Reform is an affiliate of the US Chamber of
Commerce and an influential advocate for civil justice reform, both
in the US and abroad.

A&L Goodbody partner Liam Kennedy -- lkennedy@algoodbody.com --
offers his personal thoughts:

Careful consideration

"Speaking personally, I agree that introduction of a class-action
procedure at EU level would be a major change, which requires
careful consideration and consultation."

He says the often-criticised US class action regime operates in a
country where there may be less regulatory support available to
protect consumers -- in the US, class actions fill this perceived
gap.

By contrast, there are often more effective regulatory regimes in
the EU to protect consumer rights.

EU model

"I would argue for the existing EU regulatory approach as being
more appropriate than class actions -- the traditional EU model is
not dependent on the vagaries of private litigation to regulate
corporate behaviour."

From a litigation perspective, Mr. Kennedy believes it is clear
that there should be efficient ways of managing large-scale
multi-plaintiff litigation in a way that is fair to consumers, and
also to potential defendants, but it is not clear that this is the
solution.

The complexity of the issue is shown by our own Law Reform
Commission's report, he says.

"There are very different class-action or group-litigation models
in different jurisdictions around the world, including the US, UK,
Australia, Israel and the Netherlands.

"Significant policy and ethical issues need to be addressed,
particularly if an 'opt-out' model is chosen. This would allow
proceedings to be maintained on behalf of thousands of individuals,
without requiring the agreement of each individual class member.

Cost recovery

"The provision for costs and cost recovery would also need to be
considered, as would the need for safeguards to ensure
proportionality and to prevent abuse."

Such fundamental changes merit further consideration and analysis,
Mr Kennedy believes, as does the legislation currently before the
Dail, which is considering the same issue from a different
perspective. [GN]


[*] NHTSA Urged to Conduct Probe Amid Exploding Sunroof Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joce Sterman and Alex Brauer, writing for Circa, report that
imagine driving down the road and having your car's sunroof
suddenly explode.

It's a terrifying experience, not to mention a serious potential
hazard, and it has happened to hundreds of drivers nationwide.

Check out this Volkswagen.

The sunroof explodes, blowing gas into the air at highway speeds. A
Circa investigation found this happens more than you think.

"I just hear bah-boom, Chris Pelesky told us," Christ Pelesky was
on his daily commute when he says his sunroof spontaneously
shattered. "It was literally like a shotgun, he said. When
something happens when you're going 65 miles per hour like that,
wow."

The explosion littered Mr. Pelesky's car with chunks of glass.

"That was a day that my life flashed before my eyes, Mr. Pelesky
told us."

We found this is not a freak accident. We first uncovered problems
with exploding sunroofs back in 2014 with our sister station in
Washington, DC.

Back then, we dug up complaints related to exploding sunroofs filed
with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
There are nearly 900 complaints right now in their system, 200 of
them from just the last two years.

"It's not just happening frequently, it's happening across
manufacturers, said Jason Levine from the Center for Auto Safety."

And across the country with drivers telling the Feds their horror
stories. Those records show injuries, although no deaths have been
reported.

NHTSA launched an investigation. At this point, though, it has been
open for half a decade with no resolution. And the agency won't
answer questions. The investigation at this point spans about five
years. We asked Jason Levine if this was a priority for the
Government.

"It certainly doesn't seem to be, he said. This many number of
years later, there should be more answers."

You can find some in the NHTSA documents we scoured through. They
include manufacturers breaking down by make and model the hundreds
of incidents they're aware of where sunroofs have exploded.

"This appears to be, from all accounts, a defect that is well
documented," Mr. Levine said. "And when something is defective,
it's on that manufacturer to take care of it. And, if not, people
do have the ability to go to court."

Circa found at least half a dozen ongoing class action lawsuits
related to exploding sunroofs. They claim manufacturers are aware
of a defect and don't disclose it.

They lay blame for the explosions on several things:

   -- The use of tempered, not laminated glass
   --  Ceramic coating that compromises strength.
   -- Tight installation, which creates pressure.

"It's not something consumers can really do something about,"
Levine said. You can't drive more carefully and have your sunroof
not explode. That's something that needs to be dealt with at the
manufacturers level or at the regulatory level."

A handful of manufacturers have done voluntary recalls,
acknowledging a problem in limited makes and models.

"Nobody should have to fight the way I did to get a situation
resolved, Mr. Pelesky said. It's a really big safety issue.

Drivers like Mr. Pelesky say NHTSA needs to act before there's a
tragedy. They want to take the pressure off the sunroofs and put it
back on the manufacturers. [GN]


[*] Rise in Employment Class Actions Set to Continue in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Winter & Slattery, in an article for Lexology, reports that
class actions are set to become a prominent feature of the
Australian employment law landscape. With several high-profile
cases currently before the courts, and a flurry of recent
employment law decisions, the rise in class actions is set to
continue. This follows trends in the United States where, over
recent years, employment related class actions have steadily
increased.

For businesses with high numbers of contractors, labour hire
workers and casual employees, preparing for increased scrutiny by
relevant bodies is critical.

Potential areas for class actions

Class action funders are now, more than ever, prepared to venture
outside the ordinary bounds of commercial litigation. Recent
developments in Australian employment law will also fuel employment
related class actions in the year to come.

Gig economy contractors held to be employees

The Fair Work Commission recently found that that a Foodora rider
was an employee in the unfair dismissal case of Klooger v Foodora
Australia Pty Ltd[1].

This is the first finding by an Australian court or tribunal that a
digital platform worker was an employee rather than an independent
contractor. Factors that weighed heavily in favour of Klooger being
found to be an employee included:

   -- start and finish times and locations of shifts were fixed by
Foodora;
   -- there was no unrestricted entitlement on Klooger to
sub-contract;
   -- Klooger did not carry on his own business;
   -- Klooger was required to wear a Foodora uniform and use
Foodora equipment; and
   -- Foodora had a high level of control over the manner in which
Klooger performed the work.

The Transport Workers Union of Australia supported Klooger in the
case and made the following statement following the decision "This
ruling shatters the foundation that the on-demand economy is built
on…This fight does not end here . . . We will continue to demand
an end to the exploitation of riders and other on-demand economy
workers."

The multifactorial test used in the Foodora case to differentiate
employees from contractors may result in different results for
other similar businesses that use technological platforms,
depending on the nature of their business model.

Characterisation of casuals

The recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in
WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene[2] regarding payment of annual leave for
casuals is likely to give rise to class actions involving casuals.
Click here for our previous article on this decision.

Sham contracting

The Fair Work Ombudsman's focus on sham contracting (particularly
in the gig economies) is likely to spur potential claimants and
their class action law firms, unions, and potential litigation
funders.

Being prepared for this increased scrutiny by the Fair Work
Ombudsman, unions, class action law firms, courts and the Fair Work
Commission, is particularly critical for businesses with high
numbers of contractors, labour hire workers and casual employees.

Current class actions

In reviewing casuals and contractor-related class actions, some
decisions should be kept in mind in relation to what's ahead for
2019.

Some specific class actions in this space include:

Contractors

A class action involving 4,000 telecommunications workers has been
commenced in the Federal Court of Australia against a workforce
management company, ISGM (now trading as Tandem Corporation). The
claim alleges that subcontractors to companies such as Telstra and
Foxtel were in fact employees and therefore entitled to a minimum
wage, paid annual and long service leave, overtime, penalty rates,
allowances and superannuation. In addition to underpayment claims,
penalties are also being sought by the claimants, who are
represented by a personal injury law firm. The firm is reportedly
supported by an Australian based litigation funder and the
Australian Communications Workers Alliance.

Mischaracterising casuals

The Federal Court of Australia's declaration that the RECS (Qld)
Pty Ltd Agreement (the One Key Agreement) was void and of no
effect, has left One Key Resources exposed to potential proceedings
by its casuals who should have been categorised as permanent
employees under the relevant modern award. In addition to
proceedings brought by the CFMMEU on behalf of its affected
members, One Key Resources is facing a potential class action from
casual employees, who were non-union members, claiming personal
leave and annual leave for the period they worked under the now
void One Key Agreement.

Labour Hire

400 Workers at the Mount Arthur Coal Mine are pursuing BHP for
approximately $40 million in underpayments, claiming they were
incorrectly hired as casual employees by labour-hire companies.

Sham contracting

In late 2016, a highly publicised class action worth $85 million
was filed in the Federal Court of Australia against APPCO, a
marketing agency that largely consults with charities. The action
consists of 1,400 claimants across Australia who allege that APPCO
was involved in sham contracting because fundraising workers were
hired as independent contractors, rather than employees, to avoid
paying basic employee entitlements. The National Union of Workers
has brought a similar claim on behalf of 100 workers against
marketing companies Aida and Credico.

Strategic issues

The law relating to class actions is one of the fastest moving in
Australia, requiring significant expertise in order to grapple with
the myriad of strategic issues that can arise.

As an employer facing a potential class action investigation (such
as an investigation instigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman) or being
a defendant to a class action claim, there are a number of
important considerations to be made.

The strategic issues in question may include:

Multiple and competing class actions

The process can be hampered by the instigation of multiple,
sometimes overlapping or even competing, class action claims
relating to the same conduct. This increases the complexity of
proceedings and defence costs.

"Beauty Parades"

Unlike in the United States where there is a certification
procedure in place for the commencement of class actions, there is
no such process in Australia. The phenomenon of the 'beauty parade'
(that is, a court-controlled process of selection among multiple
potential class actions) is currently under consideration by
appellate courts.

Strategies to "de-class" or shut out proceedings early

Consideration should be given to the rules that allow defendants to
bring to an end class actions early in the proceedings including
where the representative action is not representative of the class
of claimants or where it is deemed not 'in the interests of
justice', either for considerations of cost, efficiency or
appropriateness or where it will not operate to significantly curb
proceedings. These strategies offer potential for employers to cut
off class actions at the pass.

Implications of the opt-out or opt-in models

Although the legislative model in Australia for class actions is an
opt-out model, meaning that all members within the class action
description will have their rights determined by the class action
unless they actively opt out, in reality proceedings have been
permitted to run on either an opt-out or opt-in basis. As a
defendant, opt-in arrangements may result in a lack of certainty
and finality in the proceedings because all potential claims may
not be dealt with through a single class action process.

To navigate this evolving landscape, significant expertise is
required on the part of class action defendants to both grapple
with the complexities of the law, and/or to engage early with
opposing lawyers (and funders, as the case may be) to ward off
proceedings or enter into early confidential negotiations.

Preparing for 2019

Australian employment law in relation to class actions continues to
move rapidly and class action defendants are often required to
contend with the complexities of the law as well as a range of
other demands. If you have any concerns or queries about these or
other employment-related law issues, please contact our employment
law team. [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 ***