CAR_Public/190417.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, April 17, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 77

                            Headlines

15 W 55TH ST: DV Retail Hits Illegal Eviction, Seeks Damages
3M COMPANY: Coyaso Claims Damages Over Defective Earplug
3M COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holloway Suit Alleges
ACRE GOURMET: Ramirez Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ALPHA SERVICES: Sanderlin Seeks OT Pay for Pipeline Inspectors

AMARIN CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
AMD ENERGY: Kyle Nichols Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
AMERICAN GUARANTEE: Sterling Sues Over Breaches of Defense Duties
ASHLAND GLOBAL: Does not Pay Chemical Operators Overtime Wages
AT&T INC: Gross Files Securities Suit Over Time Warner Merger

ATLANTIC CREDIT: Baumann Asserts FDCPA Violation
B ERA CORPORATION: Figueroa Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
BANK OF AMERICA: Baltimore Files Antitrust Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Banks Hit With Class Action Over Fannie Mae Bonds
BANK OF AMERICA: Kaymark Appeals Memo and Orders to 3rd Circuit

BARILLA AMERICA: Bolden Sues Over Pasta Sauce's Misleading Ad
BEST WESTERN: Young Alleges Violation under ADA
BEVERAGE MARKETING: Niles Files Fraud Class Suit Over Energy Drink
BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Meyer Suit Alleges FLSA Breach
BUSHRA FOOD: Faces Suleman Suit over Labor Law Violations

CALLIHAN PHILIPS: Chisley Files Class Suit under FDCPA
CANON SOLUTIONS: Deanda Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
CHLV GROUP: Navarro Asserts TCPA Violation in Calif. Suit.
CHURRASQUERIA MARINA: Faces Ortega Romero's Labor Suit in NJ
COMCAST CABLE: Faces Hearn Suit over Background Checks

CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: June 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
COOK COUNTY: Guy Sues Over Freedom of Information Act Breach
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Correa et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Sales Rep
DASH AMERICA: Figueroa Assert Breach of Disabilities Act
DELTA AIR LINES: Settles Background Check Class Action for $2.3MM

DIRECT ENERGY: Sued by Burk Over Illegal Collection Calls
DIRECT LENDING: Kosstrin Sues Over Inflated Financial Reports
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Baker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
EMPIRE FINANCE: Tanner Seeks Overtime Pay
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Stewart Says 401k Plan Contributions Missing

ESTATES OF HYDE PARK: Faces Williams Labor Suit
EVERQUOTE INC: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit
FARMERS INSURANCE: Nguyen Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
FERRARA CANDY: May 1 SweeTARTS Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
FOOT LOCKER RETAIL: Haggar Claims Website not Blind-Friendly

GOOGLE INC: Karate School Owner Urges 9th Cir. to Reinstate Lawsuit
GRANITE QUEENS: Fischler Alleges Violation under ADA
HAYNES FAMILY: Loper Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
INDIGO ROOM: McCartney et al Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Bartenders
INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE: Plantation Open Suit Transferred to Fla.

INFINITY INDEMNITY: Plantation Open Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
IOOF: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over APRA Fallout
JENNINGS ROAD: Underpays Drivers, Berman Suit Alleges
JESSE CREEK: Odom Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Ramirez Alleges

KORAN LANDSCAPE: Underpays Landscapers, Ventura et al. Allege
KRAFT HEINZ: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
LAKEFRONT TERRACE: Young Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
LAN SHENG: Wu Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
LENNY & LARRY'S: BakerHostetler Attorneys Discuss Settlement

LIFE FOR RELIEF: Kempton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MDL 2741: Ingle Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Kunz Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Lubben Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Lumpkin Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Sheehan Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MIDLAND CREDIT: Deluccio Asserts Breach of FDCPA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Allens Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Collins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cupp Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Fishburns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Fohnes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Fruits Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lawary Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Madigans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Malandrinos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mincks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Musselmans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Nolan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Ott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Pages Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sears Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Simmons Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Vereugo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

NCAA: Carney Seeks Damages Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
NCAA: DiValentino Seeks Damages Over Injuries Sustained
NCAA: Waller Seek Damages Over Injuries Sustained as an Athlete
NEW PRECIOUS: Muy Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay for Salon Staff
NIKE INC: Female Employees Clear 1st Hurdle in Discrimination Suit

NORTHBAY BUILDERS: Licona Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Min., OT Wages
NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL: Underpays Crisis Clinicians, Basilio Alleges
OKLAHOMA: Beard, et al. File Suit v. DOC, Parole Board Officers
ORACLE CORP: Fights Plaintiffs' Jury Demand in ERISA Class Action
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: LaBarbara Brings Securities Class Action in Md

OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Scarantino Balks at Smith & Nephew Merger
PERMCO INC: Claudio Pop Seeks Overtime Compensation
PERSONAL TOUCH: Short-Jones Seeks Overtime Wages for Clinicians
PRATT INDUSTRIES: Brzozowski Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
PROFESSIONAL FREEZING: Like Sues Over Biometric Data Retention

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Engert Sues Over Ineffective Memory Drug
RESOLUTE BANK: Faces Schick Suit over Autodialed Calls
RESTAURANT 597: Sanchez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ROBERTSON'S READY MIX: Soriano Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
RVR RANCHO: Soto Sues Over Denied Labor Code Benefits &Protection

SAN DIEGO CREDIT: Beltran Seeks Overtime Pay
SAN DIEGO, CA: Kelley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SCOTT DOLICH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Allison FLSA Suit
SELECTIVE NURSING: Illinik Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SEMORAN AUTO: Rosado Sues over Telemarketing Calls

SIERRA INCOME: Faces Anderson et al. Suit over Merger Transaction
SIERRA PACIFIC: Borrowers File RICO Suit Over Excessive Prices
SIKA CORP: Vieyara-Flores Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Rodriguez to Seek Summary Judgment
SINH SINH RESTAURANT: Tepaz Seeks OT Pay and Unpaid Minimum Wages

STAFFMORE LLC: Wahpoe Seeks OT Pay for Therapeutic Staff Supports
STAMPS.COM INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Fishman Sues Over TCPA Violation
SYNEOS HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Probes Potential Securities Suit
TOUCHSTONES MUSIC: Kelley Drye Attorney Discusses Court Ruling

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Baker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
UNITED STATES SOCCER: Morgan Suit Alleges Equal Pay Act Violation
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Kiler Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Responds to Admissions Scandal Class Action
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action
VERSUM MATERIALS: City of Providence Sues over Entegris Merger
WALT DISNEY: Rasmussen Asserts Gender Pay Discrimination
WESTCO CHEMICALS: Mismanaged Employees' Fund, Draney Claims
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Order in Famular Suit

YRC WORLDWIDE: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
ZHENJIANG HUAHAI PHARMA: Silberman Sues over Tainted Valsartan

                            *********

15 W 55TH ST: DV Retail Hits Illegal Eviction, Seeks Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
DV Retail 55 LLC, as a member of 15 West 55 Retail LLC suing on
behalf of itself and all other members of 15 West 55 Retail LLC
similarly situated and in the right of 15 West 55 Retail LLC,
Domenico Vacca Enterprises Ltd Corporation and Domenico Vacca
individually, Plaintiffs, v. Salim Assa a/k/a Solly Assa, Steven J.
Caspi, Yaakov Ilowitz, Abraham Leifer, Arthur D. Bellini, Richard
J. Migliaccio, Esq., Salim Chakalo, Sury Cattan, 15 W. 55th St.
Property LLC, Black Bear 555, LLC, West 55th Street Management LLC,
Assa Properties Inc., Aview 55, LLC, Aview Equities Inc., Aview
Holdings LLC and Bal Harbour Concepts LLC, Defendants, Case No.
651140/2019 (N.Y. Sup., February 25, 2019), seeks damages,
declaratory judgment and restraints against Defendants, plaintiffs'
landlord for breach of contract.

Defendants, who, as plaintiffs' landlord, formed a joint venture, a
designer clothing store and private club, with a full bar, in the
building's commercial space. Defendants now seek to evict
Plaintiffs from the joint business they created.

Plaintiff renovated the commercial space to obtain a $91 million
commercial mortgage loan. Now, the Defendants are seeking to sell
the building and sought to evict Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants were only after the appreciated value of the
building after Plaintiffs' renovation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      CYRULI SHANKS HART & ZIZMOR, LLP.
      420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2320
      New York, NY 10170
      Tel: (212) 661-6800


3M COMPANY: Coyaso Claims Damages Over Defective Earplug
--------------------------------------------------------
Achique Coyaso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, Aearo Holdings, LLC, Aearo
Intermediate, LLC, Aearo, LLC and Aearo Technologies, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00097 (D. Haw., February 25, 2019),
seeks to recover actual, compensatory, consequential, incidental
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, legal and equitable relief resulting from
negligence and breach of implied and express warranty.

Defendants sold dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs to the US Armed
Forces for use as hearing protection for military personnel,
protecting against the disorienting effects of loud impulse noises
such as improvised explosive devices and gun fire, yet still allow
the service member to hear low-level noises critical to mission
safety such as commands, footsteps and encroaching enemies. It,
however, dislodges from the ear in a manner that is imperceptible
to the wearer. 3M settled a False Claims Act lawsuit with the
United States Government for over $9 million but has yet to remedy
the harm it caused to the tens of thousands of service members,
including Coyaso, notes the complaint.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Aearo Group is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holloway Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HOLLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1907761 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino
Cty., March 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, and provide itemize wage statements.

Mr. Holloway was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company's Industrial segment offers tapes; coated, non-woven,
and bonded abrasives; adhesives; ceramics; sealants; specialty
materials; purification products; closure systems for personal
hygiene products; acoustic systems products; automotive components;
and abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          Kayvon Sabourian, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


ACRE GOURMET: Ramirez Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acre Gourmet, Inc.
The case is styled as Aurelia Ramirez, on behalf of herself, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Acre Gourmet, Inc., a
California Corporation and Does 1 to 100 inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. CGC19575117 (Cal. Super., April 8, 2019).

Acre Gourmet, Inc. is engaged in restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ALPHA SERVICES: Sanderlin Seeks OT Pay for Pipeline Inspectors
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY SANDERLIN, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALPHA SERVICES LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00013 (W.D. Tex., March 25, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

To provide its services, the Defendant employs hundreds of
inspectors nationwide to inspect pipelines for oil and gas
companies during construction and during their use. The Plaintiff
worked for Defendant as an inspector from December 2017 to
September 2018 in Pecos, Texas. The Defendant paid Plaintiff on a
day rate basis. That is, the Defendant paid Plaintiff a set day
rate regardless of the number of hours he worked each day or each
week. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff a minimum, guaranteed
amount each week. Instead, Plaintiff's compensation varied each
week depending upon the number of days worked. The Plaintiff
regularly worked over 40 hours each week. However, when he worked
more than 40 hours, he was not paid any overtime wages for those
hours worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff & Class Members:

          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

AMARIN CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased Amarin
Corporation plc (NASDAQ: AMRN) ("Amarin" or the "Company")
securities between September 24, 2018 and November 8, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Amarin investors have until April
23, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

On November 12, 2018, an article was published on Seeking Alpha
regarding Amarin's "recent revelations of positive topline results"
from its REDUCE-IT trial for Vascepa, its sole product. The article
raised the possibility that "the placebo group received an active
agent that in effect was an anti-statin," and that the REDUCE-IT
trial results may have consequently exaggerated the efficacy of
Vascepa. On this news, Amarin's American depositary receipt price
fell $4.44, or 22%, to close at $15.38 on November 13, 2018,
thereby injuring investors.

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

If you purchased shares of Amarin, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters please;

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Telephone: 215-638-4847
         Toll free: 888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


AMD ENERGY: Kyle Nichols Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
--------------------------------------------------------
KYLE NICHOLS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMD ENERGY SERVICES LLC and ALBERT
DeHOYOS, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00079 (W.D. Tex., March
25, 2019), seeks to recover compensation, overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly
situated persons who worked for AMD Energy at any time from March
25, 2016 through the final disposition of this matter and were not
paid any overtime. Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members routinely worked (and work) in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not
paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit
says.

AMD Energy is an oilfield service company servicing the oil and gas
industry in the State of Texas.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com

AMERICAN GUARANTEE: Sterling Sues Over Breaches of Defense Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochelle Sterling, individually, and Donald T. Sterling,
individually and doing business as Beverly Hills Properties;
Plaintiffs, v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, a
New York corporation; Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV10924 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2019) is a
lawsuit arising from AGLIC's and FFIC's wrongful and bad faith
breaches of the defense duties they owed to the Sterlings under two
commercial general liability insurance policies.

AGLIC and FFIC promised to defend lawsuits against the Sterling
for, among other things, bodily injury, property damage, and other
personal injuries. However, when the Sterlings were sued in two
lawsuits, both insurers breached their duties to defend, in AGLIC's
case refusing to pay for the reasonable defense fees and costs as
to one lawsuit and in both insurers' cases refusing to defend the
Sterlings in another lawsuit.

AGLIC's and FFIC's breaches are contrary to the terms of their
policies, the law, insurance industry custom and practice, the
facts, and their duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to
their insureds. By this lawsuit, the Sterlings seek compensatory
and punitive damages against AGLIC and FFIC, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Los Angeles County,
California and doing business as Beverly Hills Properties.

AGLIC is a New York Corporation with its principal place of
business in Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kirk A. Pasich, Esq.
     Shaun H. Crosner, Esq.
     Kayla M. Robinson, Esq.
     PASICH LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
     Phone: (424) 313-7860
     Facsimile: (424) 313-7890
     Email: kpasich@pasichllp.com
            scrosner@pasichllp.com
            krobinson@pasichllp.com


ASHLAND GLOBAL: Does not Pay Chemical Operators Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN KNOWLTON and KELLY ANN MARSTON, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. ASHLAND
GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC., ASHLAND SPECIALTY INGREDIENTS G.P., and ISP
FREETOWN FINE CHEMICALS INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02156-DJH (N.D. Ohio, April 2, 2019) is a collective and
class action brought by Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons employed by Ashland, arising from
Ashland's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("Ohio Wage
Act"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Massachusetts Overtime Act, and
the Massachusetts Wage Act.

In order to provide specialty chemical solutions to its customers,
Ashland employs nonexempt Chemical Operators, including Plaintiffs,
who work as an integral part of the production team.

Ashland requires its Chemical Operators to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, Ashland does not compensate
Chemical Operators for all work performed; instead, Ashland
requires its Chemical Operators to perform compensable work tasks
before and after their scheduled shifts, when they are not clocked
into Ashland's timekeeping system. This policy results in Chemical
Operators not being paid for all time worked, including overtime,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Ashland as Chemical Operators from March 2008
until November 2018.

Ashland is a global leader in providing specialty chemical
solutions to customers in a wide range of consumer and industrial
markets, including adhesives, architectural coatings, automotive,
construction, energy, food and beverage, nutraceuticals, personal
care and pharmaceutical.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
     Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     Email: mturner@sommerspc.com
            rjohnston@sommerspc.com

          - and -

     Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
     Steffans Legal LLC
     7 North Street, Suite 307
     Pittsfield, MA 01201
     Phone (413) 418-4176
     Email: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com


AT&T INC: Gross Files Securities Suit Over Time Warner Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Gross, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC., RANDALL L. STEPHENSON, JOHN J.
STEPHENS, SAMUEL A. DI PIAZZA, JR., RICHARD W. FISHER, SCOTT T.
FORD, GLENN H. HUTCHINS, WILLIAM E. KENNARD, MICHAEL B.
MCCALLISTER, BETH E. MOONEY, JOYCE M. ROCHE, MATTHEW K. ROSE,
CYNTHIA B. TAYLOR, LAURA D'ANDREA TYSON, and GEOFFREY Y. YANG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02892 (S.D. N.Y., April 1, 2019) is a
securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who
(a) acquired AT&T common stock pursuant or traceable to the SEC
Form S-4 registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with AT&T's June
2018 acquisition of and merger with Time Warner and/or (b)
purchased or otherwise acquired AT&T securities between October 22,
2016 and October 24, 2018, both dates inclusive. Plaintiff asserts
claims against AT&T and certain of AT&T's officers and directors
under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

In June 2018, in connection with the Acquisition, AT&T issued
approximately 1.185 billion new shares of AT&T common stock
directly to former shareholders of Time Warner common stock as
follows: each former share of Time Warner common stock issued and
outstanding immediately before the Acquisition was converted into
the right to receive 1.437 shares of newly issued AT&T common
stock. Each of these new shares of AT&T common stock was issued
pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement touted false
and misleading financial results, trends, and metrics and omitted
material facts rendering those financial results, trends, and
metrics materially misleading, says the complaint.

Plaintiff acquired AT&T securities at artificially inflated prices
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
and was economically damaged thereby.

AT&T is a telecommunications and media company incorporated under
the laws of Delaware and headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Baumann Asserts FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit &
Finance, Inc. The case is styled as Katrinka Baumann, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., Midland Funding LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00999 (D. Colo., April 4,
2019).

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

Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. purchases and manages unsecured and
consumer-distressed assets. It also purchases various
consumer-distressed asset types, including credit card receivables,
retail credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare
receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities
receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com



B ERA CORPORATION: Figueroa Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
B Era Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose
Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
ADR Provider v. B Era Corporation doing business as: Burnetie,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03010 (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2019).

Burnetie Shoes is a shoe company offering a great collection of
high quality men's and women's shoes and boots.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Baltimore Files Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES
CORP.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC.; FIRST TENNESSEE BANK, N.A.; FTN FINANCIAL
SECURITIES CORP.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; JEFFERIES GROUP LLC;
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J. P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC; AND UBS SECURITIES LLC; and
UNNAMED CO CONSPIRATORS; Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02900-UA
(S.D. N.Y., April 2, 2019) asserts claims for violations of federal
antitrust law against the Defendants arising from the collusion
among Defendants to fix the prices of bonds sold to investors from
January 1, 2009 through April 27, 2014. The bonds (FFB) were issued
by the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation.
FFBs are unsecured debt securities and do not include the
mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The City of Baltimore paid almost $1 billion for 108 FFBs during
the Class Period, and therefore suffered enormous monetary losses
when it was overcharged in these transactions, as a direct result
of Defendant's price fixing conspiracy. The Defendants are
horizontal competitors and the leading dealers of FFBs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix prices
in the secondary FFB market by overcharging investors purchasing
Defendants' FFBs and underpaying investors selling their FFBs to
Defendants. Through this conspiracy, Defendants received
supracompetitive profits at the expense of the City of Baltimore
and Class Members. This conspiracy injured investors like the City
of Baltimore, which were attracted to FFBs because they are
generally considered safe, liquid investments. Instead, these
investors were financially harmed by overpaying for FFB purchases
and being underpaid by their FFB sales, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is the Mayor and the City Council of Baltimore, a
municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Maryland.

Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a federally chartered national
banking association with its principal place of business in
Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
     Arun Subramanian, Esq.
     Seth Ard, Esq.
     Stephanie Spies, Esq.
     Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
     1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 336-3330
     Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
     Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
            asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
            sard@susmangodfrey.com
            sspies@susmangodfrey.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Banks Hit With Class Action Over Fannie Mae Bonds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that a new federal
class action suit filed in Manhattan brings claims against Bank of
America and other financial institutions currently under
investigation by the Justice Department for the manipulation of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.

The suit claims traders at the banks looked to rig the system that
provided generous profits during the run-up to the housing bubble
bursting last decade, according to the filing in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit -- and the reported investigation by federal authorities
-- stems from the two federally backed providers that undergird the
nation's housing financing. The pair issue unsecured bonds, known
as FFBs, which currently total an estimated $550 billion in
securities.

The focus of the lawsuit is on the secondary market trading on
these securities, which a host of financial firms have access to
through an application process to become part of Fannie and
Freddie's dealer group. These companies, therefore, according to
the complaint, control the FFB supply available to investors.

The plaintiffs claim that they are being harmed by the financial
companies, who are exploiting their control over the supply chain
to create "an opaque secondary market to facilitate the collision
and reap supra-competitive profits at the expense of their own
clients." The suit claims the companies are in violation of the
federal Sherman Act.

The complaint relies on a June 2018 report from Bloomberg that DOJ
antitrust and criminal division investigators are looking into
collusion to fix prices, as well as potential fraud prosecutions. A
spokeswoman for the DOJ did not respond to a request for
confirmation that the investigations were ongoing.

The class action focuses on banks involved in the bond trading
market. The banks allegedly work together to inflate the price of
newly issued FFBs to be sold to investors after Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac provide them to the dealers. This, the plaintiffs
claim, runs against the realities of the market, which contracted
substantially in the wake of the financial crisis.

"After the financial crisis the volume of new issuances began to
decline, which resulted in reduced profits for the defendants'
desks underwriting and trading FFBs," the complaint states. "Rather
than adapt to the new reality by developing ways to compete,
defendants adjusted by unlawfully manipulating it in their favor."

The suit is brought by the Deerfield Beach Municipal Firefighters
Pension Trust Fund. The fund's counsel, private attorney Linda
Nussbaum, Esq. -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- did not respond to a
request for comment.

Spokesmen for the named defendant, Bank of America, did not respond
to a request for comment. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Kaymark Appeals Memo and Orders to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dale Kaymark and Non-party Michael P. Malakoff seek
review of the District Court's March 2, 2019 memorandum opinion and
order, as well as its March 4, 2019 order, issued in the lawsuit
styled Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA, et al., Case No.
2-13-cv-00419, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

The appellate case is captioned as Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America
NA, et al., Case No. 19-1646, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 15, 2019,
Plaintiff Dale Kaymark and non-party Michael P. Malakoff appealed
the District Court's January 22, 2019 order and its February 7,
2019 order.  That appellate case is titled Dale Kaymark v. Bank of
America NA, et al., Case No. 19-1424.

The Clerk of the Appellate Court ruled that neither District Court
order appears to be final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291 or
otherwise appealable at this time.

Hence, the Clerk directed all parties to file written responses
addressing this issue, with a certificate of service attached,
within 14 days from the date of this order.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DALE KAYMARK, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated current and former homeowners in
Pennsylvania, is represented by:

          John C. Evans, Esq.
          JC EVANS LAW
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Koppers Building, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 642-2300
          E-mail: jcevans@jcevanslaw.com


Plaintiff-Appellant DALE KAYMARK, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated current and former homeowners in
Pennsylvania, and Not Party-Appellant MICHAEL P. MALAKOFF are
represented by:

          Michael P. Malakoff, Esq.
          MICHAEL P. MALAKOFF, PC
          3214 Ladoga Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15204
          Telephone: (412) 281-4217
          E-mail: malakoff@mpmalakoff.com

Defendants-Appellees BANK OF AMERICA NA and UDREN LAW OFFICES PC
are represented by:

          Jonathan J. Bart, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER PA
          Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 910
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 636-4466
          E-mail: jbart@wilentz.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA NA is represented by:

          Andrew J. Soven, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          2929 Arch Street, Suite 800
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 252-9554
          E-mail: Andrew.Soven@hklaw.com

Defendant-Appellee UDREN LAW OFFICES PC is represented by:

          Daniel S. Bernheim, III, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER PA
          Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 910
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 636-4466
          E-mail: dbernheim@wilentz.com


BARILLA AMERICA: Bolden Sues Over Pasta Sauce's Misleading Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Bolden, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barilla America, Inc., a
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02237 (C.D. Cal., April 2,
2019) is a class action against Defendant Barilla, seeking redress
for Defendant's fraudulent and misleading practice of advertising
its Pasta Sauce as containing "No Preservatives," when, in fact,
the Product contains citric acid, a known preservative.

The Defendant advertises its Pasta Sauce as containing "No
Preservatives", despite the presence of citric acid, which is
listed as an ingredient on the back of the bottles of its Pasta
Sauce. The "No Preservatives" claim is prominently displayed on the
front of the Product packaging even though citric acid is listed in
the ingredients. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has
categorized citric acid as a preservative, used to prevent food
spoilage, delay rancidity and slow changes in color, flavor and
texture.

Accordingly, Defendant's statements that the Products do not
contain preservatives are false and misleading.  By deceptively
marketing and labeling the Product as containing "No
Preservatives," Defendant wrongfully capitalized on, and reaped
profits from, consumers' strong preference for food products made
free of preservatives, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Pasta Sauce Product from
January 2017 to October 2018.

Defendant Barilla is an international manufacturer of pasta and
pasta sauces, and Bertolli, Newman's Own and Kraft Heinz (which
competes with major brands including the Classico pasta sauce
brand) in an attempt to dominate the U.S. pasta sauce market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
     K. Hope Echiverri Ranoa, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
     1935 Addison Street, Suite A
     Berkeley, CA 94704
     Direct Phone: (510) 238-9610
     Phone: (415) 398-8700
     Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
     Email: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com
            hranoa@finkelsteinthompson.com


BEST WESTERN: Young Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Best Western International, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Best Western
International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03074 (S.D. N.Y.,
April 5, 2019).

Best Western International, Inc. owns and operates a chain of
hotels. The Company offers accommodation rooms, online hotel
booking, and other services. Best Western serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com


BEVERAGE MARKETING: Niles Files Fraud Class Suit Over Energy Drink
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kalesha Niles and Jason Lahey, on behalf of themselves, the general
public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Beverage
Marketing USA, Inc., Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., AriZona Beverage
Company LLC, AriZona Beverages USA LLC, and AriZona Iced Tea LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01902 (E.D. N.Y., April 2, 2019) is a
class action against the Defendants on behalf of themselves, the
general public, and those similarly situated for common law fraud,
deceit and/or misrepresentation, breach of express and implied
warranties, unjust enrichment/restitution, and violations of
statewide consumer protection statutes.

To sell their product, Defendants represent to consumers that it
contains ginseng in an amount sufficient to provide energy to those
who drink it. Consumers are familiar with the well-publicized
benefits of consuming ginseng. Ginseng is believed to be a cure for
low energy, and is purported to have other health benefits. The
Defendants themselves credit the presence of ginseng for the
success of the Product. The Product, however, does not contain any
detectible amounts of ginseng, if indeed it contains any ginseng at
all. Accordingly, Defendants' representations that (i) the Product
has enough ginseng to provide energy; and (ii) the Product has
"just the right amount of ginseng," are demonstrably false, asserts
the complaint.

The Defendants apparently decided to use, at best, a miniscule,
scientifically undetectable amount of ginseng in the Product (or,
more likely, to entirely omit ginseng from the Product), to
increase their revenues. Over the past decade, demand for ginseng
has skyrocketed while supply has dwindled, causing prices to surge
above $1,000 per pound. Ginseng is so coveted in the marketplace
that certain species of ginseng have been harvested to the edge of
extinction. Defendants know that if they were to use enough ginseng
in the Product to actually provide energy to consumers, their
revenues and competitive advantage would suffer, adds the
complaint.

The Defendants never disclosed to consumers that the Product does
not contain enough ginseng to provide energy. Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions have misled millions of consumers
and caused them to pay a premium for the Product, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs have purchased the Product many times within New York.

Defendants are among the world's largest producers of canned and
bottled beverages.[BN]

     Stephen M. Raab, Esq.
     GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
     113 Cherry Street, #55150
     Seattle, WA 98140-2205
     Phone: (415) 639-9090 x109
     Email: stephen@gutridesafier.com


BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Meyer Suit Alleges FLSA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Meyers, in his own right and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Bluestone Industries, Inc., Jillean L. Justice, James
C. Justice III, and James T. Miller, Case No. 5:19-cv-00162 (S.D.
W.Va., March 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant has violated the terms of the aforementioned Acts by
failing to issue proper and full payments to its employees,
including the Plaintiff and his co-workers and has caused them to
incur wire transfer fees.

The Plaintiff Mark Meyers is a resident of West Virginia and was
employed by the Defendant.

The Defendant Bluestone Industries, Inc. is a West Virginia
corporation. The Individual Defendants are officers of Bluestone.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
      POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
      405 Capitol Street, Suite P1200
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Tel: (304) 346-2889
      Fax: (304) 346-2895


BUSHRA FOOD: Faces Suleman Suit over Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
A wage-and-hour class action complaint has been filed against
Bushra Food Corp, Bushra Shahza, and Jay Choudhary for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law
(NYLL). The case is captioned ASAAD ABDU SULEMAN, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against BUSHRA
FOOD CORP. (D/B/A US FRIED CHICKEN), BUSHRA SHAHZA, and JAY
CHOUDHARY (A.K.A. JAHANGIR), Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01947
(E.D.N.Y, April 4, 2019). In the complaint, Plaintiff Asaad Abdu
Suleman assert the Defendants have violated several FLSA and NYLL
provisions of minimum wage, overtime, wage statement, timely
payment, unlawful deductions, and notice and recordkeeping
requirements.

Bushra Food Corp. (d/b/a US Fried Chicken) is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York. It maintains its principal place of business at 129
Dwight Street, Brooklyn, NY 11231. Defendant Jay Choudhary is sued
individually in his capacity as owner, officer and/or agent of
Bushra. With an ownership interest, Choudhary possesses operational
control over Bushra and controls significant functions of the
company. He determines the wages and compensation of the employees
of Defendants, including Plaintiff Suleman, establishes the
schedules of the employees, maintains employee records, and has the
authority to hire and fire employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALLIHAN PHILIPS: Chisley Files Class Suit under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Callihan, Philips &
Adams L.L.C. The case is styled as Latoya Chisley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Callihan,
Philips & Adams L.L.C. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00198-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., April 4, 2019).

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

Callihan, Phillips & Adams is a professional debt recovery agency
specializing in the collection of retail & commercial debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Samuel John Ford, Esq.
   Scott, Vicknair, Hair & Checki, LLC
   909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100
   New Orleans, LA 70112
   Tel: (504) 684-5100
   Email: ford@svhclaw.com


CANON SOLUTIONS: Deanda Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Deanda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Canon Solutions America, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 19STCV08040 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 8,
2019), is brought against the Defendants for California Labor Code
violations and unfair business practices.

The case stems from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meals periods, failure to authorize and permit rest
periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and
meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Carlos Deanda, a California resident, worked for
Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as a
digital service engineer from approximately December 2000 to
September 2018.

Canon Solutions America is the company created by the integration
of Canon Business Solutions, Inc. with Oce.
The Defendants owned and operated an industry, business, and
establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles
County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
      Allen Feghali, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      1055 W. Seventh St. Suite 1880
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 232-3128
      Fax: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
              allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


CHLV GROUP: Navarro Asserts TCPA Violation in Calif. Suit.
----------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CHLV GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02488
(C.D. Cal., April 2, 2019) brought this action individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated seeking damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and
related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Beginning February 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's home telephone number in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendant used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on her telephone. The Defendant failed to establish and
implement reasonable practices and procedures to effectively
prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff, CAROLYN NAVARRO is a natural person residing in West
Covina, California.

Defendant, CHLV GROUP, INC. is a realty company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CHURRASQUERIA MARINA: Faces Ortega Romero's Labor Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Churrasqueria Marina, Inc., a/k/a Brinel, LLC., d/b/a Paulo's BBQ,
and Paulo M. Simoes for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law
(NJWHL). The case is captioned PEDRO ORTEGA ROMERO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
CHURRASQUERIA MARINA, INC., a/k/a BRINEL, LLC., d/b/a PAULO'S BBQ,
and PAULO M. SIMOES, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-09353 (D.N.J., April 5, 2019).  Plaintiff Ortega Romero
seeks recovery against Defendants for its violation of FLSA and
NJWHL.

Churrasqueria Marina is a restaurant located in 101 E. Westfield
Ave. Roselle Park, NJ. Headquartered in South Plainfield, Middlesex
County, NJ, Paulo's BBQ employs individuals to perform labor
services. Its annual gross volume of sales made or business done
was not less than $500,000.00. Paulo Simoes has been an owner,
partner, officer and/or manager of Paulo's BBQ.  Simoes was present
at the restaurant every day, and managed the day to day operations,
controlled the employees, the company pay practices and had the
power to change same, and the power to hire and fire employees, set
their wages, and otherwise control the terms of their
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
    JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
    301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
    Princeton, NJ 08540
    Telephone: (201) 687-9977
    Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
    E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


COMCAST CABLE: Faces Hearn Suit over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HEARN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01198-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 14, 2019)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is
assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, doing business as Xfinity,
provides cable operator services in the United States. It develops,
manages, and operates broadband communication networks. The company
offers various services over its cable communications networks,
including traditional analog video; digital cable; and high-speed
Internet service. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based
Wilmington, Delaware. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC operates as
a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, LLC- GA
          1100 Peachstreet, NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920-8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920-8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: June 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on March 18 disclosed that the United
States District Court Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of securities of Concordia
International Corp. (OTCMKTS:CXRXF) (NASDAQ:CXRX):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CONCORDIA
INTERNATIONAL CORP. SECURITIES FROM JANUARY 6, 2016 THROUGH AUGUST
12, 2016, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on June 25, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Court Room 17B,
New York, New York 10007-1312, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$9,250,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of
up to thirty percent (30%) of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement
of expenses of not more than $385,000, and an incentive payment to
Lead Plaintiff of not more than $5,000, should be approved; and (4)
whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 20,
2018 (the "Stipulation").

If you purchased Concordia International Corp. ("Concordia")
securities on a United States Exchange (shares purchased on a
Canadian exchange are ineligible for compensation from the
Settlement) during the period from January 6, 2016 and August 12,
2016, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your
rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release
and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in Concordia securities. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the
Claims Administrator: Concordia International Corp. Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked
no later than May 29, 2019 to the Claims Administrator,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a
written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than June 4, 2019, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice. All members of the Settlement
Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class
will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
May 28, 2019, to each of the following:

         Clerk of the Court
         United States District Court
         Southern District of New York
         500 Pearl Street
         New York, New York 10007-1312

         LEAD COUNSEL:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
         Jenkintown, PA 19046
         COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

         Peter A. Stokes, Esq.
         NORTON ROSE
         FULBRIGHT US LLP
         98 San Jacinto Boulevard,
         Suite 1100
         Austin, TX  78701-4255

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
         Jenkintown, PA 19046
         Tel: 215-600-2817

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: February 28, 2019 [GN]


COOK COUNTY: Guy Sues Over Freedom of Information Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA GUY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04259 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill.,
April 2, 2019) seeks to overturn Defendant's refusal, in willful
violation of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, to respond to
NINOS GORGIS's Freedom of Information Act requests.

Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American
constitutional form of government, it is the public policy of the
State of Illinois that all persons are entitled to full and
complete information regarding the affairs of government and the
official acts and policies of those who represent them as public
officials and public employees consistent with the terms of the
Illinois Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA").

On December 21, 2018, GORGIS requested from CCSAO"[a]ll case files,
texts, emails, notes, documents in regards to but not limited to
case #99CR11761 that relates to the investigation into the murder
of Dereth Womack, that occurred on April 24, 1999 at the corner of
Euclid and Wolf in Mount Prospect, Illinois. GORGIS requested an
index of all items available related to the investigation into this
murder. This request should be construed to encompass the complete
investigative 'street file' and all investigative documents.

On December 21, 2018, CCSAO responded that it received GORGIS's
FOIA request. CCSAO denied the entire request as unduly burdensome
under 5 ILCS 140/3(g). CCSAO also denied any grand jury records as
exempt under 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a) and 725 ILCS 5/112-6. In violation
of FOIA Section 3(g), CCSAO failed to "extend to the person making
the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to
reduce the request to manageable proportions" before invoking the
exemption, says the complaint.

Plaintiff NINOS GORGIS is the FOIA requester in this case.

COOK COUNTY STATES'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ("CCSAO") is a public body
located in Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Topic, Esq.
     Joshua Burday, Esq.
     Merrick Wayne, Esq.
     LOEVY & LOEVY
     311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
     Chicago, IL 60607
     Phone: 312-243-5900
     Email: foia@loevy.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Correa et al. Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Sales Rep
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SILVERIO NEVAREZ, individually, EFREN CORREA and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 25, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10017 (Cal. Super., March 25, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to provide
itemized statement to employee, failed to pay upon termination or
quitting employee, and failed to pay minimum wages under the
California  Labor Code.

Nevarez is employed by the Defendants as an hourly worker
commencing in April 2017. Correa was employed by the Defendants as
an hourly worker from November 2012 to April 25, 2018. The
Plaintiffs were required to work without being compensated for all
hours worked. Moreover, since Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
and similarly situated class members minimum wages, Defendants are
in violation of the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and all other
current and former sales representatives for the recovery of civil
penalties, as provided by California Labor Code, for Defendant's
violation, in an amount according to proof, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          Aarin Zeif, Esq.
          GOULD & ASSOCIATES
          17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714)669-2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544-0800
          E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com
                  Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com

DASH AMERICA: Figueroa Assert Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Dash America, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose
Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
ADR Provider v. Dash America, Inc. doing business as: Pearl Izumi,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03019 (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2019).

DashAmerica, Inc., doing business as Pearl Izumi USA, Inc.,
manufactures and markets sports apparel for men and women. It
offers jerseys, shorts and bibs, outerwear, tights, baselayers,
essentials, gloves, socks, and cycling shoes for men and women. The
company offers its products for skiing, cycling, triathlon,
duathlon, running, and other outdoor sport activities. It offers
its products online; and through its factory stores, dealers, and
distributors, as well as online retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DELTA AIR LINES: Settles Background Check Class Action for $2.3MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reported that Delta Air
Lines Inc. will pay $2.3 million to settle class claims by job
applicants who allege it improperly obtained their credit reports,
according to a deal that won preliminary approval Feb. 27.

The nationwide class includes about 44,100 members. They won't have
to make a claim but will be automatically enrolled in the class
unless they choose to opt out.

Class counsel may seek up to one-third of the settlement amount in
attorneys' fees.

Joseph L. Schofield sued Delta under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and California law after he applied for a job with the company.

Delta's background check procedures lacked the required disclosures
and authorizations, he says.

Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California wrote the opinion.

A hearing on final approval and attorneys' fees is scheduled for
July 11.

Setareh Law Group represented the applicants.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP represented Delta.

The case is Schofield v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2019 BL 66170, N.D.
Cal., No. 18-cv-382, 2/27/19.[GN]


DIRECT ENERGY: Sued by Burk Over Illegal Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Burk, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Direct Energy, LP, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00663 (S.D. Tex., February 25, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, permanent injunction to enjoin Defendants' and their
agents' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act;
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; statutory
prejudgment interest and such other relief.

Direct is a Texas utility company with its headquarters in Houston.
Defendants or its agents place telephone calls to consumers using
autodialers and/or leave prerecorded telephone messages for their
customers who allegedly owe them for utility services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Tel. (212) 355-9500
      Email: jselbin@lchb.com

             - and -

      Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
      Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
      Evan J. Ballan, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel. (415) 956-1000
      Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com
             ndesai@lchb.com
             eballan@lchb.com

             - and -

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      KOZONIS LAW, LTD
      4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
      Chicago, IL 60630
      Phone: (773) 545-9607
      Fax: (773) 496-8617
      Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


DIRECT LENDING: Kosstrin Sues Over Inflated Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Kosstrin, TRUST AND PROFESSIONAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC.
RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiffs, v. DIRECT LENDING INVESTMENTS, LLC,
BRENDAN ROSS, BRYCE MASON, FRANK TURNER, RODNEY OMANOFF, and
QUARTERSPOT INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02452 (C.D. Cal.,
April 1, 2019) is an action concerning the Fund's
misrepresentations about its due diligence leading to its
disastrous investment in defendant VOIP Guardian Partners I, LLC
("VOIP Guardian"), and, separately, the Fund's materially inflated
financial reports to Limited Partners caused by its materially
inflated reported fair value for investments in QuarterSpot, Inc.,
a lending platform for small businesses.

VOIP Guardian provides "factoring" financing to small
telecommunications companies providing services to larger
telecommunications companies. Under its factoring arrangements,
VOIP Guardian utilizes the money provided to it by the Funds to
purchase accounts receivable of the small telecoms at a discount.
As of December 31, 2018, approximately 25% of the Funds' capital
was invested in VOIP Guardian. On February 11, 2019, the Limited
Partners learned by letter from defendant Brendan Ross, founder and
CEO of the Funds and the General Partner, that the Funds were the
victims of likely misconduct. According to Ross, $160 million, of a
total of $190 million outstanding to VOIP Guardian, may not be
recoverable.

By materially misstating the value of the QuarterSpot investments,
the General Partner and Ross falsely inflated the value of the Fund
and thereby fraudulently induced Plaintiffs and other current
Limited Partners to purchase their limited partnership interests at
inflated prices. By not accurately reporting to them the true
financial condition, valuation and risk in the Fund relating to the
VOIP Guardian investments, the General Partner and the Individual
Defendants breached the Limited Partnership Agreement, breached
their fiduciary duties to the Limited Partners, deceived the
Limited Partners concerning the value and risks concerning these
investments, and deprived the Limited Partners of various
contractual rights, including a meaningful right to withdraw from
the Fund, causing them to incur significant loss of capital, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff entities are investment vehicles for Jeffrey
Greenberg and his spouse Marcia Kosstrin.

Direct Lending Investments, LLC is the General Partner and
Investment Manager of the Fund.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     DAVID E. AZAR, Esq.
     Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP
     11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (213) 617-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
     Email: dazar@milberg.com

          - and -

     HENRY J. KELSTON, Esq.
     ANDREI RADO, Esq.
     Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 594-5300
     Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
     Email: hkelston@milberg.com
            arado@milberg.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Baker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
CANDISS BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex., March 14,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge George C. Hanks,
Jr.

Dynamic Recovery Services, Inc. provides collection services to the
commercial sector. The company was founded in 1990 and is based in
Farmers Branch, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
         SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
         6136 Frisco Square Blvd., Suite 400
         Frisco, TX 75034
         Telephone: (214) 210-9910
         Facsimile: (214) 594-6100
         E-mail: shawn@jafflaw.com


EMPIRE FINANCE: Tanner Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against Empire
Finance Co. LLC for alleged violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The case is captioned TABITHA TANNER, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. EMPIRE FINANCE,
CO. LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00825 (E.D. Mo., April 4,
2019). Plaintiff Tabitha Tanner brings this lawsuit to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under FLSA against
Defendant Empire. The complaint asserts that Empire has failed to
pay Tanner and other workers like her overtime for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek at 1.5 times their "regular rate" as
required by the FLSA.

Empire is a Missouri corporation with its corporate office located
at 328 E Carl Albert Pkwy, McAlester, OK 74501. It operates at
least 40 retail small consumer loan branches in Missouri, Oklahoma,
and New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

       - and –

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 352-1100
     Facsimile: (713) 352-3300


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Stewart Says 401k Plan Contributions Missing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Envision Healthcare
Corporation and its subsidiaries over alleged violations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The case is
captioned JOHN STEWART, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION 1A Burton Hills Boulevard Nashville, TN 37215, and
REIMBURSEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC 1000 River Road Conshohocken, PA
19428, and EMS MANAGEMENT LLC 6200 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 200
Greenwood Village, CO 80111, and CHARLES SCHWAB BANK 211 Main
Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105, EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN
FOR EMPLOYEES OF ENVISION HEALTHCARE C/O Envision Healthcare
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01436-PD (E.D. Pa., April
4, 2019).

The lawsuit seeks reimbursement of allegedly missing or stolen 401k
contributions, contribution matches, and all applicable earnings
and interest thereon of Plaintiff, John Stewart, and all other
similarly situated employees of Envision Healthcare Corporation and
its subsidiaries, including but not limited to EMS Management LLC
and Reimbursement Technologies, Inc. which were withdrawn from the
paychecks of Plaintiff and other employees of the Defendants on or
about Nov. 9, 2018 which were never deposited into the Employee
Benefit Plan for Employees of Envision Healthcare with Charles
Schwab Bank despite representations to the contrary.

Envision Healthcare Corporation is a Tennessee for-profit business
entity with its headquarters at 1A Burton Hills Boulevard,
Nashville, TN 37215. The company provides physician-led outsourced
medical services in the United States. The company offers a range
of hospital-based physician staffing, related management services,
and comprehensive care management solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George A. Bochetto, Esq.
     Anton Kaminsky, Esq.
     BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C.
     1524 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Telephone: (212) 735-3900


ESTATES OF HYDE PARK: Faces Williams Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
The Estates of Hyde Park, LLC, Central Street Management, LLC, and
Steven Miretzky for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum
Wage Ordinance. The case is captioned VIVIAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of
herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiff, v. THE ESTATES OF HYDE PARK, LLC, CENTRAL
STREET MANAGEMENT, LLC AND STEVEN MIRETZKY, INDIVIDUALLY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02288 (N.D. Ill., April 4, 2019).

Williams, on behalf of all other past and present employees
similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages equal to the amount of
all unpaid compensation. She also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs incurred as a result of Defendant's violation of the FLSA
and for such additional relief the Court deems appropriate under
the circumstances.

The Estates of Hyde Park, LLC, located at 4505 South Drexel
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60653, operates a nursing and rehabilitation
facility for senior citizens that provides short and long-term
medical care for patients. Steven Miretzky owns and manages The
Estates of Hyde Park, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John William Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: (312) 853-1450


EVERQUOTE INC: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of a
securities class action lawsuit against EverQuote, Inc. (NasdaqGM:
EVER) relating to the purchase of  the Company's shares issued
pursuant to its June 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO").
This action is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of EverQuote shares issued pursuant to its
June 2018 IPO and would like to discuss your legal rights and how
this case might affect you and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, Esq. -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
-- call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-ever/ to learn more.  

                      About the Lawsuit

EverQuote and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information in its Registration Statement filed
pursuant to its IPO, violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company's "quote request
volume" and revenue were not growing as the Company had touted in
its Registration Statement; (ii) the Company had taken measures to
decrease its quote request volume in order to inflate its margin
and other financial metrics before the IPO closed; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, EverQuote's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The case is Townsend v. EverQuote, Inc., No. 650997/2019.

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


FARMERS INSURANCE: Nguyen Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
TIEN NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV10020 (Cal. Super., March 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay overtime wages due, failed to provide itemized
statement to employee, failed to pay upon termination or quitting
employee, failed to provide rest breaks and meal periods, and
failed to pay minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is employed by Defendants as a claims representative
commencing in April 2017. The Plaintiff and other similarly
situated class members often worked in excess of eight hours in one
workday and/or 40 hours in one workweek and were not paid at a rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, the lawsuit
states.  As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendants, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated class members are entitled
to recover unpaid overtime wages in the amount to be proven at
trial, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to
California Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          Aarin Zeif, Esq.
          GOULD & ASSOCIATES
          17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714)669-2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544-0800
          E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com
                  Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com

FERRARA CANDY: May 1 SweeTARTS Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
involving Ferrara Candy Company, the maker of SweeTARTS candy.

On February 28th, 2019, United States District Court Judge Anthony
J. Battaglia preliminarily approved a settlement of a lawsuit
between the above Defendant and purchasers of certain SweeTARTS
products.  The lawsuit alleged that the Defendant violated certain
laws by labeling and marketing SweeTARTS products in a way that was
false or deceptive.  Defendant stands by its advertising and denies
it did anything wrong.  The Court has not decided which side was
right.  Instead, the parties have decided to settle the case.

The proposed class settlement provides for certain modifications of
the labeling and packaging of SweeTARTS products.

Class members, who purchased certain SweeTARTS products between
January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2019, are advised to carefully
read the Class Notice as their legal rights may be affected whether
they act or not.  The covered SweeTARTS products include:

   (1) SweeTARTS Original;
   (2) SweeTARTS Mini Chewy;
   (3) SweeTARTS Giant Chewy;
   (4) SweeTARTS Chews;
   (5) SweeTARTS Extreme Sour Chewy;
   (6) SweeTARTS Chewy Sours;
   (7) SweeTARTS Sour Gummies;
   (8) SweeTARTS Gummies;
   (9) SweeTARTS Whipped & Tangy;
  (10) SweeTARTS Cherry Punch Soft & Chewy Ropes;
  (11) SweeTARTS Tangy Strawberry Soft & Chewy Ropes; and
  (12) SweeTARTS Jelly Beans

Class members may request to be excluded from the class ("opt out"
of the settlement), comment on the settlement, or object to the
settlement, but must do so by May 1, 2019.  Class members who do
nothing will be bound by the Court's decision.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on this case on May
31, 2019 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 4A of the federal courthouse at
221 West Broadway, San Diego, California.

Your rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them --
are only summarized in this press release. A detailed Long Form
Notice describes, in full, benefits of the settlement, how to
object, or exclude yourself, and provides other important
information.  For more information and to obtain a Long Form
Notice, or other documents, visit www.sweetartsclassaction.com,
call toll-free 1-888-857-5936, or write to: SweeTARTS Class Action
Administrator, c/o Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718
Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta, GA 30309. [GN]


FOOT LOCKER RETAIL: Haggar Claims Website not Blind-Friendly
------------------------------------------------------------
Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-01387 (C.D. Cal., February 25, 2019), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.

Defendant offers footwear via its website
https://www.footlocker.com/. Plaintiffs are legally blind and
claims that Rag & Bone's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com



GOOGLE INC: Karate School Owner Urges 9th Cir. to Reinstate Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost Communications, reports that a
karate school owner who advertises on Google wants a federal
appellate court to allow him to proceed with a class-action
complaint accusing the company of mishandling paid search
campaigns.

Mark Trudeau, an Oakland County, Michigan resident who co-owns Troy
Martial Arts, alleged in a lawsuit filed in February of 2018 that
Google displayed pay-per-click ads for his karate studio when users
typed queries containing "negative" keywords -- meaning terms that
were supposed to prevent ads from appearing.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San
Jose, California granted Google's motion to send the matter to
arbitration. Freeman ruled that Google's contract with search
advertisers required arbitration of all disputes.

Trudeau is now asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse
that ruling and reinstate the case. He argues that Google didn't
add an arbitration clause to its advertiser contract until
September of 2017 -- after the company allegedly mishandled his
search campaign.

He contends that Google's arbitration provision doesn't apply to
activity that occurred before September 2017.

"Google did not have the right to add an arbitration clause that
would apply retroactively to already-accrued claims," he argues in
papers filed this week with the 9th Circuit.

He adds that before September of 2017, Google had promised to avoid
retroactive changes to its terms of service. "The very notion that
Google can unilaterally and retroactively eliminate a term
promising no retroactivity would run afoul of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing," he argues.

Trudeau alleged that he began advertising with Google in 2012, and
agreed to pay between 50 cents and $5 per click. He also said he
attempted to use "negative" keywords to block ads from being
displayed when people's search queries suggested they lived far
from Oakland County. For instance, he said, he wanted to block ads
from being displayed to people who used the word "Southfield" in
their queries, because he didn't believe people in Southfield would
travel to Troy for martial arts training.

Despite his attempts to block those ads, Google sometimes served
ads when the queries contained "negative" keywords like Southfield,
he alleged. For example, he alleged, if search users misspelled
"Southfield" as "Douthfield," Google sometimes showed ads for his
studio in Troy.

"The order compelling arbitration should be reversed, and Google
should be held to account for the tens of millions of dollars that
it over-billed its contractual counterparties," he says in his
newest court papers. [GN]


GRANITE QUEENS: Fischler Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Granite Queens Plaza 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. Granite Queens Plaza LLC, as
assignee of Aurora LIC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02031 (E.D.
N.Y., April 8, 2019).

Granite Queens Plaza LLC is in the Counter Top Installation
business.[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

      - and –

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



HAYNES FAMILY: Loper Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY LOPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10010 (Cal. Super., March 25, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all overtime wages and
minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint for recovery of unpaid wages
and penalties. During Plaintiff's time working with Haynes, the
Plaintiff was an hourly non-exempt employee earning between
$14.00-16.00/hour while employed. Haynes Family of Programs runs a
treatment program for children with special needs, such as autism.
The Defendant hired the Plaintiff to provide childcare-related
services. The Defendant engaged in systematic wage theft by
requiring the Plaintiff to clock out from work and to have him
continue participating in additional tasks after he clocked out of
work. The Plaintiff was not paid for this extra work, which should
have been paid at an overtime premium rate. The Defendant also
maintained an unlawful rest period policy, which deprived
the Plaintiff of all of the rest periods he was entitled to
receive, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kevin M. Schwin, Esq.
          SCHWIN LAW, PC
          1220 East Olive Ave.
          Fresno, CA 93728
          Telephone: (559) 715-2889
          Facsimile: (559)221-6812
          E-mail: kevin@scliwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Briana M. Kim, Esq.
          BRIANA KIM, PC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone:(714) 482-6301
          Facsimile: (714)482-6302
          E-mail: briana@brianakim.com

INDIGO ROOM: McCartney et al Seek Minimum & OT Pay for Bartenders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER MCCARTNEY, and BRIAN WEAVER, Individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated , the Plaintiffs, vs.
THE INDIGO ROOM, INC., a Florida for profit corporation, RAIMOND
AULEN, Individually, and RAIMOND AULEN d/b/a as THE 86 ROOM
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00185-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., March 25,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act on behalf of bartenders and wait staff at the Defendants' Ft.
Myers, Florida establishments, The Indigo Room and The 86 Room.
Both bars are owned and operated by Raimond Aulen.

The Defendants have a longstanding policy of failing to pay a
direct wage to their bartender and wait staff employees, instead
opting to either pay only the tips earned or to appropriate the
tips and use them to pay the direct wage to the bartenders without
a valid tip pool agreement, the lawsuit says.  The Defendants
allegedly required and/or permitted McCartney and Weaver to work as
bartenders/waiters in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to
compensate them at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate.
In fact, Defendants refused to compensate the Plaintiffs at all for
the hours that they worked. the Plaintiffs' only compensation was
in the form of tips from the bar patrons.

The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees, such as the Plaintiffs, to be compensated for
their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay.  Likewise, Defendants are not entitled to take
a tip credit with respect to their bartenders and wait staff
because they do not put the bartenders and wait staff on adequate
notice of their intent to utilize the tip credit.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs and Class Members:

          Paul M. Botros., Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
          E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com

INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE: Plantation Open Suit Transferred to Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Plantation Open MRI LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated other Jorge Hidalgo, Plaintiff v.
Infinity Auto Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-19-004473, was transferred from the 17th Judicial Circuit in
and for Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 8, 2019, and assigned Case No.
0:19-cv-60911-RNS.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.

Infinity Auto Insurance Company is an underwriting company that
provides car insurance policies. The company was formerly known as
Leader Insurance Company and changed its name in January, 2006.
Infinity Auto Insurance Company was founded in 1950 and is based in
Dallas, Texas. Infinity Auto Insurance Company operates as a
subsidiary of Infinity Insurance Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jose Pete Font, Esq.
   Font & Nelson, LLC
   200 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 501
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 248-2920
   Fax: (954) 248-2134
   Email: jfont@fontnelson.com

      - and -

   Sean A. Storani, Esq.
   Font & Nelson, PLLC
   200 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 501
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 248-2920

The Defendant is represented by:

   Garrett Andrew Tozier, Esq.
   4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 300
   Tampa, FL 33607
   Tel: (813) 227-8174
   Email: gtozier@shutts.com

      - and -

   Rachel Marie La Montagne,Esq.
   Shutts & Bowen LLP
   200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 358-6300
   Fax: (305) 381-9982
   Email: rlamontagne@shutts.com

      - and -

   Victoria San Pedro Madani, Esq.
   Shutts & Bowen
   200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 379-9154
   Fax: (305) 415-9872
   Email: vmadani@shutts.com

      - and -

   Suzanne Youmans Labrit, Esq.
   Shutts & Bowen LLP
   4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 300
   Tampa, FL 33607
   Tel: (813) 227-8113
   Fax: (813) 227-8213
   Email: slabrit@shutts.com




INFINITY INDEMNITY: Plantation Open Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Plantation Open MRI LLC a/a/o Shawn Thomas on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Infinity Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-19-004540, was transferred from the 17th Judicial Circuit
Court of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 8, 2019, and assigned Case No.
0:19-cv-60912-WJZ.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.

Infinity Indemnity Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of
Infinity Insurance Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jose Pete Font, Esq.
   Font & Nelson, LLC
   200 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 501
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 248-2920
   Fax: (954) 248-2134
   Email: jfont@fontnelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Garrett Andrew Tozier, Esq.
   4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 300
   Tampa, FL 33607
   Tel: (813) 227-8174
   Email: gtozier@shutts.com

      - and -

   Rachel Marie La Montagne, Esq.
   Shutts & Bowen LLP
   200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 358-6300
   Fax: (305) 381-9982
   Email: rlamontagne@shutts.com

      - and -

   Victoria San Pedro Madani, Esq.
   Shutts & Bowen
   200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 379-9154
   Fax: (305) 415-9872
   Email: vmadani@shutts.com

      - and -

   Suzanne Youmans Labrit, Esq.
   Shutts & Bowen LLP
   4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 300
   Tampa, FL 33607
   Tel: (813) 227-8113
   Fax: (813) 227-8213
   Email: slabrit@shutts.com


IOOF: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over APRA Fallout
------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
embattled wealth company IOOF is facing a shareholder class action
over its alleged failure to inform shareholders about its fallout
with the regulator over the alleged breach of superannuation laws.

The shareholder class action, led by former Maurice Blackburn
partner Damian Scattini, now with Quinn Emanuel, and backed by
US-based litigation funder Regency Group, is expected to be filed
within weeks.

Among those who have expressed interest in the class action include
sophisticated investors and retail investors, although it will be
run as an open class action meaning shareholders who bought the
IOOF shares between May 2015 and December 2018 will be part of the
action unless they opt out.

IOOF chief executive Chris Kelaher is on leave while he is
defending the prudential regulator's action against him. AAP

The class action is based on the Hayne royal commission's finding
of possible contravention of trustee duties under the ASIC Act.

The action will allege IOOF was aware its conduct would have
significant legal and regulatory risks, and between May 2015 and
December 2018 it breached its continuous disclosure obligations to
shareholders and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Mr Scattini said the banking royal commission had revealed a number
of issues with IOOF's management of super funds.

"When ordered to compensate their superannuation customers, IOOF
did so with their superannuation customers' own money," he said.

"They should have known that was going to draw the ire of the
regulator."

Mr Scattini said IOOF had failed to inform the market about its
troubled relationship with the Australian Prudential Regulation
Authority, and when the issue was exposed in the royal commission,
it failed to address the regulator's concerns.

"They should have revealed to the market they were under
investigation by APRA. It was dragged out in the royal commission
and even then they refused to do the right thing and APRA came down
hard on it," he said. "No wonder the market reacted with shock."

Shine also investigating
Quinn Emanuel is not the only class-action law firm preparing to
make a move on IOOF.

ASX-listed law firm Shine Lawyers said in December it was
investigating a potential class action against IOOF with backing
from litigation funders ICP and Litigation Lending. It said the
scope of its investigation was broader and it was also looking at
the allegations of insider trading, front running and staff
cheating on exams that date back to 2015.

The class action announcement follows the prudential regulator's
taking IOOF chief executive Chris Kelaher, chairman George Venardos
and three senior executives to the Federal Court in December,
seeking to disqualify them from sitting on superannuation fund
boards.

The shock move from the typically litigation-shy regulator wiped
its market capitalisation by almost $1 billion in a single day and
forced Mr Kelaher and Mr Venardos to go on extended leave while
they defend the action in a three-week hearing in July.

The banking royal commission and the court case revealed APRA had
raised concerns about IOOF's management of superannuation funds
over a number of years before the regulator decided to make the
shock move on IOOF and its senior leaders.

The regulator claimed the final straw was IOOF ignoring the
regulator's call to respond to a proposal for a court-enforceable
undertaking by a midday deadline. Within hours, APRA filed the
court action against IOOF.

On March 15, IOOF shares closed at $6.37, down 40 per cent from the
12-month high of $10.77 in March last year.

IOOF declined to comment on March 17 about the proposed class
action, but previously said it believed APRA's allegations were
"misconceived" and "it and its executives intend to vigorously
defend the proceedings". [GN]


JENNINGS ROAD: Underpays Drivers, Berman Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
STANLEY BERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JENNINGS ROAD MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a THE
HERB CHAMBERS COMPANIES; HERB CHAMBERS OF NATICK, INC.; and HERBERT
G. CHAMBERS, Defendants, Case No. 19-722 (Mass. Super., Middlesex
Cty., March 14, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Berman was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Jennings Road Management Corp. was founded in 1985. The company's
line of business includes providing management services on a
contract or fee basis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Harriman, Esq.
          Rachel N. Costello, Esq.
          HARRIMAN LAW
          92 State Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 482-1723
          E-mail: mharriman@harriman-law.com


JESSE CREEK: Odom Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Curtis Blake Odom on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jesse Creek Mining, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00522-RDP (N.D. Ala., April 2, 2019) is a civil action
for collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988 (the "WARN Act").

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until he was
terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable
under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff and the
other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance
written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff was an employee who was employed by Defendant and worked
at or reported to the Facility until his termination without cause
on or about March 27, 2019.

Defendant was a Delaware limited liability company which conducted
mining operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: (251) 433-8100
     Fax: (251) 433-8181

          - and -

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite1100
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122


KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Ramirez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE NELSON RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNISHKA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES
INC.; PRADEPP MALHOTRA; and MEENA MALHOTRA, Defendants, Case No.
19-1476 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Mor Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen worker.

Knishka Restaurant Associates Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KORAN LANDSCAPE: Underpays Landscapers, Ventura et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN VENTURA; JOSE GRANADOS DOMINGUEZ; CASTO CUADRA; JOSE LIDIO
REYES GRANADOS; CARLOS HUMBERTO CHAVEZ; HEBER ALFARO; and LUIS
ALFARO DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KORAN LANDSCAPE SERVICE INC.;
BILL KORAN; BRAD WINE; and JIM HAND, Defendants, Case No. CV19-1478
(E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as landscapers.

Koran Landscape Service Inc. provides grounds maintenance, and
landscape construction services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 114415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


KRAFT HEINZ: Brower Piven Files Securities 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 Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of The Kraft Heinz
Company (Nasdaq: KHC) ("Kraft" or the "Company") securities during
the period between May 4, 2017 to February 21, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively involved
in the litigation have until April 25, 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 Kraft 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 that Kraft's
internal controls, specifically with respect to its procurement
area, were inadequate, and that Kraft would be forced to write down
a significant amount of goodwill and certain intangible assets in
its Kraft natural cheese business, its Oscar Mayer cold cuts
business, and its Canada retail business due to supply chain
issues.

According to the complaint, following a February 21, 2019
announcement of its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2018 and
that it had received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange
Commission in October 2018 in connection with the Company's
procurement function, the value of Kraft shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Kraft securities purchased on or after May 4, 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;
        
         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]


LAKEFRONT TERRACE: Young Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lakefront Terrace Resort LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lakefront Terrace Resort LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03131 (S.D. N.Y., April 8, 2019).

Lakefront Terrace Resort offers a picturesque oasis along the
shores of Lake George, including a 150-foot private beach and
heated swimming pool.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com


LAN SHENG: Wu Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
A case, GANG WU, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. LAN SHENG SZECHUAN FOOD INC d/b/a
Lan Sheng Szechuan Restaurant; LAN YANG, ZI XIANG HE a/k/a Peter
He, GYALTSEN LOBSING, BIN SHENG YAN, and ANGIE "DOE", the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02632-JGK (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2019),
seeks minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a deliveryman
at 128 West 36 Street, New York, NY 10018.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

LENNY & LARRY'S: BakerHostetler Attorneys Discuss Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Friel, Esq. -- afriel@bakerlaw.com -- Linda Goldstein, Esq.
-- lgoldstein@bakerlaw.com -- Amy Ralph Mudge, Esq. --
amudge@bakerlaw.com -- and Randal M. Shaheen, Esq. --
rshaheen@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for
Mondaq, report that settlement in misleading label action unfair to
class members says DOJ.

Dapibus Populo
Lenny & Larry's is a fun brand -- bold, colorful packaging with a
distinctly '80s palette, goofy brand icon featuring the woofed-out
hair of the founders, and lots of exclamation points in the copy.

Is all this zip deployed because it's selling a product that is so
relentlessly healthy? As the company website puts it: "Lenny &
Larry's The Complete Cookie(R) forms the foundation of a whole new
category of food: Baked Nutrition(R). Vegan, Kosher, and Non-GMO .
. ."

In addition to its Complete Cookies, the company also hawks a
"Muscle Muffin" and a "Muscle Brownie." Its entire line is pitched
as "a better way to get more protein in your diet while enjoying
something tasty."

Just the Snacks, Ma'am
But when a pair of consumers from Michigan and Illinois sued Lenny
& Larry's in 2017, their accusations struck at the heart of the
company's identity. Over the course of three amended complaints
(the final landed in March 2018), the evolving group of class
plaintiffs accused the company of mislabeling its products so that
they appeared healthier than they are, such as by allegedly
misrepresenting the number of calories and amount of fat and
protein the products contained. The plaintiffs also alleged that
Lenny & Larry's testing methodology was flawed and not in
compliance with various federal and state testing regulations.
"Based on Plaintiffs' testing," the final complaint claimed, "the
Product generally contain [sic] 40%-50% less protein than stated on
the label. Defendant has also misrepresented other key nutrients in
the Product, including the total calories, carbohydrates, fats and
sugars."

The parties wrangled for a few more months in the Northern District
of Illinois and reached a $5 million settlement in October 2018.

And then the feds showed up.

The Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) filed a statement of
interest with the court in February 2019 alleging that the
settlement was unfair to class members. The DOJ claimed that the
majority of the cash settlement funds were set to go to the class
counsel and amounted, in the final analysis, to a marketing
opportunity for the cookie makers. Specifically, the DOJ took issue
with the fact that the bulk of the nonmonetary award would "consist
of free cookies the defendant plans to send to vendors across the
country . . ."

For the record, the DOJ is notified about all proposed class action
settlements -- a requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 (CAFA). "While the CAFA notice provision does not expressly
grant specific authority or impose explicit obligations upon
federal or state officials," the Department wrote in the statement,
"the Act's legislative history shows that Congress intended the
notice provision to enable public officials to 'voice concerns if
they believe that the class action settlement is not in the best
interest of their citizens.'"

The Takeaway
And voice them it did. The Department claimed that the settlement,
which involved 90,000 class members, was divided in such a way as
to leave the 70,000 members who opted for cash payments out in the
cold. Of the original $5 million, $3.15 million had been set aside
as a "large cy pres distribution of free cookies to vendors who
already sell defendant's products . . . ." That left about $1.85
million on the table.

But class counsel was asking for $1.1 million in fees. After other
costs, only $350,000 remained for the class members who wanted
cash. "A class member who submitted a claim with proof of purchase
for $50 likely would receive roughly $25," the department claimed.
"A class member without proof of purchase seeking the standard $10
claim would instead receive about $5. This pro rata reduction
'dramatically reduce[s]' the settlement's 'apparent value.'"

Lawyers for Lenny & Larry's told the press that the issues raised
by the feds were already being addressed by the company and the
plaintiffs before the statement was issued. Pursuit of a settlement
restructuring is in the hands of the district court; we'll watch
with interest for its response. [GN]


LIFE FOR RELIEF: Kempton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ty Kempton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Life for Relief and Development Inc., a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02156-DJH (D.
Ariz., April 2, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' violation the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited autodialed
text messages to consumers, and to obtain injunctive and monetary
relief for all persons injured by Life for Relief's conduct.

Life for Relief is a non-profit corporation and it uses text
message marketing to solicit donations. In Plaintiff's case, Life
for Relief sent approximately eight unsolicited, unwanted
autodialed text messages to his cellular phone.

In response to these text messages, Plaintiff files this lawsuit
seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease sending
unwanted text messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers
using an automatic dialing system without consent, as well as an
award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and costs.

Plaintiff Kempton is a Gilbert, Arizona resident.

Life for Relief is a California nonprofit corporation headquartered
in Southfield, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan Brown, Esq.
     Brown Patent Law
     15100 N 78th Way Suite 203
     Scottsdale, AZ 85260
     Phone: 602-529-3474
     Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com

          - and -

     Stefan Coleman, Esq.
     Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A.
     201 s. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (877) 333-9427
     Fascimile: (888) 498-8946
     Email: law@StefanColeman.com

          - and -

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


MDL 2741: Ingle Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled EDDIE INGLE, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00311 (Filed Feb. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on March 26, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01500-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Ingle case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Megan Myers Arvola, Esq
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  marvola@gorijulianlaw.com

MDL 2741: Kunz Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD W. KUNZ and MARY J. KUNZ,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00272 (Filed Feb. 21, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Mar. 26, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01496-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Kunz case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MDL 2741: Lubben Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DAVID C. LUBBEN and ESTHER LUBBEN,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00275 (Filed Feb. 21, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on March 26, 2019. The Northern District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01497-VC to the
proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Lubben case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Lumpkin Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD C. LUMPKIN and MURIEL E.
LUMPKIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00277 (Filed Feb. 21, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on March 26, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01497-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Lumpkin case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Sheehan Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled EARLYNN SHEEHAN, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00313 (Filed Feb. 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on March 26, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01502-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Sheehan case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Megan Myers Arvola, Esq.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
          marvola@gorijulianlaw.com
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834

MIDLAND CREDIT: Deluccio Asserts Breach of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Deluccio, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02004 (E.D.
N.Y., April 8, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
   Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP
   800 Third Avenue
   13th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 471-6200
   Fax: (212) 935-1166
   Email: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Allens Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS L. ALLEN AND STEPHANIE ALLEN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00659 (E.D. Mo., March
26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Collins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT E. COLLINS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00657 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Cupp Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
ROGER CUPP, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00647-SPM (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Fishburns Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
DUDLEY FISHBURN AND BELINDA FISHBURN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00656-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.,
March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Fohnes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN FOHNE and RHONDA FOHNE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00649 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Fruits Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FRUITS and LAURA FRUITS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00646-HEA (E.D. Mo., March 26,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID V. JONES AND SABRINA JONES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00654 (E.D. Mo., March
26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Lawary Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD LAWARY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00634 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Madigans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS L. MADIGAN AND NORMA MADIGAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00658 (E.D. Mo., March
26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Malandrinos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER P. MALANDRINOS AND ELENI MALANDRINOS, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00655-DDN (E.D.
Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by
Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Mincks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA MINCKS, Executrix on behalf of the ESTATE OF LARRY MINCKS,
(deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00648-AGF (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Musselmans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA MUSSELMAN and GARY MUSSELMAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00643 (E.D. Mo., March
26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Nolan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
BETTY J. NOLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00650 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Ott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES OTT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00601 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Pages Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
MAXINE F. PAGE AND DONALD PAGE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00652 (E.D. Mo., March
26, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Sears Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
TODD SEARS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01501-VC (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Megan Myers Arvola, Esq.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
          marvola@gorijulianlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Simmons Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
PEGGY SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of JAMES SIMMONS, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00644 (E.D. Mo., March 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages
suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiff's maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Vereugo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR VEREUGO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00623 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

NCAA: Carney Seeks Damages Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Carney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00828 (S.D. Ind., February 25,
2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Carney played football at Tulane from 2005 to 2009. He suffered
from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits
as part of routine practice and gameplay. Carney now suffers from
depression, emotional instability, loss of inhibition, loss of
impulse control, motor impairment, ADHD, short-term memory loss,
speech and language impairment and suicidal thoughts.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Carney alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

     Robert T. Dassow, Esq.
     HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC
     10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500
     Indianapolis, IN 46290
     Tel: (317) 818-3100


NCAA: DiValentino Seeks Damages Over Injuries Sustained
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert DiValentino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00818 (S.D. Ind.,
February 25, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual,
consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present
and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost
time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney
fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

DiValentino played football at Tennessee Technological University
from 1979 to 1980. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well
as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and
gameplay. DiValentino now suffers from memory loss, loss of impulse
control, loss of inhibition, loss of concentration, depression,
anxiety, irritability, ADHD, sleep apnea, mood disorder, bipolar I
disorder, cognitive disorder and encephalopathy.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. DiValentino alleges NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com


NCAA: Waller Seek Damages Over Injuries Sustained as an Athlete
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Council and Alesia Waller, as attorney-in-fact of DeSwann
Waller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) and Liberty University, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00817
(S.D. Ind., February 25, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual,
consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present
and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost
time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney
fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Waller played football at Liberty from 2004 to 2007. He suffered
from numerous concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits
as part of routine practice and gameplay. Waller now suffers from
depression, loss of concentration, learning and cognitive
impairment, memory loss, personality disorder, social phobia and
suicidal thoughts.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Waller alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com


NEW PRECIOUS: Muy Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay for Salon Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
SILBIA DOLORES MUY GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the the Plaintiff, vs. NEW PRECIOUS NAIL INC.
(D/B/A PRECIOUS NAILS), PELINO YOON (A.K.A. YUNG YOON) , and SOPHIA
YOON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02659 (S.D.N.Y., March 25,
2019), alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice
of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Muy is a former employee of the Defendants who own, operate, or
control a nail salon, located at 180 E 94th Street, New York, New
York 10128 under the name "Precious Nails".  The Defendants
employed and accounted for the Plaintiff Muy as a manicurist,
pedicurist and a masseuse in their payroll, but in actuality her
duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the
alleged non-tipped duties, the lawsuit says.  She was required to
spend a considerable part of her work day performing non-tipped
duties, including but not limited to cleaning the bathroom,
vacuuming, taking out the trash, accommodating products for the
salon, cleaning the general, mopping and cleaning the windows
(non-tipped duties).

Muy worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiff Muy appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

NIKE INC: Female Employees Clear 1st Hurdle in Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Blumberg, writing for BloombergQuint, reports that Nike Inc.
lost its first attempt to scale back a class-action lawsuit
accusing the athletic apparel giant of systematic pay
discrimination against female employees. The company sought to
block the four women who sued in August from proceeding
collectively on behalf of other employees, but a federal magistrate
judge said it's too early to limit who's covered by the case. The
magistrate's findings will be reviewed by a district judge.

The four former employees alleged that Nike mistreats women by
relying on their salary history in setting their starting pay,
marginalizing their performance to stifle their career growth, and
largely ignoring sexual harassment. A lawyer for the plaintiffs
said when the case was first filed that if it clears the difficult
hurdle of attaining class-action status, she expects at least 500
more women to join.

Last year, Nike announced that in the wake of a review of its pay
structure, including pay equity, it was increasing the salaries of
about 7,400 workers worldwide.

A spokesman for Nike declined to comment.

The case is Cahill v. Nike Inc., 3:18-cv-01477, U.S. District
Court, District of Oregon. [GN]


NORTHBAY BUILDERS: Licona Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Min., OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Licona Moreno, Edgar Dario Simancas de la Rosa, Freddy
Siguencia Romero, and Jorge Toalongo, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Northbay Builders Corp.
(d/b/a Northbay Builders Corp.), Albert Babaev, Mayer Doe, Jaime
Contreras, Efrain Romero, Francisco Doe, and Freddy Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01889 (E.D. N.Y., April 2, 2019) seeks
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law ("NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

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

Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers at the
construction corporation.

Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company, located
at 33-06 88th Street, Unit 213, Jackson Heights, New York 11372
under the name "Northbay Builders Corp".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented bY:

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


NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL: Underpays Crisis Clinicians, Basilio Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN BASILIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER; DIGNITY
HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV07718 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

Plaintiff Basilio was employed by the Defendants as crisis
clinician.

Northridge Hospital Medical Center offers health care services. The
Company offers critical care, surgery, nursing, rehabilitation,
pediatric, trauma, women's health, pathology, and birth services.
Northridge Hospital Medical Center serves patients and communities
in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw. com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


OKLAHOMA: Beard, et al. File Suit v. DOC, Parole Board Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oklahoma's Parole
Board and Department of Corrections officers. The case is styled as
Allison Beard, Adrian E Grant, Brandon J Ballard, Carie Rachelle
Walker, Cheyenne A Moore, David Earl Flowers, Delma L Sullivan,
Deodrick Carter, Donnie A McIntosh, Donnino Y Moreland, Keith L
Brown, Larry D Brown, Rico Williams, Robin Ratliff, Shawn A
Detwiler, Shawn Shinton, Terry L Hunt, Terry L Lee, Titus T Helms,
Travis Huddleston, Tony D Humdy, Tyrone Morrow and Wayne Williams,
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs
v. Delynn Fudge, Executive Director, Oklahoma Pardon and Parole
Board and Joe Allbaugh, Director, Oklahoma Department of
Corrections, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00310-HE (W.D. Okla.,
April 4, 2019).

The lawsuit arises under the Civil Rights Act.

The Defendants are Government Representative.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald Kelly, Esq.
   205 NW 63rd St, Suite 150
   Oklahoma City, OK 73116
   Tel: (405) 235-1976
   Fax: (405) 286-6316
   Email: kellyron01@yahoo.com


ORACLE CORP: Fights Plaintiffs' Jury Demand in ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Hill, writing for The Register, reports that Oracle is
fighting back against tens of thousands of former staffers with
pension plans who want to take the firm to a jury trial.

Not satisfied with a judgment earlier in March that saw it fend off
a number of accusations from the group, Oracle is ploughing ahead
in a bid to have the case decided out of the spotlight.

The lawsuit was brought in the US District Court of Colorado in
January 2016 by a group of complainants who said Oracle had
breached the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act through a
number of failures in the management of its employees' 401(k)
plan.

The complaint alleged that Oracle had allowed the plan to pay
record-keeping and administrative fees that were "multiples" of the
market rates offered for the same services by others. It also
claimed Big Red had failed to monitor service providers to the plan
and investment options in the plan.

Overall, the group said the firm did not act in the best interests
of the plan's participants, and prevented those staffers from
discovering the breaches of ERISA "through a series of false and
misleading communications".

After the case had lumbered on for many years, the federal judge
overseeing it, Robert Blackburn, earlier in March issued an order
that trimmed several of the specific claims in the complaint.

There are still three claims left to be determined, the allegations
of: imprudent investment in a particular fund; imprudent retention
of another fund; and failures to monitor the breach of fiduciary
duty in the retention of these two allegedly imprudent
investments.

But Oracle would prefer if these were tried by the court, and not a
jury (the plaintiffs want a jury) on the grounds that there is no
precedent for this under US law.

Indeed, the firm pointed out that judges had rejected demands for
jury trials in at least 18 ERISA cases in the past two years.

"Plaintiffs' jury demand contradicts well-settled authority,
including Tenth Circuit precedent, holding that jury trials are
unavailable under ERISA," the firm said in its latest submission to
the court.

"The Tenth Circuit is not alone: every US Court of Appeals that has
considered the question has held that no such right exists. Based
on this same authority, over the past two years, no less than seven
district courts have rejected jury demands in similar ERISA
breach-of-fiduciary duty cases brought by Plaintiffs' same
counsel."

Judge Blackburn said in his March 1 order that there would be a
call on March18 for the parties to schedule a final pretrial
conference, trial preparation conference and trial in the case.
[GN]


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: LaBarbara Brings Securities Class Action in Md
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard LaBarbara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS, INC., PETER
FRIEDLI, THOMAS KNAPP, WILLI MIESCH and CHARLES A. REINHART, III,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00993-ELH (D. Md., April 2, 2019)
seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate
a transaction or, in the event the transaction is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' wrongdoing.

This action concerns an Agreement and Plan of Merger announced on
March 12, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Osiris
Therapeutics Inc., will be acquired by Smith & Nephew plc by way of
a tender offer ("Tender Offer"). On March 12, 2019, Osiris's board
of directors caused the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Smith & Nephew will
purchase each issued and outstanding share of Osiris's common stock
for $19 per share in cash (the "Merger Consideration").

On March 20, 2019, Osiris filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on a Schedule 14D-9 (the "Solicitation Statement") with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the Tender Offer. The complaint asserts that the
Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to
the Tender Offer, which renders it false and misleading in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

Plaintiff is and has been at all relevant times the owner of Osiris
common stock.

Osiris is a Maryland corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Columbia, Maryland. Osiris's common stock is
listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol "OSIR".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
     GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
     3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
     Baltimore, MD 21211
     Phone: (410) 783-7575
     Fax: (410) 783-1711
     Email: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

          - and -

     Carl L. Stine, Esq.
     Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 759-4600
     Fax: (212) 486-2093
     Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Scarantino Balks at Smith & Nephew Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit seeks to enjoin Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.,
and all persons acting in concert with it from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, and in the event
the Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it
and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

On March 12, 2019, Osiris's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, wherein Osiris will
be acquired by Smith & Nephew plc and Papyrus Acquisition Corp., as
merger sub.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire all of Osiris's outstanding
common stock for $19.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set
to expire on April 17.

On March 20, 2019, Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement,
the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Milton, Pennsylvania 17847
Plaintiff, v. OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS, INC. 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR.
COLUMBIA, MD 21046; PETER FRIEDLI 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR.
COLUMBIA, MD 21046; THOMAS KNAPP 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR. COLUMBIA,
MD 21046; WILLI MIESCH 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR. COLUMBIA, MD 21046;
CHARLES A. REINHART, III 7015 ALBERT EINSTEIN DR. COLUMBIA, MD
21046; SMITH & NEPHEW PLC 15 ADAM STREET LONDON WC2N 6LA UK; SMITH
& NEPHEW CONSOLIDATED, INC., CORPORATION TRUST CENTER 1209 ORANGE
STREET WILMINGTON, DE 19801; and PAPYRUS ACQUISITION CORP. 2405
YORK ROAD, SUITE 201 LUTHERVILLE TIMONIUM, MD 21093-2264, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00876-DKC (D. Md., March 25,
2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800

PERMCO INC: Claudio Pop Seeks Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges that Permco, Inc., shortchanged its
employees and avoided paying overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Specifically, the Plaintiff and other hourly
employees were denied significant amounts of overtime compensation
because of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
hourly employees for the unlawfully automatically deducted meal
periods during weeks in which Plaintiff and other hourly employees
worked in excess of 40 hours.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, the
FLSA Collective, and Ohio Class for automatically deducted meal
periods during which Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and Ohio Class
performed work.

The Defendants are a "leading manufacturer of high-pressure
hydraulic gear/vane pumps and motors, flow dividers, intensifiers,
and accessories." The Defendants' manufactured products include
displacement pumps and motor.

The case is captioned as CLAUDIO POP, 9402 Pleasant Lake Blvd.
Parma, OH 44130, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PERMCO, INC. c/o Statutory Agent
Highland Park Service Corp. 28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 600
Cleveland, OH 44122; GUYAN INTERNATIONAL, INC. c/o Statutory Agent
Peter Turner 28601 Chagrin Blvd. - No. 500 Cleveland, OH 44122, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00659 (N.D. Ohio, March 25,
2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM , LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

PERSONAL TOUCH: Short-Jones Seeks Overtime Wages for Clinicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LATOSHA SHORT-JONES, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE
IPA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00323-LPL (W.D. Pa.,
March 25, 2019), targets Personal Touch's failure to properly pay
overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act

Personal Touch has maintained a corporate policy of paying its
Registered Nurses, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists,
Speech Language Pathologists and Home Health Aids in its home
health division (Clinicians) pursuant to a compensation method
which includes hourly payments. Personal Touch pays Clinicians at
an hourly rate for some of their work, including, but not limited
to, time spent in case conferences, staff meetings, trainings and
recertifications. Personal Touch compensates Clinicians for hours
worked.

Personal Touch did not compensate the Plaintiff for all overtime
wages earned. Accordingly, Personal Touch is liable for its failure
to pay the Plaintiff and members of the putative class for all
hours worked and time and one-half for hours in excess of 80 of
their bi-weekly work week at their regular rate, the lawsuit says.

Personal Touch provides home health care services, including mental
health, pediatric, rehabilitation, and hospice services to
individuals.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
          Telephone: 412-281-7229
          Facsimile: 412-281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: 215-592-1500
          Facsimile: 215-592-4663

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: 202-470-3520
          Facsimile: 202-800-2730

PRATT INDUSTRIES: Brzozowski Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Brzozowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pratt Industries, Inc. and Pratt Paper (OH), LLC, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00523 (N.D. Ohio, March 8, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prior to officially beginning their employment at the paper mills,
Production Engineers are required to undergo mandatory training,
referred to as "bootcamp." Participation in training and homework
completion is not voluntary. Homework is mandatory.  Production
Engineers who fail to complete homework assignments or fail
examinations face discipline--up to and including termination.

The Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff and the Production
Engineers were required to complete homework assignments, but they
were not paid for this compensable time. The Plaintiff and the
Production Engineers were told that they could only report working
40 hours per week, regardless of the time spent actually performing
work either in the plant or doing homework outside of the sessions.


Plaintiff Brzozowski was hired as a production engineer by the
Defendants in late October 2018.

The Defendants are in the business of a recycling, and is one of
the largest recycled paper and packaging companies in the United
States.  The Defendant Pratt Industries, Inc. owns and operates
paper mills in: Conyers, Georgia; New York City, New York;
Valparaiso, Indiana, and; Shreveport, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
      Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
      Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
      MANSELL LAW, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Tel: (614) 610-4134
      Fax: (614) 547-3614
      E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
              Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
              Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com


PROFESSIONAL FREEZING: Like Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Like, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL FREEZING SERVICES, LLC, an
Illinois company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04194 (Circuit Ct.,
Cook Cty., Ill., April 1, 2019) seeks to put a stop to Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and the
putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.

Despite the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), PFS
disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the BIPA.

PFS never informed Plaintiff of the specific limited purposes or
length of time for which it collected, stored, or used handprints.
Similarly, PFS never informed Plaintiff of any biometric data
retention policy it developed, nor whether it will ever permanently
delete handprints. Plaintiff never signed a written release
allowing PFS to collect or store handprints. Plaintiff has
continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful
conditions created by PFS's violations of the BIPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for PFS during a portion of the year 2018.

Defendant PFS is a cold storage warehouse and processing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Fish, Esq.
     Seth Matus, Esq.
     Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
     John Kunze, Esq.
     THE FISH LAW FIRM. P.C.
     200 East Fifth A venue, Suite 123
     Naperville, IL 60563
     Phone: 630.355.7590
     Fax: 630.778.0400
     Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
            smatus@fishlawfirm.com
            khilton@fishlawfirm.com
            kunze@fishlawfirm.com
            adminr@fishlawtirm.com


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Engert Sues Over Ineffective Memory Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Engert, Jack Purchase and Ronald Atkinson on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Quincy
Bioscience, LLC,, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00183 (W.D. Tex.,
February 25, 2019), seeks to recover their economic losses, treble
damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, costs and interests
and all other relief under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and the Texas Business and Commerce Code for breach of express and
implied warranties and under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Quincy manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold Prevagen, a
memory-enhancing drug. Plaintiffs claim that it has no effect on
the brain and provides no benefit to the body, let alone, improve
memory. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESOLUTE BANK: Faces Schick Suit over Autodialed Calls
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resolute Bank John
Doe Corporation doing business as Reverse Mortgage Savings Center
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal
statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.  The
case is captioned Deborah Schick, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. Resolute Bank and John Doe Corporation d/b/a Reverse Mortgage
Savings Center, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02218-DLR (D. Ariz.,
April 5, 2019).  Schick alleges that Defendant Resolute Bank hired
the co-defendant, Reverse Mortgage Savings Center, which made
automated telemarketing calls to her cellular telephone number of
for the purposes of advertising Resolute goods and services using
an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA.
Schick recalls that Resolute Bank made repeated follow up calls to
her in January of 2019. Accordingly, Schick seeks redress for the
Defendant's wide scale illegal telemarketing practices.

Resolute Bank is an FDIC-insured bank founded in 2006 and currently
headquartered at 3425 Briarfield Blvd Ste 100, Maumee, OH 4353. It
provides reverse mortgage business, personal and mortgage solutions
to its customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
     KENT LAW OFFICES
     3219 E Camelback Rd #588
     Phoenix, AZ 85018
     Telephone: (480) 247-9644
     Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
     E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com

             - and –

     Anthony Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Telephone: (508) 221-1510
     E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com


RESTAURANT 597: Sanchez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Luis Adorno Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Restaurant 597 Inc. dba Bus Stop Cafe, Anastasions
Hatziioannidis, Georgia Hatziioannidis, and Spiro Doe, Case No.
1:19-cv-02178 (S.D. N.Y., March 8, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff allege that the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff Adorno and other employees to work
without providing the minimum wage compensation required by federal
and state law and regulations.

The Plaintiff was employed as a busboy and a delivery worker at the
Defendants' restaurant located at 597 Hudson Street, New York.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant diner, located
at 597 Hudson Street, New York under the name "Bus Stop Cafe".
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROBERTSON'S READY MIX: Soriano Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, FERNANDO SORIANO, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERTSON'S READY
MIX, LTD, a California Limited Partnership; and DOES 1-50
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01045061-CU-OE-CXC (Filed
Jan. 18, 2019), was transferred from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Orange to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  Soriano
contends that Defendant failed to pay him, and the group of persons
he seeks to represent, all wages owed in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Since the complaint arises under the
laws of the United States in that Plaintiff's claims in part are
expressly premised on the alleged violation of a federal law, i.e.,
the FLSA, it is then properly removed from the state court,
Defendant contends. The court clerk of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-00605 to the proceedings.

Based in Corona California, Robertson's Ready Mix, Ltd. produces
ready-mixed concrete and construction aggregates. It also sells
equipment and mixer trucks. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Stephen L. Berry, Esq.
     PAUL HASTINGS LLP
     695 Town Center Drive
     Seventeenth Floor
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924
     Telephone: (714) 668-6200
     Facsimile: (714) 979-1921


RVR RANCHO: Soto Sues Over Denied Labor Code Benefits &Protection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE SOTO, in a Representative capacity only, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. RVR RANCHO VALENCIA RESORT PARTNERS, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, and RVR RANCHO VALENCIA HOLDINGS PARTNERS, L.P.,
a California Limited Partnership, and DOES 1-10, inclusive
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00017152-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Diego Cty., April 2, 2019) seeks an award of statutory civil
penalties for each underpaid employee of Defendants pursuant to
Labor Code.

Throughout the term of her employment, Plaintiff and all other
aggrieved employees were and currently are denied the benefits and
protections of the Labor Code due to Defendants institutionalized
pay practices, standard as to all of Defendants' California-based
employees.

Throughout the operative limitations period, Plaintiff and all
other aggrieved employees were denied the protections and benefits
of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order(s) due to Defendants standard
practices, says the complaint.

Plaintiff MICHELLE SOTO commenced working for Defendants in 2011
and continued working for Defendants until January of 2019.

RVR RANCHO VALENCIA RESORT PARTNERS, LLC was and is a California
Limited Liability Company doing business throughout the state.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William B. Sullivan, Esq.
     Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
     Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
     Andrea J. Torres Figueroa, Esq.
     SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
     2330 Third Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 702-6760
     Fax: (619) 702-6761
     Email: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
            yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
            ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
            atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


SAN DIEGO CREDIT: Beltran Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
RINA BELTRAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SAN DIEGO
COUNTY CREDIT UNION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00015722-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super., March 25, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under
the California Labor Code.

The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members and
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed
to properly calculate and compensate them for all hours worked,
missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Plaintiff and the other
class members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in
a week during their employment with the Defendants, the lawsuit
states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          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
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259

SAN DIEGO, CA: Kelley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
ERIC KELLEY, PATRICK HESTERS, and ERIC DUNNICK, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00622-AJB-MDD (S.D.
Cal., April 2, 2019) is an action brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime and other
compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit,
reasonable attorney fees, and other relief.

This action arises from Defendant's failure to properly calculate
the "regular rate" of pay used to calculate Plaintiffs' overtime
compensation under the FLSA and its failure to properly compensate
employees for compensatory time off.

Plaintiffs are or were employed by the City of San Diego. The
Defendant required or permitted Plaintiffs to work overtime hours
under the FLSA, says the complaint.

Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     William B. Aitchison, Esq.
     Public Safety Labor Group
     3021 NE Broadway Street
     Portland, OR, 97232
     Phone: (866) 486-5556
     Fax: (866) 401-2201
     Email: Will@PSLGlawyers.com

          - and -

     James J. Cunningham, Esq.
     Law Offices of James J Cunningham
     10405 San Diego Mission Rd, Ste 201,
     San Diego, CA 92108-2174
     Phone: (858) 693-8833
     Fax: (858) 693-8834
     Email: jimcunninghamlaw@gmail.com


SCOTT DOLICH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Allison FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nancy Allison and Holly Burney filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Nancy Allison, et al. v. Scott
Dolich, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01005-AC, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, Portland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Nancy Allison, et al. v. Scott
Dolich, et al., Case No. 19-35259, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 26, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on May 28, 2019;

   -- Appellants Nancy Allison and Holly Burney's opening brief
      is due on July 8, 2019;

   -- Appellees Scott Dolich, Anna Josephson, Park Kitchen LLC
      and The Bent Brick, LLC's answering brief is due on
      August 8, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants NANCY ALLISON and HOLLY BURNEY, both in her
individual capacity and, in addition, as a collective action on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, PC
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
          Telephone: (503) 697-3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311-5629
          E-mail: jegan@eganlegalteam.com

Defendants-Appellees SCOTT DOLICH, an individual; ANNA JOSEPHSON,
an individual; PARK KITCHEN LLC, an Oregon limited liability
company; and THE BENT BRICK, LLC, an Oregon limited liability
company, are represented by:

          John Baird Dudrey, Esq.
          Karen L. O'Connor, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 224-3380
          E-mail: john.dudrey@stoel.com
                  karen.oconnor@stoel.com


SELECTIVE NURSING: Illinik Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Illinik, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Selective Nursing, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00093-TMR (S.D. Ohio, April 1, 2019) is a "collective
action" instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, and
for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as a "class action" to remedy violations of the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA").

Rather than paying overtime compensation, Defendant paid Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees straight time for the hours
they worked over 40 each workweek. Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for the
overtime hours she worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Illinik is a Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN") and was
employed by Defendant as an LPN between June 2016 and June 2018.

Defendant provides home care and health care assistance to
patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Facsimile: 216-696-7005
     Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
            chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
            anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


SEMORAN AUTO: Rosado Sues over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEMORAN AUTO ACQUISITIONS, INC. D/B/A
ORLANDO KIA EAST, a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-00577 (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2019), contends that, to gain
an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing with no regard for
consumers' privacy rights in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals.  The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
          Telephone: 954.533.4092

               - 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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          14 NE First Ave. 10th Floor
          Miami, FL 33132
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
          Telephone: 786.351.8709

SIERRA INCOME: Faces Anderson et al. Suit over Merger Transaction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra
Income Corp, Sierra Management, Inc, and their executives. The case
is captioned ROGER ANDERSON and JAMES T. BISCHOF, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against
STEPHEN R. BYERS, OLIVER T. KANE, VALERIE LANCASTER-BEAL, BROOK
TAUBE, SETH TAUBE, SIERRA INCOME CORP and SIERRA MANAGEMENT, INC,
Defendants, Index No. 652006/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Cty of New York,
April 5, 2019). This class action is brought on behalf of all
persons who, like Plaintiffs, hold Sierra Income Corp's common
stock as of April 5, 2019.

Plaintiffs Roger Anderson and the James T. Bischof, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this action to
remedy Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection
with a proposed merger transaction whereby Sierra is proposed to
combine with Medley Capital Corp., a company under common
management with Sierra.

In breach of their duties, the Directors of Sierra have rubber
stamped a merger transaction that, if completed, will enrich the
controlling shareholders of Sierra and Medley Capital affiliate
Medley Management Inc. ("MDLY") by causing MDLY Class A
shareholders to receive cash payments totaling $4.09 a share. MDLY
insiders own 81.4% of MDLY Class A shares and stand to receive over
$101 million in cash if the merger transaction is completed. Sierra
shareholders, who have suffered for years due to management
underperformance, would suffer further due to the entrenchment of
existing management via onerous employment contracts, the
elimination of Sierra's right guaranteed in its charter to
terminate its investment manager on 60 days' advance written
notice, and an increase in already-substantial management fees.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger transaction or,
in the alternative, for money damages.

Sierra Income Corporation is a business development company
specializing in first lien senior secured debt, second lien secured
debt and, to a lesser extent, subordinated debt of middle market
companies in the United States. The firm invests in companies with
annual revenue between $50 million and $1 billion. Sierra Income
Corporation was founded in 2012 and is based in New York, New
York.

Sierra is a Maryland corporation maintaining its executive offices
at 280 Park Avenue, 6th Floor East, New York, New York. Sierra is a
non-traded business development company specializing in first lien,
second lien, and subordinated debt of middle market companies with
annual revenue between $50 million and $1 billion. Sierra is
externally managed by a Medley Capital subsidiary known as SIC
Advisors LLC, which is a registered investment adviser. The company
has 96,784,857 common shares issued and outstanding. Sierra
Management, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Sierra. It was formed for the purpose of the merger
transaction. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher J. Gray, Esq.
     Michael J. DeRienzo, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY, P.C.
     360 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 838-3221
     Facsimile: (212) 837-3139
     E-mail: chris@investorlawvers.net
             mike@investorlawvers.net

             - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street, NW, Ste. 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 524-4292
     Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
     E-mail: denright@zlk.com


SIERRA PACIFIC: Borrowers File RICO Suit Over Excessive Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
David K. and Debra L. Bailey, Heller Batton, Gregory P. Dopkowski,
Samuel And Beverly Patterson, Jr., Raheim and Syreeta Patterson and
Arnold N. and Lois A. Welsh, Jr, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage
Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00595 (D. Md., February
25, 2019), seeks damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, interest and
costs and such other and further relief for violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs are borrowers who currently have or had a residential
mortgage loan originated and/or brokered by Sierra Pacific Mortgage
Company secured by their residential real property. They claim that
Sierra Pacific and All Star Title, Inc., a Maryland-based title and
settlement services company are involved in a price fixing scheme,
imposing excessive prices for title and settlement services charged
to Sierra Pacific borrowers financed into their loans, and which
Sierra Pacific charges and earns interest. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
     Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
     Megan A. Benevento, Esq.
     JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
     6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
     Greenbelt, MD 20770
     Telephone: (301) 220-2200
     Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
     Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
            vnannis@jgllaw.com
            mbenevento@jgllaw.com

            - and -

     Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
     Melissa L. English, Esq.
     Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
     SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
     600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
     Towson, MD 21202
     Telephone: (410) 821-0070
     Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
     Email: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
            menglish@sgs-law.com
            szadrozny@sgs-law.com


SIKA CORP: Vieyara-Flores Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SARAH VIEYARA-FLORES on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. SIKA CORPORATION and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. CIVDS1906249 (Filed February 28, 2019), was transferred on
April 4, 2019 from Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The District Court
for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-00606 to the proceedings.

The complaint sets forth nine causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay
All Straight Time Wages; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; (3)
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Authorize and
Permit Rest Periods; (5) Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply
with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; (6) Failure to
Pay All Wages Due at the Time of Termination of Employment; (7)
Failure to Reimburse/Illegal Deductions; (8) Violations of the
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; and (9) Violation
of Unfair Competition Law.

Sika is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of New
Jersey. Its principal place of business and corporate headquarters
is located in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. [BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

Thomas G. Mackey, Esq.
Nima Darouian, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: thomas.mackey@jacksonlewis.com
        nima.darouian@jacksonlewis.com


SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Rodriguez to Seek Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Bert Rodriguez, et al., individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. SimplexGrinnell LP, a Delaware limited partnership,
d/b/a Tyco SimplexGrinnell, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09605
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 21, 2019,
for an order granting a motion for summary judgment on
liability.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          David L. Lee, Esq.
          Jennifer Claire Weiss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID L. LEE
          542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 660
          Chicago, IL 60605
          E-mail: staff@davidleelaw.com
          Telephone: 312-347-4400

               - and -

          Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
          Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Pine St., 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-509-1616
          E-mail: bmenken@nyemployeelaw.com
                  jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com

SINH SINH RESTAURANT: Tepaz Seeks OT Pay and Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour class action complaint has been filed against Sinh
Sinh Restaurant. The case is captioned CRISTOBAL TEPAZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SINH SINH RESTAURANT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-1236
(S.D. Tex., April 4, 2019). Plaintiff Cristobal Tepaz asserts that
Defendant Sinh Sinh Restaurant Corporation failed to pay minimum
wage and overtime compensation to their kitchen workers, including
Plaintiff Tepaz, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Instead, Sinh Sinh paid Tepaz and his coworkers a salary so
low that their weekly pay did not cover the minimum wage and
overtime pay required by the FLSA. Further, Sinh Sinh paid Tepaz
and his coworkers less than the minimum wage required under the
Texas Minimum Wage Act. Accordingly, Tepaz brings this action on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated kitchen workers
to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, and other damages.

Sinh Sinh is an Asian restaurant located in Houston, Texas. It had
a gross annual sales in excess of $750,000 during at least the last
three years. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David I. Moulton, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


STAFFMORE LLC: Wahpoe Seeks OT Pay for Therapeutic Staff Supports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, ALEXANDER WAHPOE, individually and on
behalf of all others simialrly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
STAFFMORE, LLC, AND  COMMUNITY COUNCIL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01268-MSG (E.D. Pa. March 25, 2019),
Mr. Wahpoe contends that Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay
him and other similarly-situated individuals employed in the
position of Therapeutic Staff Support overtime compensation
pursuant to the Faie Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.

Wahpoe asserts that Defendants failed to pay him roughly 387 hours
he worked from April 1, 2017 through June 22, 2017. Wahpoe and the
Class Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, bit
were not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and
Class Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times
their regular rate of pay fvor each hour worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, the lawsuit states.

Staffmore, LLC provides staffing and back office solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Michael GRoh, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 267 273 1054
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                  mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

STAMPS.COM INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a class action lawsuit
against Stamps.com, Inc. ("Stamps.com" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
STMP) and certain of its executives (collectively, "Defendants").

The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20 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. §240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Stamps.com common stock between May
3, 2017 and February 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Stamps.com is a provider of Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements to
investors, including in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company's financial results depended on the manipulation of a
USPS program that cost USPS an estimated $235 million per year; and
(ii) as a result, the Company's business was unsustainable and its
financial results were highly misleading.

On February 21, 2019, after the market closed, Stamps.com held a
conference call to discuss its financial results from the 4th
quarter of 2018 and fiscal year 2018. On the call, the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Kenneth McBride
stated that the Company was discontinuing its shipping partnership
with USPS despite the fact that USPS-related business accounts for
87 percent of the Company's revenue. The Company further announced
that 2019 revenue was expected to decline 5.4%.

On this news, the Company's stock plummeted to a close price of
$83.65 on February 21, 2019, a decline of over 57% from the
previous close price of $198.08.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the
proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Ave, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Email:jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Fishman Sues Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
MALKA L. FISHMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUBWAY FRANCHISEE ADVERTISING
FUND TRUST, LTD. d/b/a SUBWAY, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02444
(C.D. Cal., April 1, 2019) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently and/or
intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

On or about September 3, 2016, Subway sent a text message to
Fishman's cellular telephone number using an "automatic telephone
dialing system," ("ATDS"). The Defendant did not have prior express
written consent to send the marketing text message to Plaintiff's
cell phone. The text message advertising for Subway was unwanted by
Plaintiff and falls outside the scope of any consent that Plaintiff
may have provided to T-Mobile to receive text message from T-Mobile
concerning its wireless telephone services such as important
account notifications.

Plaintiff had not installed the T-Mobile Tuesdays mobile
application on Plaintiff's cellular telephone prior to receiving
the SPAM text message. Through Defendant's aforementioned conduct,
Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in
privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA,
says the complaint.

Fishman is a citizen and resident of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

Subway operates several fast food restaurants located in the County
of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com
            jason@kazlg.com

          - and -

     Jack J. Gindi, Esq.
     ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP LLP
     3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 493-6300
     Email: jack@abramsonlabor.com


SYNEOS HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Probes Potential Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that it is
investigating a potential federal securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Syneos Health, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SYNH) ("Syneos" or the "Company").

Investors who have purchased shares of Syneos Health, Inc. 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.

On February 27, 2019, during aftermarket hours, Syneos disclosed
that "on February 21, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") notified the Company that it has commenced an investigation
into the Company's revenue accounting policies, internal controls
and related matters, and requested that the Company retain certain
documents for the periods beginning with January 1, 2017. As an
additional measure prior to the Company filing the Form 10-K, the
Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors is conducting
an independent review of the Company's revenue accounting policies,
internal controls and related matters with the assistance of
outside counsel and accounting advisors."

On the next trading day, February 28, 2019, the stock was trading
as low as $36.72, a decline of $15.29 per share from the prior
day's close of $52.01

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis       
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


TOUCHSTONES MUSIC: Kelley Drye Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.como -- of Kelley
Drye, reports that in Cline v. Touchtunes Music Corp., No. 18-1756,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Manhattan district
judge's decision to approve a low-cost class action settlement in
what the judge termed a "nuisance" case, while basically zeroing
out the $100,000 fee requested by the plaintiffs' class counsel.

The Defendants who have faced silly but not entirely motionable
class actions can momentarily enjoy the schadenfreude of watching a
plaintiff's law firm come away with nothing for its efforts.  The
problem with decisions like Cline, however, is that they may make
plaintiffs' counsel more hesitant to settle a cheap case on cheap
terms.  For the class action defense bar, raising potential
settlement costs is nothing to celebrate.

The facts of Cline are almost too silly to merit repeating.  The
defendant provided a digital jukebox application to (for example)
bars and restaurants.  Patrons could pay money to play songs, and
the app's terms told the patrons clearly that their songs weren't
guaranteed to play and that no refunds would be provided under any
circumstances.  What the terms didn't disclose, however, is that
the restaurant manager had the ability to manually skip songs.  The
plaintiff, ostensibly on behalf of a class of people whose songs
were skipped, sued for the lost value -- about 40 cents each -- of
not hearing the songs be played.

The defendant, after two tries, couldn't quite get the whole suit
dismissed.  A highly experienced district judge left alive a false
advertising claim for the non-disclosure.  At that point, early
last year, the parties agreed to a settlement.  About 166,000
patrons whose songs weren't played, and for whom the defendant had
contact information, received a code by email good for one free
song play on any of the defendant's jukeboxes.  Other people could
file claims for codes, and 2,200 people did so.

The plaintiff's counsel sought a $100,000 fee for themselves and a
$2,000 incentive fee for the plaintiff.  The judge approved the
settlement but not these fees.  He rejected the incentive award
and, in place of the $100,000 fee, which plaintiffs' counsel
contended was their "lodestar" of hours worked, the judge instead
granted a fee of 20 cents per song code that class members actually
redeem within the one-year expiration period.  That fee is likely
to be less than $1,000.  The plaintiffs' counsel appealed that
reduction, but the Second Circuit upheld it in a summary order,
finding that the district judge acted within his discretion,
especially in a "coupon"-type settlement.

What should not be lost in any analysis of Cline is this key
statement in the Second Circuit's opinion: "[C]lass counsel's
lodestar fee application was not supported by contemporaneous
billing records, and . . . no substantial explanation had been
provided for a $10,000 'consulting fee' for which reimbursement was
sought."  The Second Circuit thus reinforced that plaintiffs'
counsel absolutely can still seek lodestar-based fees even when
settling for coupons or in-kind goods, provided that they support
those fees with appropriate billing detail.

If plaintiffs' counsel try to tell you that they don't want to
enter into a coupon or in-kind settlement because Cline makes them
fearful of receiving no fee in the case, therefore, remind them
that the problem in Cline wasn't the settlement structure; it was
the law firm's failure to document its fees.  Don't make that
mistake, and Cline shouldn't be an issue.  Low-value cases like
Cline still should be able to settle on low-value terms. [GN]


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Baker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
CANDISS BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC.; PENDRICK CAPITAL
PARTNERS LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00104 (S.D. Tex., March 14, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge George C. Hanks, Jr.

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally. Transworld Systems Inc. was founded in 1970 and is
based in Santa Rosa, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
         SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
         6136 Frisco Square Blvd., Suite 400
         Frisco, TX 75034
         Telephone: (214) 210-9910
         Facsimile: (214) 594-6100
         E-mail: shawn@jafflaw.com


UNITED STATES SOCCER: Morgan Suit Alleges Equal Pay Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Carli Lloyd, Morgan
Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna
Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris,
Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Allie Long, Merritt
Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Allyssa Naeher, Kelley
O'Hara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Casey Short, Emily Sonnet,
Andi Sullivan and McCall Zerboni v. United States Soccer
Federation, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-01717 (C.D. Calif., March 8,
2019), is a collective action complaint for violations of the Equal
Pay Act and class action complaint for violations of the Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This action seeks to end the USSF's discriminatory practices, and
an award to make the Plaintiffs and the class whole, as well as to
provide for liquidated and punitive damages and all other
appropriate relief.   

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant continues to practice
gender-based discrimination against its champion female employees
in the United States Senior Women's National Soccer Team in
comparison to its less successful male employees in the United
States Senior Men's National Soccer Team.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the USSF as members of the WNT.

The Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. is the single,
common employer of female and male professional soccer players who
play in the United States Senior Women's National Soccer Team and
the United States Senior Men's National Soccer Team. The Defendant
is a not-for-profit corporation domiciled in the State of New York,
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and with operations throughout
the United States, including in Los Angeles County, California.  
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Diana Hughes Leiden, Esq.
      WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
      333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
      Tel: (213) 615-1700
      Fax: (213) 615-1750
      E-mail: dhleiden@winston.com


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Kiler Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Universal Music
Investments, Inc. d/b/a ShawnMendesOfficial.com and UMG Commercial
Services, Inc. d/b/a Shop.ShawnMendesOfficial.com, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01844 (E.D. N.Y, April 1, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Universal for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

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

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

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

ShawnMendesOfficial.com and Shop.ShawnMendesOfficial.com provide to
the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, and
other programs offered by Universal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Responds to Admissions Scandal Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
FOX 7 Austin and KTVU report that the University of Texas at Austin
has responded to the recent lawsuit over the college admissions
bribery scandal.

UT spokesperson JB Bird issued this statement March 14:

Like many students and families across the country, we are also
outraged that parents, outside actors and university employees may
have committed fraud surrounding admissions at universities.

The University of Texas has a thorough, holistic admissions
process. The actions alleged by federal prosecutors against one UT
employee were not in line with that policy and may have been
criminal. They do not reflect our admissions process.

The University of Texas at Austin was named in a class action suit
by two Stanford University students filed March 14 in Santa Clara
County Superior Court.

Erica Olsen and Kalea Woods filed suit against William "Rick"
Singer, the Key WorldWide Foundation, the Edge College and Career
Network, Stanford University, Yale University, the University of
Southern California, UCLA, the University of San Diego, the
University of Texas at Austin, Wake Forest University and
Georgetown University.

While they are now attending a prestigious school, Olsen and Woods
said they had nearly perfect test scores and had plenty of athletic
skills. When they applied to Yale and USC, respectively, for
example, the application fees were $80 and $85, only to be
rejected. Their suit alleges they were not given a fair chance at
admission because of the alleged bribes.

Olsen, from Henderson, Nevada, and Woods of San Diego, both attend
Stanford. Neither woman could be immediately reached for comment. A
Stanford spokesperson said the "suit is under review."

This appears to be the first lawsuit filed following federal
prosecutors' announcement on March 12 unraveling a nationwide
admissions scandal where parents would pay Singer, an admissions
consultant, millions of dollars to bribe their children's way into
college.

Some of the payouts went to coaches and administrators to falsely
make their children look like star athletes, and Singer also hired
ringers to take college entrance exams for students and paid off
insiders at testing centers to correct students' answers,
authorities said. Singer began cooperating with authorities in
September 2018 and he pleaded guilty on March 12.

"Each of the qualified, rejected students was damaged by the
fraudulent and negligent conduct of the defendants, in that, at a
minimum, each class member paid college admission application fees
to the defendant universities without any understanding or warning
that unqualified students were slipping in through the back door of
the admissions process by committing fraud, bribery, cheating and
dishonesty," the suit contends.

The suit alleges that as a result of the fraudulent bribery
schemes, unqualified students got into these highly selective
universities while "those students who played by the rules and did
not have college-bribing parents were denied admission."

The universities, the suit contends, were "negligent in failing to
maintain adequate protocols and security measures in place to
guarantee the sanctity of the college admissions process and to
ensure that their own employees were not engaged in these type of
bribery schemes."

Stanford University was specifically caught up in the scandal after
the school's now-fired sailing coach John Vandemoer pleaded guilty
on March 12 to accepting bribes.

MORE: UT Austin dismisses head men's tennis coach amid widespread
admissions bribery scandal

According to a federal complaint announced on March 12, the
41-year-old coach agreed to hold open coveted admission spots at
the highly competitive university for two applicants falsely
portrayed as competitive sailors in exchange for payments to the
sailing program. The students ultimately declined to enroll at
Stanford, but the indictment alleges the sailing program received
payments totaling $270,000 to fraudulently admit an unworthy
applicant.

Stanford was not charged in the case, being prosecuted out of
Boston, and neither were any of the schools or students where the
alleged bribes took place.

In a statement on March 12, President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and
Provost Persis Drell, wrote: "Let us be clear: The conduct reported
in this case is absolutely contrary to Stanford's values, and to
the norms this university has lived by for decades. The news is a
shock exactly because it so clearly violates our institutional
expectations for ethical conduct." [GN]


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: 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 Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: VNDA) ("Vanda" or the "Company")
securities during the period between November 4, 2015 to February
11, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 26,
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 Vanda 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 Vanda was engaged
in a fraudulent scheme in which the Company promoted the off-label
use of its two drugs, Fanapt and Hetlioz, that Vanda was
fraudulently receiving drug reimbursements from the government by
abusing Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs, and that Vanda's
promotional materials for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false and
misleading, garnering regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA").

According to the complaint, following an October 22, 2018 Warning
Letter from the FDA, and a February 11, 2019 report announcing a
previous unreported qui tam lawsuit which disclosed Vanda's years
of fraudulent promotion of Fanapt and Hetlioz,  as well as Vanda's
scheme to defraud the government with fraudulent reimbursements,
the value of Vanda shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Vanda securities purchased on or after November 4, 2015 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;

         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]


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Vanda" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VNDA)
between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Vanda shareholders may, no later than April 26, 2019, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Vanda and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299

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 false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Vanda was engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which it
promoted the off-label use of Fanapt and Hetlioz; (2) Vanda was
fraudulently receiving drug reimbursements from the government by
abusing Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs; (3) as a result
of the scheme, Vanda faced legal action from the government; (4)
Vanda's promotional materials for Fanapt and Hetlioz were false and
misleading, garnering regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements
about Vanda's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

On October 22, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
sent Vanda a Warning Letter, addressed to the Company's founder and
Chief Executive Officer, Mihael H. Polymeropoulos.  The Warning
Letter discussed the FDA's review of Vanda's website, which the FDA
found "false and misleading" due to its failure to disclose risks
associated with the Company's products Fanapt and Hetlioz, and in
violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  On this
news, Vanda's stock price fell $2.00 per share, or over 9%, over
the next two trading days, closing at $20.00 per share on October
24, 2018.  Then, on February 11, 2019, Aurelius Value published a
report entitled, "Vanda: In the Land of The Blind, The One-Eyed Man
in King."  This report discussed a previously unreported qui tam
lawsuit which alleged that Vanda had engaged in the fraudulent
promotion of Fanapt and Hetlioz for years, and further alleged that
Vanda had schemed to defraud the government with fraudulent
reimbursements.

On this news, Vanda's stock price fell $0.95 per share, or over 5%,
to close at $18.00 per share on February 11, 2019.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 26,
2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


VERSUM MATERIALS: City of Providence Sues over Entegris Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF PROVIDENCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERSUM MATERIALS, INC.; SEIFOLLAH
GHASEMI; GUILLERMO NOVO; JACQUES CROISETIÈRE; YI HYON PAIK; THOMAS
J. RIORDAN; SUSAN C. SCHNABEL; ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF; and BROADRIDGE
CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019-0206
(Del. Ch., March 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duty in the negotiation, approval and
disclosure of a merger deal with Entegris, Inc., and the
Defendants' response to a third-party, all-cash all shares offer,
including implementation of a Shareholder Rights Plan.

According to the complaint, on January 28, 2019, Versum and
Entegris, announced an all-stock merger, in which Versum
stockholders are promised 1.12 shares of Entegris for each Versum
share, in a deal currently worth about $40 per share. Entegris and
Versum estimated $75 million in annual synergies following closing.
The companies expect the Merger to close in the second-half of
2019. The Merger is subject to, among other conditions, the
approval of Versum's stockholders.

A month after the Merger's announcement, on February 28, 2019,
Versum and Entegris filed a preliminary registration statement on
form S-4 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 27, 2019, Merck KGaA delivered its $48 per share,
all-cash acquisition proposal to Versum's Board, seeking to engage
with the Board and commence due diligence. Merck also stated that
it would accept, except as to price, all the terms of Versum's
Merger Agreement with Entegris.

Rather than a thorough review of the Merck offer, the Versum Board
on the same day, February 27, implemented a "poison pill"
stockholder rights plan, and within hours of learning of the Merck
offer, Versum promptly filed an 8-K and 8-A with the SEC, including
a Rights Agreement dated February 28, 2019, between Versum and
Broadridge, governed by Delaware law.

Under the Poison Pill's terms, the Board declared a dividend of one
preferred share purchase right (a "Right") for each share of common
stock. Each Right entitles the holder to acquire from the Company
for $200 one one-thousandth of a share of Series A Junior
Participating Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Stock"), "subject to
adjustment." In a merger not authorized by the Board, each one
one-thousandth of a share of Preferred Stock would be entitled to
the same per-share consideration as a whole Versum common share.

The Poison Pill contains a "flip in" provision, entitling all
Rights holders other than an Acquiring Person to buy $400 worth, at
market value, of Versum common stock for $200. It also contains a
"flip-over" provision, allowing stockholders of the Company to
purchase, again at half-price, $400 worth, at market value, of
stock of another company that acquires Versum after someone becomes
an Acquiring Person.

On March 1, 2019, one day after announcing the Poison Pill, Versum
announced the Board had rejected Merck's $48 per share all-cash
proposal, claiming that "[a]fter careful review and consideration"
Merck's bid was "not a superior proposal." The Board did not
explain the rationale for its determination that $48 in cash was
not superior to the Merger, which even the Board's financial
advisor said was less valuable.

Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and
handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display
industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China,
Europe, and rest of Asia. Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in
2015 and is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
          Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          Eric J. Juray, Esq.
          PRICKETT JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-6500

               - and -

          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          Grant D. Goodhart, III, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone:(610) 667-7706

               - and -

          Patrick C. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH & PINE
          1 Park Row 5th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903


WALT DISNEY: Rasmussen Asserts Gender Pay Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY,
WALT DISNEY PICTURES, HOLLYWOOD RECORDS, INC., and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10974 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., April 2, 2019) seeks to address the rampant gender pay
discrimination at Disney. Because Disney's pay practices negatively
affect their female co-workers throughout The Walt Disney Studios,
they bring this case as a class action.

When it comes to paying women fairly, The Walt Disney Company,
nearing its 100th year is woefully behind the times. Put simply,
Disney refuses to pay its women employees equal to men doing the
same work. In many instances, Disney is paying women workers tens
of thousands of dollars less than their male counterparts. Disney
caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the
continuation of, the wage rate discrimination based on sex in
violation of the California Fair Pay Act. Moreover, Disney
willfully violated the California Fair Pay Act by intentionally,
knowingly, and deliberately paying Plaintiffs and Class members
less than similarly situated males.

As a result of Disney's conduct and/or Disney's willful, knowing
and intentional discrimination, Plaintiffs and the Class members
have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including but not
limited to, lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss,
as well as non-economic damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are women of color over the age of 18 who worked for the
Defendant.

The Walt Disney Company is the world's largest media company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
     Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
     ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
     155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 986-1400
     Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
     Email: lori@andrusanderson.com
            jennie@andrusanderson.com


WESTCO CHEMICALS: Mismanaged Employees' Fund, Draney Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Draney, individually and on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees,
Plaintiffs, v. Westco Chemicals, Inc., Ezekiel "Alan" Zwillinger
and Steven Zwillinger, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01405, (C.D.
Cal., February 25, 2019), seeks to restore their "plans" to the
position they would have been, enjoin Defendants from further
violations of their fiduciary responsibilities, obligations and
duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Daniel Draney is a participant in the Westco Chemicals, Inc. Profit
Sharing 401(k) Plan and Westco Chemicals Defined Benefit Pension
Plan. He alleges that the plan management failed to provide
participants with statutorily required disclosures about the Plans'
terms, holdings, investments, fees and performance, failed to fund
the Plans as required by law; forfeited participants' accounts that
should have otherwise been 100% vested; failed to provide the
401(k) Plan participants with adequate and prudent investment
options and regularly monitor investment performance and replace
poorly performing investments.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
      Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
      SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
      316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Tel: (213) 814-4940
      Fax: (213) 814-2550
      Email: shoham@soloukisavoy.com
             grant@soloukisavoy.com

             - and -

      Michael C. McKay, Esq.
      MCKAY LAW LLC
      7702E Doubletree Ranch Rd., Ste. 300
      Scottsdale, AZ 85258
      Telephone: (480) 681-7000
      Facsimile: (480) 348-3999
      Email: mmckay@mckaylaw.us


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Order in Famular Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Whirlpool Corporation filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion and order issued on March 18, 2019, in the lawsuit
entitled Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-944, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(White Plains).

The appellate case is titled Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case
No. 19-838, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Whirlpool
appealed from the District Court's amended opinion and order, and
judgment, both dated June 7, 2017.  That appellate case is styled
Famular v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 17-1918.

The lawsuit alleges that Whirlpool falsely labeled as
energy-efficient certain of its washing machines.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Walter Famular, On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (646) 837-7165
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com

Defendant-Petitioner Whirlpool Corporation is represented by:

          Meir Feder, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 326-7870
          E-mail: mfeder@jonesday.com


YRC WORLDWIDE: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, informs investors that there has been a class
action lawsuit filed against YRC Worldwide Inc. ("YRC" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: YRCW) and certain of its officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. Shareholders are
encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more.

The Complaint that was filed in the Northern District of New York
alleges that the Government was systematically overcharged by YRC
for freight carrier services and that YRC entities made false
statements to the Government and to investors that hid their
misconduct.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired YRC securities between March
10, 2014, and December 14, 2018, and have questions about your
legal rights, or possess information relevant to this
investigation, you are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at
(617) 398-5660, by email at info@blockesq.com, or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/yrc[GN]


ZHENJIANG HUAHAI PHARMA: Silberman Sues over Tainted Valsartan
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against several generic
Valsartan drug manufacturers, including Zhejiang Huahai
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Huahai US Inc, and Prinston Pharmaceutical
Inc, raising five causes of action: negligence, breach of express
warranties, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and
fitness for ordinary purpose, manufacturing defect, and failure to
warn. The case is captioned PAULETTE SILBERMAN, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZHEJIANG
HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.; HUAHAI US INC.; PRINSTON
PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a SOLCO HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE
U.S., LLC; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; ACTAVIS LLC; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; THE HARVARD DRUG
GROUP, L.L.C.; MAJOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ARROW PHARM (MALTA)
LTD.; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; TORRENT PRIVATE LIMITED; TORRENT
PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; TORRENT PHARMA, INC.; AUROBINDO PHARMA,
LIMITED; AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.; AUROLIFE PHARMA LLC; AND JOHN
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09348-RBK-JS (D.N.J.,
April 5, 2019).

Plaintiff Paulette Silberman brings this action on behalf of
herself and other Valsartan consumers who consumed Defendants'
generic Valsartan that was contaminated with an IARC- and
EPA-listed probable human carcinogen known as
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and/or an IARC- and EPA-listed
probable human carcinogen known as N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA),
and who suffered cellular damage, genetic harm, developed cancer,
and/or are at an increased risk of developing cancer as a result,
but have not yet been diagnosed with cancer. Silberman seeks
injunctive and monetary relief, including creation of a fund to
finance independent medical monitoring services, including but not
limited to notification to all people exposed to this
contamination, examinations, testing, preventative screening, and
care and treatment of cancer resulting, at least in part, from the
exposure to the NDMA or NDEA contamination.

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides formulations,
active pharmaceutical ingredients, and intermediates in China and
internationally. It was founded in 1989 and is based in Linhai,
China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam M. Slater, Esq.
     MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
     103 Eisenhower Parkway, 2nd Floor
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 228-9898
     Facsimile: (973) 228-0303
     E-mail: aslater@mazieslater.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***