CAR_Public/190430.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 86

                            Headlines

1 CARING PROVIDER: Aides, Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
527 LINCOLN: Faces Collins Class Action
ABBVIE INC: Delays Competition for Humira, Health Plan Claims
ABBVIE INC: Delays Competition for Humira, Welfare Fund Claims
ADMIN RECOVERY: Girardi Asserts Breach of FDCPA

ALLEY NYC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
ALLSTATE CORP: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in Securities Suit
ALLSTATE FIRE: Ayanbadejo Sued Over Deceptive Trade Practices
ALLURA USA: Friday Suit Transferred From Kansas to South Carolina
AMAZON.COM: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California

AMERICO FINANCIAL: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Hancock Suit
APOLLO INTERACTIVE: Hobbs Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls
AQUATIC RENOVATION: Garrett Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
ARMAAN LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Esquivel Says
ARRONDI ENRICHED: Kim Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

ASSET RECOVERY: Sandri Seeks Prelim. Approval of $12K Settlement
ASSOCIATE MD: Progressive Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
ATLANTA, GA: Joyner Files Civil Rights Suit Class Suit
AURORA MEDICAL: Henyard's Bid to Certify Order for Appeal Denied
AVALON SURGERY: Fromer Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads

BANK OF AMERICA: Ohio Carpenters Alleges Price-Fixing of EU Bonds
BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Fund Hits Bonds Price-rigging
BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Corrs Chambers Discusses NSW Court Ruling
BIG LOTS STORE: Benson Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
BOFA SECURITIES: St. Louis Police Files Suit Over Bond Price-fixing

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Ruling in Internet Service Suit under Appeal
CANADA: 2 Law Firms File $3.05-Bil. Lawsuit for First Nations Youth
CARITAS MANAGEMENT: Jaochico Files Class Suit in California
CAVALRY SPV I: Goldklang Asserts Breach of FDCPA
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Greifman Appeals Opinion and Order to 2nd Cir.

CDPQ INFRA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Against REM Disruptions
CHERRY BEKAERT: Carpenters' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Michaels Sues Over False Claims re Multivitamins
CIRCLE K STORES: Naffaa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
CITY OF BARSTOW: Griego Sues Over Unpaid Compensation

CLAIRE'S STORES: Bowman Suit Alleges Misrepresentation
CLEAN HARBORS: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CONAGRA BRANDS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
CONDUENT INC: Wolf Popper Files Class Action Lawsuit
CONNECTICUT: Legislators Press Bill to Learn Hepatitis C Problem

CONSOLIDATED SERVICES: Zick Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CORBUS PHARMA: Wood Says Statements over Lenabasum Drug Misleading
COWORKRS LLC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
CWA LOCAL 4502: Worker Sues Over Forced Union Dues
DASCOR CORP: Spinelli Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wage Compensation

DELOITTE AND TOUCHE: Ciuffitelli Files Class Suit in Oregon
EB2 GOURMET: Martin Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
EDEN MANAGEMENT: Bermudes Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
EDISON LIQUIDATING: Waller Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EEMERGE.NYC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Manzo Suit Removed to C.D. California
ENTERTAINMENT LINK: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
FABRIC.COM INC: Figueroa Suit Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
FALLS TOOL RENTAL: Faces Smith Labor Suit in Ohio
FARM ENTERPRISES: Duncan Alleges ADA Violation

FCA US: Grigorian Moves for Class Certification
FCA US: Sorrentino Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct.
FERROGLOBE PLC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
FISHER-PRICE INC: Kimmel Sues Over Dangerous Infant Sleeper Product
FIVE BELOW: Abdelmessih Sues on Failure to Secure Personal Info

FLIGHT SERVICES: Sued by Millan for not Paying Regular & OT Wages
FOX CORPORATE: Hawkins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FRANCISCAN HEALTH: Underpaid Nursing Staff, Etcheverry Suit Says
G & G ROOFING: Yep Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Appeals Ruling in Booth Suit to 5th Circuit

GENERAL MOTORS: Corvette Z06 Cooling Class Action Can Proceed
GETSWIFT: Clutterbuck, KPT Opt Out of Shareholders' Class Action
HANSEN MEDICAL: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $7.5MM
HARCOURTS INT'L: Faces Valdes Suit over Unsolicited Calls
HILL'S PET: Alberto Sues Over Pet's Untimely Death

HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Flowers Sues Over Housing Act Breach
IKEA: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit in Israel for Male-Only Catalog
INDIANA: Nicole K. Files Class Action v.  Dept. of Child Services
INMATE SERVICES: Removes Stearns Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas
INSTALLATION SQUAD: Gutierrez Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA

IOC-CARUTHERSVILLE LLC: Dunlap Sues Over Unpaid Wages
JACOB LAW GROUP: Johnson Alleges FDCPA Breach
JAY SUITES: Duncan Alleges Disabilities Act Breach
JUST BORN: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Escobar Suit
KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Loughlinon Suit Removed to E.D. New York

KUEHNE + NAGEL: Removes Vasquez Labor Suit to C.D. California
LASER SPINE: Sacked Workers Without Proper Notice Under WARN Act
LASER SPINE: Terminated Workers Without Warning, Embry Suit Asserts
LATSHAW DRILLING: Helenberger Seeks OT Pay for Electricians
LITTLE CUPCAKE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Espinal Suit Says

LYFT INC: Hinson Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Lindsey Files Class Suit in Alabama
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Rodden Claims Conflict of Interest in Merger
MDL 2311: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation
MDL 2741: Tsakrios vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2886: DeVries Suit Consolidated in Allura Product Litigation
MDL 2886: Juvland Suit Consolidated in Allura Product Litigation
MEMBERS 1ST CREDIT: White Balks at Collection of Overdraft Fees
MIDLAND CREDIT: Galino FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
MOBILE RENAL CARE: Humphry Sues Over Unpaid Compensation

MOLSON COORS: Schmier Says Financial Statements Misleading
MONSANTO CO: Bullock Seeks Damages From Roundup Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Dyes Sues Over Inadequate Warnings for Roundup(R)
MONSANTO CO: Faces Mazzeo Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Pearlson Sues Over Inadequate Roundup(R) Warnings

MONSANTO CO: Roundup(R) Did Not Have Enough Warnings, Lewis Says
MONSANTO CO: Sued by Rawls Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bashers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Chalks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Chascos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Courtiers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Evans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Feehans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Gibsons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Glassmans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jennings Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Jones Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Matlocks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Salahs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Shockeys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Wong et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MT. GOX: Former CEO May Avoid Jail Time
NAPHCARE INC: Taylor Seeks Overtime Pay
NATIONAL EXPRESS: Hakeem Suit Removed to N.D. California
NATIONAL PEN: Bukasa Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Corral Hits Illegal Account Debiting
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Hendrickson Asserts Breach of FDCPA
NCAA: Court Grants Trial Win to College-Athletes
NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Workers Drop Class-Action Over Mass Layoffs
NEW YORK: OCA Faces Class Action for Personal Injury

NORTH SHORE: Hinrichs Asserts Breach of FDCPA
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Miller Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
OCEANIC DENTAL: Brite Bite Sues Over TCPA Violation
ORION GROUP: Heck Hits Share Drop Over Misleading Reports
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Hazel Sues Over $660MM Sale Transaction

PAIGE LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Velasco Claims
PAUL MICHAEL: Mertz Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
PILLPACK LLC: Faces Williams Suit over Unsolicited Calls
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Booth FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Otero FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS: Clearview Imaging Sues Over Fee Schedule
RAIN HOME: Sued for Not Paying Health Aides' Overtime Wages
RATCHFORD LAW: Williams Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
REDWOOD CREDIT: Chaiyavong Files Class Suit in California
REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORP: Collins Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls

REPUBLIC PARKING: Abrar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Walton Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Faces Egan Suit Over FLSA & NYLL Violations
SANYO ENERGY: Faces Ziccarello Suit over Defective Solar Panels

SAVERA INDUSTRIES: Lyn Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SMASHBURGER IP: Trevino Files Class Suit in C.D. California
STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Chavez Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
SWIFT TRANSPORTION: To Pay Drivers $100MM After Lawsuit
TCF FINANCIAL: Faces White Suit over Merger Deal with Chemical Fina

TD BANK: Faces Simbulan Suit over Erroneous Credit Reports
TECH MAHINDRA: Class Certification Denied in OT Wages Suit
TICKPICK LLC: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
TRANS EXPRESS: Williams Seeks Unpaid OT for Shuttle Bus Driver
TWILIO INC: BakerHostetler Comments on Calif. Privacy Push Symptom

TWIN AMERICA: Class of CitySights Workers Certified in Ward Suit
TYME TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
U.S. BANK: Ohio TCPA Class Action Resolved
U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION: Women Players File Pay Gap Suit
UBER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Capetown

UBS FINANCIAL: Delia Sues Over Negligence and Breach of Contract
ULTA BEAUTY: BakerHostetler Discusses Class Action Ruling
UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hilaire Says
UNITED MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Spencer, Odroniec Seek Overtime Pay
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Block & Leviton Files Class Action

UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Lawsuit
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Stephens Sues over Debt Collection Practices
USABLE MUTUAL: Brown Seeks Unpaid Wages Under AMWA & FLSA

VALIANT 1915: Figueroa Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Bell Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES: Faces Yu Suit over Data Breach
VOORTMAN COOKIES: Cervantes Suit Removed to S.D. California
VOORTMAN COOKIES: Faces Cervantes Suit Over Labor Code Violation

WEIGHT WATCHERS: May 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
WILSON LUCAS SALES: Nautilus Files Class Suit in South Carolina
WIRECARD AG: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
WM BOLTHOUSE: Felix FDCPA Suit Reply Deadline Moved to May 3
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Jaffee Suit Removed to Nevada Dist. Ct.

YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Admissions Scandal
YINOVA MANAGEMENT: Conner Suit Alleges ADA Violation

                            *********

1 CARING PROVIDER: Aides, Staff Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Williams, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. 1 Caring Provider, Inc. and Wilda Roy, Case No.
4:19-cv-00269 (E.D. Tex., April 10, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying overtime to
the Plaintiff and other nurses' aides and hourly paid health care
staff.

1 Caring Provider, Inc., is a Texas corporation with a principal
place of business in Texas.  Wilda Roy is the owner and manager of
1 Caring.

1 Caring provides specialized nursing care.  The Plaintiff worked
for the Defendants as a nurses' aide and provided nursing services
to 1 Caring's special needs clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


527 LINCOLN: Faces Collins Class Action
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 527 Lincoln Place
LLC. The case is styled as Simone Collins and C. Lee, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 527 Lincoln
Place LLC, Defendant, Case No. 508400/2019 (N.Y. Sup., April 15,
2019).

527 Lincoln Pl is a 7-floor, 24-unit Elevator Building in
Brooklyn's Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Grimble & Loguidice LLC
   217 Broadway Ste 304
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 349-0450


ABBVIE INC: Delays Competition for Humira, Health Plan Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ST. PAUL ELECTRICAL WORKERS' HEALTH PLAN, on behalf of itself and
all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ABBVIE INC.,
ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD, and AMGEN INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02196 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2019), alleges that AbbVie
created a virtually impenetrable patent thicket -- an "absolute
minefield of [intellectual property]" -- to delay competition for
its Humira drug.

According to the lawsuit, AbbVie now has filed more than 240 patent
applications and obtained well over 100 patents ostensibly covering
Humira.  The vast majority of these issued in 2014 or later, even
though Humira was approved and hit the market 12 years earlier.
Many of AbbVie's patents have clear deficiencies; for example, some
of AbbVie's patents have been invalidated by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. But the patents served AbbVie's purpose: creating
a thicket so dense that competitors would have to engage in costly
and time-consuming litigation over dozens upon dozens of patents
before they could launch competing products.

St. Paul Electrical Workers' Health Plan and class members are
end-payers for Humira. They are the last links in the
pharmaceutical distribution chain, and they paid overcharges for
Humira.

Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira among others, is a
medication used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis,
ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis,
psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, uveitis, and juvenile
idiopathic arthritis.

Humira has been the best-selling drug in the United States for six
years running, bringing in more than $13.6 billion in sales in the
U.S. in 2018 and nearly $20 billion worldwide. The original patent
on Humira, a biologic drug approved in the U.S. in 2002, expired in
late 2016, which should have led to competition for Humira
prescriptions from manufacturers of biosimilar drugs.

The lawsuit says AbbVie has been open about its intentions to use
this patent thicket to delay potential competition, talking
publicly about its "U.S. patent estate" and the fact that the "bulk
of [the] IP strategy is designed to make it more difficult for a
biosimilar to follow behind you and come up with a very, very
similar biosimilar. "Bogging potential competitors down in
litigation over the patents meant years-long delay: AbbVie's CEO
told investors that "as you evaluate the timeframe for a potential
U.S. biosimilar market entry, it is important that you consider the
legal process and the likely timeline for resolution. Based on
similar cases, the total litigation timing may be as long as four
or five years."

AbbVie used the patent system to make the costs to any potential
competitor so high that the would-be competitor would not become an
actual competitor. Despite the patents' weaknesses -- and despite
the fact that AbbVie frequently asserted patents that it had no
basis to believe were infringed because many of them claimed
Humira-like compounds but not Humira or the biosimilars themselves
-- the sheer volume of patents and claims in AbbVie's patent
arsenal frustrated biosimilar companies' efforts to come to
market.

The lawsuit also contends AbbVie paid a potential competitor to
delay entry even further. At least nine companies have indicated an
intent to market biosimilars to compete with Humira. Three
currently have approval from the FDA. But none have launched.
Instead, AbbVie entered into deals with each to delay their entry
until various dates in 2023.

Not everyone has the same 2023 entry date, though. Amgen was the
first biosimilar competitor to receive FDA approval, but was not
entitled under the regulatory framework to any period of
exclusivity during which it would be the only biosimilar on the
market. In exchange for Amgen dropping its challenges to AbbVie's
patents and agreeing not to launch its biosimilar product until
January 2023, however, AbbVie provided Amgen with a de facto
exclusivity by agreeing not allow other biosimilars to enter the
market within five months of Amgen. Amgen thus will have five
months as the only biosimilar on the market, enabling it to charge
higher prices and realize hundreds of millions of dollars in higher
profits than it would if it faced competition during this period.
The pay-for-delay deal between AbbVie and Amgen was anticompetitive
and unlawful.

AbbVie Inc. is engaged in the development, sale, and distribution
of a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. AbbVie Inc.
is the holder of Biologic License Application ("BLA") No. 125057
for Humira, whose active pharmaceutical ingredient is the antibody
adalimumab.

Amgen Inc. is engaged in the development, sale, and distribution of
a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. Amgen Inc. is
the holder of Abbreviated Biologic License Application ("ABLA") No.
761204 for Amjevita, whose active pharmaceutical ingredient is the
antibody adalimumab-atto.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed End Payer Class:

          Lisa B. Weinstein, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
          30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: lweinstein@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com
                  delman@gelaw.com

ABBVIE INC: Delays Competition for Humira, Welfare Fund Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRADES SERVICES MN WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE
BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD, and AMGEN INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02182 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2019), seeks to recover
overcharges for the plaintiffs and all similarly situated, as a
result of AbbVie's anticompetitive conduct and Amgen's agreement
not to compete with AbbVie.

The lawsuit claims AbbVie created a virtually impenetrable patent
thicket -- an "absolute minefield of [intellectual property]" -- to
snare and mire down any potential competitor. The more patents --
valid or not -- to contend with, the longer AbbVie could keep
competition for Humira at bay and thus the longer Humira could
command supra-competitive prices.

AbbVie now has filed more than 240 patent applications and obtained
well over 100 patents ostensibly covering Humira. The vast majority
of these issued in 2014 or later, even though Humira was approved
and hit the market twelve years earlier. Many of AbbVie's patents
have clear deficiencies; for example, some of AbbVie's patents have
been invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But the
patents served AbbVie's purpose: creating a thicket so dense that
competitors would have to engage in costly and time-consuming
litigation over dozens upon dozens of patents before they could
launch competing products.

According to the lawsuit, AbbVie has been open about its intentions
to use this patent thicket to delay potential competition, talking
publicly about its "U.S. patent estate" and the fact that the "bulk
of [the] IP strategy is designed to make it more difficult for a
biosimilar to follow behind you and come up with a very, very
similar biosimilar. "Bogging potential competitors down in
litigation over the patents meant years-long delay: AbbVie's CEO
told investors that "as you evaluate the timeframe for a potential
U.S. biosimilar market entry, it is important that you consider the
legal process and the likely timeline for resolution. Based on
similar cases, the total litigation timing may be as long as four
or five years."

AbbVie also paid a potential competitor to delay entry even
further. At least nine companies have indicated an intent to market
biosimilars to compete with Humira. Three currently have approval
from the FDA. But none have launched. Instead, AbbVie entered into
deals with each to delay their entry until various dates in 2023.

Not everyone has the same 2023 entry date, though. Amgen was the
first biosimilar competitor to receive FDA approval, but was not
entitled under the regulatory framework to any period of
exclusivity during which it would be the only biosimilar on the
market. In exchange for Amgen dropping its challenges to AbbVie's
patents and agreeing not to launch its biosimilar product until
January 2023, however, AbbVie provided Amgen with a de facto
exclusivity by agreeing not allow other biosimilars to enter the
market within five months of Amgen. Amgen thus will have five
months as the only biosimilar on the market, enabling it to charge
higher prices and realize hundreds of millions of dollars in higher
profits than it would if it faced competition during this period.
The pay-for-delay deal between AbbVie and Amgen was anticompetitive
and unlawful.

Because of AbbVie's unlawful scheme and monopolization of the
market, AbbVie has continued to reap the benefits of being the
exclusive seller of Humira on the U.S. market, even though the
primary patent on Humira expired at the end of 2016 and the FDA has
approved several biosimilars to compete with Humira.

Humira has been the best-selling drug in the United States for six
years running, bringing in more than $13.6 billion in sales in the
U.S. in 2018 and nearly $20 billion worldwide. The original patent
on Humira, a biologic drug approved in the U.S. in 2002, expired in
late 2016, which should have led to competition for Humira
prescriptions from manufacturers of biosimilar drugs.

Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira among others, is a
medication used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis,
ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis,
psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, uveitis, and juvenile
idiopathic arthritis.

AbbVie Inc. is engaged in the development, sale, and distribution
of a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. AbbVie Inc.
is the holder of Biologic License Application ("BLA") No. 125057
for Humira, whose active pharmaceutical ingredient is the antibody
adalimumab.

Amgen Inc. is engaged in the development, sale, and distribution of
a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. Amgen Inc. is
the holder of Abbreviated Biologic License Application ("ABLA") No.
761204 for Amjevita, whose active pharmaceutical ingredient is the
antibody adalimumab-atto.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed Classes:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 750 1265
          Facsimile: 312 212 5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Elizabeth Odette, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: 612 339 6900
          Facsimile: 612 339 0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  erodette@locklaw.com


ADMIN RECOVERY: Girardi Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Admin Recovery, LLC.
The case is styled as Joseph Girardi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Admin Recovery, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02164 (E.D. N.Y., April 12, 2019).

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

Admin Recovery, LLC is a Debt collection agency in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




ALLEY NYC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------
Alley NYC, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene
Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Alley NYC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03338
(S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2019).

Alley, LLC operates an entrepreneurial hub for small teams,
businesses, and entrepreneurs. It provides physical workspace,
virtual memberships, open workspaces, events, and services. The
company was founded in 2012 and is based in New York, New York and
has additional offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Washington,
District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



ALLSTATE CORP: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Thomas J. Wilson, Allstate Corporation and Matthew E.
Winter filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled In
re: THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:16-cv-10510 (N.D. Ill.).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against The Allstate Corporation and two individual defendants.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Defendants' made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the existence and
reasons for of a large spike in "claims frequency", i.e., the
number of claims filed, against Allstate auto insurance policies.
When the truth was publicly revealed via a series of disclosures
between February and August 2015, Allstate's stock price fell
dramatically, dropping 10% on August 4, 2015 alone, and causing
substantial losses to investors.

The appellate case is captioned as Allstate Corporation, et al. v.
City of St. Clair Shores Police And Fire Retirement System, et al.,
Case No. 19-8009, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents CITY OF PROVIDENCE, CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST
FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA and CARPENTERS ANNUITY TRUST FUND FOR
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA are represented by:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0871
          E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com

Defendants-Petitioners ALLSTATE CORPORATION, THOMAS J. WILSON and
MATTHEW E. WINTER are represented by:

          John J. Clarke, Jr., Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1104
          Telephone: (212) 335-4920
          E-mail: john.clarke@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Yan Grinblat, Esq.
          Kenneth L. Schmetterer, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP
          444 W. Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 368-2183
          E-mail: yan.grinblat@dlapiper.com
                  kenneth.schmetterer@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          David Priebe, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2000 University Avenue
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 833-2056
          E-mail: david.priebe@dlapiper.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Ayanbadejo Sued Over Deceptive Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
John-Henry Ayanbadejo, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. Chanel Goosby, and Allstate Fire & Casualty
Insurance Co., Case No. 2019-18186 (D. Tex., March 12, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Texas
Insurance Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The Defendants violated the DTPA when the Defendants engaged in
false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices that the
Plaintiff relied on. The Plaintiff had switched insurance providers
from his full coverage Farmers Insurance Co. to full coverage
Allstate Indemnity Co. due to the Defendants advertising and the
lower rates offered. The Defendants violated DTPA when the
Defendants withdrew money from the Plaintiff's Wells Fargo Account
and used the illegally obtained funds to pay a 6-month policy of
another customer. The Defendants have also failed to pay any claim
due to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is an individual, with contact address in Harris
County at 10878 Westheimer Road, Unit 143, Houston Texas, 77042.

The Defendant, Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance, is a
multi-billion dollar domestic insurance carrier, authorized to
conduct insurance business in Texas, whose office is located in
2775 Sanders Road, Northfield Township, Il 60062. The Defendant
Chanel Goosby is an individual and adjuster with Allstate Fire &
Casualty Insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Olu McGuiniss Otubusin, Esq.
      LAW CHAMBERS OF MCGUINNIS AND ASSOCIATES
      6430 Richmond Avenue, #350
      Houston, TX 77057
      Tel: (713) 782-6982
      Fax: (713) 782-6984
      E-mail: mcguinnis@sbcglobal.net


ALLURA USA: Friday Suit Transferred From Kansas to South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled JOHN W. FRIDAY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALLURA USA LLC,
PLYCEM USA LLC D/B/A ALLURA, PLYCEM USA, INC., ELEMENTIA USA, INC.,
ELEMENTIA S.A.B. De. C.V., Case No. 2:18-cv-02701, was transferred
on April 9, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (Charleston).

The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01037-DCN to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a class action asserting unfair and deceptive trade
practices in violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act,
negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach
of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.

For these claims, the Plaintiff, on his behalf and on the behalf of
others similarly situated, seeks damages and declaratory relief in
connection with defective fiber cement siding designed,
manufactured, marketed, advertised, produced, distributed, sold,
and delivered by the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany A. Boswell, Esq.
          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: bboswell@simmonsfirm.com
                  mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

Defendants Elementia USA Inc., Elementia S.A.B. de C.V. and Plycem
USA LLC doing business as: Allura are represented by:

          Amy D. Fitts, Esq.
          Edward Benton Keatley, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1895
          Telephone: (816) 218-1255
          E-mail: afitts@polsinelli.com
                  ebkeatley@polsinelli.com



AMAZON.COM: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
SAMILLE R. JOHNSON, MARIE C. LEACH, DARIUS BOYD, and HUSSAM ALJAWAD
as individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; GOLDEN STATE FC LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 30-2019-01053847-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
April 15, 2019, and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00711.

Plaintiffs allege that Amazon maintained "various operational
policies and practices," including internal incentives and
attitudes, that prevented injured or disabled workers from moving
from a white badge given to temporary, part time, or seasonal
workers--to a blue badge--given to "permanent employees".
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that "Defendants' policies and
practices insure that only employees who are demonstrably strong,
fit, who are not injured and not disabled and able to maintain
Defendants' demanding production quotas, and who don't accrue
'points', are able to obtain a blue badge and permanent
employment." Plaintiffs further allege that Amazon "did not
terminate or take same or similar adverse employment actions
against Plaintiffs' younger associates who were performing same or
similar work, under same and similar conditions, even when such
younger employee's production rates were also considered low", says
the complaint.

The Defendants are represented by:

     MICHELE L. MARYOTT, ESQ.
     RACHEL S. BRASS, ESQ.
     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     3161 Michelson Drive
     Irvine, CA 92612-4412
     Phone: 949.451.3800
     Facsimile: 949.451.4220
     Email: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
            rbrass@gibsondunn.com

          - and -

     JASON C. SCHWARTZ, ESQ.
     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20036-5306
     Phone: 202.955.8500
     Facsimile: 202.467.0539
     Email: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com


AMERICO FINANCIAL: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Hancock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William T. Hancock, Sr., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled William Hancock, Sr. v. Americo
Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
7:16-cv-00350-FL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina at Wilmington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Hancock
brought breach of contract, fraud, state RICO, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices claims against the Defendants, arising
out of a life insurance policy Hancock purchased in 1985.

The appellate case is captioned as William Hancock, Sr. v. Americo
Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
19-1374, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on May 20, 2019; and

   -- Response Brief is due on June 19, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM T. HANCOCK, SR., individually and in a
representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Karl J. Amelchenko, Esq.
          Henry Forest Horne, Jr., Esq.
          John Alan Jones, Esq.
          MARTIN & JONES, PLLC
          410 Glenwood Avenue
          Raleigh, NC 27603-0000
          Telephone: (919) 821-0005
          E-mail: email@m-j.com

               - and -

          Mark Russell Sigmon, Esq.
          SIGMON LAW, PLLC
          5 West Hargett Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 451-6311
          Facsimile: (919) 882-9057
          E-mail: mark@sigmonlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees AMERICO FINANCIAL LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, INVESTORS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA and
AMERICO LIFE, INC., are represented by:

          Taylor F. Brinkman, Esq.
          Roger B. Cowie, Esq.
          Carl C. Scherz, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201-0000
          Telephone: (214) 740-8442
          E-mail: tbrinkman@lockelord.com
                  rcowie@lockelord.com
                  cscherz@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Debbie Weston Harden, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
          301 South College Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
          Telephone: (704) 331-4943
          E-mail: debbie.harden@wbd-us.com


APOLLO INTERACTIVE: Hobbs Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Hobbs, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apollo Interactive, Inc. Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00057-CDL (M.D. Ga., April 8, 2019) brought this action
to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal statute enacted in 1991
in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of
intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made automated
telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and other putative class
members without their prior express written consent. Also in
violation of the TCPA, Apollo failed to maintain procedures to
maintain an internal do-not-call list; specifically it failed to
properly identify itself in the telemarketing calls to Mr. Hobbs.
Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds
of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of Apollo, says the complaint.

Apollo Interactive, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in El Segundo, CA.  The company's line
of business includes providing computer related services and
consulting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
     Kris Skaar, Esq.
     SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
     133 Mirramont Lake Drive
     Woodstock, GA 30189
     Phone: (770) 427-5600
     Fax: (404) 601-1855
     Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
            kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com

          - and -

     James M. Feagle, Esq.
     Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq.
     2374 Main Street, Suite B
     Tucker, GA 30084
     Phone: (404) 373-1970
     Fax: (404) 601-1855
     Email: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
            cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com

          - and -

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


AQUATIC RENOVATION: Garrett Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ANTWANN GARRETT and LAWRENCE MAXEY,
individually, and on behalf of all current and former similarly
situated welders, installers, laborers and hourly employees,
Plaintiffs, v. AQUATIC RENOVATION SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a Renosys,
d/b/a RenoSys Corp., and d/b/a Sauna Source, Defendant, Case No.
49D05-1903-PL-012343 was removed from the Marion Superior Court,
Indiana, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana on April 16, 2019, and assigned Case No. 3
1:19-cv-01509-SEB-TAB.

The Complaint includes five separate Counts: Count I (Individual
Indiana Wage Payment Statute), Count II (Class Action Indiana Wage
Payment Statute), Count III (Individual FLSA Overtime Claim), Count
IV (FLSA Collective Action Overtime Claim), and Count V (Individual
Breach of Contract Claims).[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Anthony S. Ridolfo, Esq.
     David J. Bodle, Esq.
     Steven T. Henke, Esq.
     HACKMAN HULETT LLP
     135 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 1610
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: 317-636-5401
     Fax: 317-686-3288
     Email: aridolfo@hhlaw-in.com
            dbolde@hhlaw-in.com
            shenke@hhlaw-in.com


ARMAAN LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Esquivel Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MAROUEL ESQUIVEL and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. ARMAAN LLC d/b/a GROOVY'S PIZZA, VIDAT
ABDULLAH, Case No. 1:19-cv-21323 (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2019),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by
not paying overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Armaan LLC, doing business as Groovy's Pizza, is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within the Southern District of
Florida.  The Individual Defendant is a corporate officer, owner or
manager of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants operate pizza restaurants in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


ARRONDI ENRICHED: Kim Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOONYOUNG KIM on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARRONDI ENRICHED LEARNING AND CONSULTING,
INC. (D/B/A THINK & WRITE), EUNBEE KIM (A/K/A ELLIN KIM), JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-10, and XYZ CORPS 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02114 (E.D. N.Y., April 11, 2019) is an action brought to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, and
other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") on behalf of the employees who
worked for Defendants.

For her duration of employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff was
not paid a salary, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff never received
any overtime compensation for the hours over 40 that she worked
every week. The Defendants regularly did not provide paychecks or
paystubs to Plaintiff. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff
with notices informing her of, inter alia, their rate of pay at the
time of hiring or at any time during their employment with
Defendants, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants from March of 2018 until October of
2018.

Defendant is a New York corporation, licensed to do business in the
State of New York, who employed Plaintiff as a food
preparer/administrator at Defendants' educational after school
program.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Farzad Ramin, Esq.
     KIM & BAE, P.C.
     40-21 Bell Blvd., Second Floor
     Bayside, NY 11361
     Phone: (718) 321-0770
     Fax: (718) 321-0799
     Email: FRamin@kimbae.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Sandri Seeks Prelim. Approval of $12K Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOHN SANDRI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASSET RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-01182-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), files his unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement agreement.

Specifically, Mr. Sandri also asks the Court to enter an order,
which (i) preliminarily approves the Agreement; (ii) certifies for
settlement purposes the Class as defined in Paragraph 8 of the
Agreement; (iii) appoints STERN THOMASSON LLP as Class Counsel;
(iv) appoints him as representative of the Settlement Class; (v)
sets dates for Class Members to seek exclusion from, or object to,
the Settlement; (vi) schedules a hearing for final approval of the
Settlement; (vii) approves the mailing of notice and claim form to
Class Members in the form of Exhibit 1 to Exhibit A, and (viii)
finds the mailing of such notice satisfies the requirements of due
process.

For the purposes of settlement, the Parties stipulate to the
certification of the Settlement Class, which is defined as:

     All persons to whom Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC mailed an
     initial written communication to an address in the State of
     Wisconsin, during the period of August 1, 2017 through
     August 22, 2018, which made a settlement offer for a debt
     owed to Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15 LLC, and
     which stated "[s]hould you choose not to accept this offer,
     the account balance may periodically increase due to the
     addition of accrued interest as provided in your agreement
     with the original creditor."

Asset Recovery will create a class settlement fund of $12,000,
which a Third-Party Settlement Administrator will distribute to
each Class Member whose Class Notice is not returned as
undeliverable and does not exclude him/herself from the Settlement.
Class Members will receive their pro rata share of the Class
Recovery by check which will be void 60 days from the date of
issuance.

Subject to Court approval, Asset Recovery agrees pay $2,000 to the
Plaintiff for his statutory damages, which also considers his
services to the Settlement Class.  In connection with Class
Counsel's application for approval of attorney's fees and costs,
the Parties stipulate that, if the Court grants the Final Order,
then the Litigation is a "successful action" within the meaning of
15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3) notwithstanding that Asset Recovery
does not admit liability.  The Parties have not reached an
agreement regarding Class Counsel fees and costs; however, they
have agreed to continue negotiating in good faith to reach an
agreement regarding Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, including potential mediation, to be submitted for Court
approval at the time of the fairness hearing.

On August 1, 2018, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
class, filed this lawsuit in the District Court.  The Litigation
alleges Asset Recovery violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act by mailing consumers initial collection letters to collect
alleged defaulted and charged-off credit card debts, on behalf of
Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15 LLC, which made a
settlement offer and falsely stated "[s]hould you choose not to
accept this offer, the account balance may periodically increase
due to the addition of accrued interest as provided in your
agreement with the original creditor."[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Francis@SternThomasson.com
                  Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com


ASSOCIATE MD: Progressive Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND REHAB CORP., an Ohio corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. ASSOCIATE MD, LLC, a North Carolina
limited liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-01317-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio, April 8, 2019), challenges the Defendant's alleged practice
of sending "unsolicited advertisements" by facsimile, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Associate MD, LLC, is a North Carolina limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Huntersville, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jdoogan@bardanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


ATLANTA, GA: Joyner Files Civil Rights Suit Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Atlanta. The
case is styled as Terry Joyner, individually, and a CLASS of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. City of Atlanta and Chief
Erika Shields, in her individual capacity, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01669-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 12, 2019).

The lawsuit arises under the Civil Rights Act.

Atlanta is the capital of the U.S. state of Georgia. It played an
important part in both the Civil War and the 1960s Civil Rights
Movement. Atlanta History Center chronicles the city's past, and
the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site is dedicated to
the African-American leader's life and times. Downtown, Centennial
Olympic Park, built for the 1996 Olympics, encompasses the massive
Georgia Aquarium.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Ready Tate, Esq.
   Nexus Caridades Attorneys, Inc.
   The Grant Building, Suite 200
   44 Broad Street, N.W.
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 654-0288
   Email: atate@ndh-law.com

      - and -

   David Edward Betts, Esq.
   Betts & Associates
   The Grant Building, Suite 200
   44 Broad Street, NW
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 577-8888
   Fax: (404) 577-0080
   Email: davidbetts@bettslaw.net

      - and -

   Mario Bernard Williams, Esq.
   Williams Oinonen, LLC
   44 Broad Street NW, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 654-0288
   Email: Mario@goodgeorgialawyer.com




AURORA MEDICAL: Henyard's Bid to Certify Order for Appeal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman issued an order in the lawsuit captioned
PEARL ANN HENYARD v. AURORA MEDICAL CENTER and ACL LABORATORIES,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01108-LA (E.D. Wisc.), denying the Plaintiff's
motion for certification of the Court's May 1, 2018 order for
interlocutory appeal.[CC]



AVALON SURGERY: Fromer Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. Avalon Surgery and Robotic Center, LLC and Medical Acquisition
Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01560 (C.D. Cal., March
4, 2019), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Defendants jointly operate as California Lien Providers, a lien
management and medical funding company specializing in third-party
liability tort cases, providing lien services to medical
professionals, attorneys and clients.

Eric B. Fromer operates a chiropractic service and alleges that the
Defendants sent an unsolicited faxed ad offering their services
without consent.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John R. Habashy, Esq.
     LEXICON LAW, PC
     633 W. Fifth St., 28th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: 213-233-5900
     Fax: 888-373-2107
     Email: john@lexiconlaw.com

            - and -

     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Telephone: (847) 368-1500
     Fax: (847) 368-1501
     Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Ohio Carpenters Alleges Price-Fixing of EU Bonds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit against several financial institutions seeks
treble damages arising from Defendants' and their co-conspirators'
unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix the prices of
European Government Bonds sold to or bought from U.S. investors.

The Defendants' and their co-conspirators' actions to fix prices in
the European Bond Market has injured U.S. investors in European
Government Bonds, caused Plaintiffs and the Class to purchase and
sell European Government Bonds at anticompetitive prices.

From Jan. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2012, the Defendants allegedly
conspired to fix the prices of European Government Bonds by
agreeing to widen the bid-ask spreads they quoted to investors,
thereby artificially increasing the prices investors paid for
European Government Bonds or artificially decreasing the prices at
which investors sold the bonds.

The Defendants and their co-conspirators are horizontal competitors
and the dominant dealers of euro-denominated sovereign debt issued
by European central governments that have adopted the euro as their
official currency, including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.
The financial instruments created by this sovereign debt are
referred to as "European Government Bonds" or "EGBs."

Between 2007 and 2012, the average estimated annual European
Government Bond volume traded in the United States was $253
billion. At the end of 2012, the estimated value of the global
European Government Bond market was approximately $8 trillion.
Major purchasers and holders of European Government Bonds include
institutional investors, mutual funds, hedge funds, and pension
funds in the United States.

However, Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to widen the bid-ask
spreads of European Government Bonds. But for Defendants'
conspiratorial conduct, no primary dealer could widen its bid-ask
prices unilaterally without losing trading business to its
competitors. Moreover, any Defendant that unilaterally quoted wider
bid-ask spreads would have risked drawing the attention of European
central governments, jeopardizing the primary dealer's ability to
secure new business from European Government Bond issuers in the
future, the lawsuit states.

The case is captioned OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL
DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY (F/K/A BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED); MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL; NATWEST
MARKETS PLC (F/K/A THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC); NATWEST MARKETS
SECURITIES INC. (F/K/A RBS SECURITIES INC.); and JOHN DOES 1-50,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02601 (S.D.N.Y., March 22,
2019).[BN]

Attorneys for Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
          Kristen Anderson, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-233-4565
          Facsimile: 619-233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  david.scott@scott-scott.com
                  dbroggi@scott-scott.com
                  kanderson@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Roland R. St. Louis, III
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: 914-997-0500
          Facsimile: 914-997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  rstlouis@lowey.com
                  isloss@lowey.com

               - and -

          Charles Kopel, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: 215 399-4770
          Facsimile: 610 862-9777
          E-mail: ckopel@lowey.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Fund Hits Bonds Price-rigging
------------------------------------------------------
Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, v. Bank of America, N.A.,
Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited, Royal Bank of
Scotland PLC, National Westminster Bank PLC, Natwest Markets
Securities Inc. and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00314 (D. Conn., March 4, 2019), seeks damages for violations
of federal antitrust laws, costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses and such further relief under Section
1 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are accused of unlawfully implementing an
anticompetitive scheme to fix, raise, maintain, stabilize, or
otherwise manipulate the price of Euro-denominated bonds issued by
European central banks sold to or bought from U.S. investors
throughout the United States. Eurozone Government Bonds are
sovereign debt issued by European central governments that have
adopted the Euro as their official currency. Defendants are dealers
of Eurozone Government Bonds competing for customers based on the
prices they offer for the purchase and sale of such.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants agreed to widen the bid-ask
spreads they quoted to customers, thereby increasing the prices
investors paid for the Eurozone Government Bonds or decreasing the
prices at which investors sold the bonds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Slossberg, Esq.
      David L. Belt, Esq.
      Jeffrey P. Nichols, Esq.
      HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
      147 North Broad Street
      P.O. Box 112
      Milford, CT 06460
      Telephone: 203-877-8000
      Facsimile: 203-878-9800
      Email: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
             dbelt@hssklaw.com
             jnichols@hssklaw.com

             - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Himes, Esq.
      Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
             jhimes@labaton.com
             cmcdonald@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             rvandermeulen@labaton.com
             mperez@labaton.com

             - and -

      Deborah H. Renner, Esq.
      Claiborne R. Hane, Esq.
      Pierce Bainbridge, Esq.
      BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
      277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 484-9866
      Email: drenner@piercebainbridge.com
             chane@piercebainbridge.com

             - and -

      Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
      Pierce Bainbridge, Esq.
      BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4400
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 262-9333
      Email: twarren@piercebainbridge.com


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Corrs Chambers Discusses NSW Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Marquet, Esq. -- daniel.marquet@corrs.com.au -- and Barbara
Bell, Esq., of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, in an article for Mondaq,
report that the recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme
Court in Bank of Queensland Ltd v AIG Australia Ltd [2018] NSWSC
1689 (Bank of Queensland decision) highlights the importance of
having a carefully worded and effective aggregation clause to
provide adequate insurance cover in the event of a class action.

In this instance, the Bank's policy had an aggregation clause, but
the Court found that it was ineffective for the Bank. This meant
the Bank had to pay a deductible for each claim in the class action
which meant that it had no cover. The decision shows that
aggregation clauses that are drafted to respond to a series of
related claims may not allow for the aggregation of the multiple
claims making up a class action.

In the current climate, where class actions are on the rise,
insureds should consider at the outset how their policy will
respond in the event that a class action is brought against them.

THE CLASS ACTION
The class action arose from a claim made by Petersen and 191 other
group members against Bank of Queensland, and its agent DDH Graham.
It concerned Money Market Deposit Accounts (MMDA) that were offered
and promoted by the Bank. DDH managed the accounts and promoted
MMDAs to financial planners on behalf of the Bank. The financial
planners commonly acted as authorised signatories on their clients'
accounts.

Petersen and 191 other parties were clients of Sherwin Financial
Planners (SFP). SFP procured these clients to invest in an MMDA and
encouraged them to appoint SFP as an authorised signatory. Peterson
claimed that SFP was operating a Ponzi scheme and had
misappropriated the funds deposited by the clients into their MMDA.
Petersen brought a representative proceeding against the Bank and
DDH, alleging that they had wrongfully allowed withdrawals from the
accounts without the customer's valid authority.

The matter settled at mediation. The Bank agreed to pay Petersen
(on its own behalf and on behalf of the other 191 clients that
signed a Class Member Registration Form) $6 million.

THE INSURANCE DISPUTE
The Bank then faced a dispute with its insurer, AIG. The Bank
argued that the class action was only one claim and therefore, only
one deductible was payable. AIG argued that each affected party had
brought a separate claim, therefore the Bank had 192 deductibles.

THE POLICY
The Bank's Civil Liability Insurance Policy required it to pay a
‘retention' or deductible of $2 million for ‘each and every
claim' which arose. The Policy also provided that the insurer would
only be liable for ‘the amount of loss and defence costs arising
from a claim' in excess of that amount. Accordingly, any claim
costing less than $2 million was effectively uninsured.

‘Claim' was defined in the policy as any suit or proceeding
brought by any person against an Insured for monetary damages or
other relief.

The Policy contained an aggregation clause which provided that:

"For the purposes of this policy all Claims arising out of, based
upon or attributable to one or a series of related Wrongful Acts
shall be considered to be a single Claim…"

The question for the Court was whether the class action was one
claim or 192 claims.

THE DECISION
The Court found that, although there was only one ‘suit or
proceeding' (the Class Action), there were 191 other ‘claims'
made against the Bank, which all came into being when each party
completed the Class Member Registration Form. The Court then
considered whether the claims arose out of one wrongful act or a
series of wrongful acts such that the Bank could benefit from the
aggregation clause.

The Court held that the wrongful acts were the various purported
withdrawals made from the MMDA. Each withdrawal was a separate act,
made on a different occasion, from a different MMDA, causing loss
to different parties and in response to different and separate
purported instructions.

The Court stated that these transactions did not have a
‘sufficient degree' of similarity, an ‘integral relationship'
or the necessary ‘causal' or ‘logical' interconnection to
constitute a ‘series of related' wrongful acts. Therefore, these
withdrawals were not related and they could not be aggregated to a
single claim under the policy.

This Court followed the previous decision of Morgan, Re Brighton
Hall Securities (in liq)[1] in which it was said that ‘the whole
essence of the representative claim is that there are multiple
claims before the court'.[2]

As a result, the Bank was effectively uninsured against the Class
Action – as each of the 192 individual claims in the class action
was worth far less than $2 million.

TEST FOR AGGREGATION OF CLAIMS
In Australia, a class action may be commenced where:

   -- seven or more persons have claims against the same person;
   -- the claims of all those persons are in respect of, or arise
out of, the same, similar or related circumstances; and
   -- the claims of all those persons give rise to a substantial
common issue of law effect.

When an insured faces a class action which may consist of a large
number of small claims, it naturally wants to be in a position
where only one deducible will apply for the entire class action.
This is because the effect of applying deductibles to each claim
may mean that there is in effect no cover under the policy which
would represent a non-commercial outcome.

Unfortunately, as illustrated in the Bank of Queensland decision,
problems can arise where the test for aggregating claims for the
purposes of imposing a deductible under a policy is narrower than
the common factors amongst the class.

Typically, insurance policies allow for the aggregation of claims
which arise from a common origin in some act or event specified by
the clause or from a series of related acts or events.

In our experience, there is no standard form of wording used in the
market and each policy has its own bespoke version of an
aggregation clause. This has led to a number of court decisions
interpreting specific policy wordings.

In Australia, where companies take out insurance for the purpose of
providing cover in respect of class actions, the position taken by
insurers in respect of aggregation clauses in the policies seems
outdated and uncommercial.

In our view, cover should be provided on the basis that a specific
deductible will apply to a class action. Alternatively, existing
aggregation clauses should be amended to bring them into line with
the test used for the aggregation of claims for the purposes of
class actions. [GN]


BIG LOTS STORE: Benson Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Margaret Benson, individually and on behalf of the other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Big Lots Store, Inc., and
PNS Stores Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-00489 (C.D. Calif., March 12,
2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendants routinely obtain and use information from background
reports in connection with their hiring processes without complying
with state and federal mandates for doing so. As part of this
practice, the Defendants provide a requisite disclosure form to
applicants.

The Plaintiff applied for a job with the Defendants on October 17,
2014, in Orange County, California.

The Defendants engaged in commercial transactions throughout this
county, the State of California and the various states of the
United States of America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
      Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
      Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
      Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 556-4811
      Fax: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
              Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
              Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


BOFA SECURITIES: St. Louis Police Files Suit Over Bond Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. BOFA SECURITIES, INC., MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP
PARIBASSECURITIES CORP., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., FTN
FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORP., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, AND UBS SECURITIES LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03122 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2019), arises out of an
alleged conspiracy to fix the prices and restrain competition in
the market for unsecured bonds issued by Government Sponsored
Entities ("GSEs").

A GSE is a quasi-governmental entity established to enhance the
flow of credit to specific sectors of the American economy.
According to the complaint, over the past ten years the Defendants
have been accused of manipulating or conspiring to manipulate a
vast array of financial rates, benchmarks, and instruments. This
case arises out of a conspiracy to fix the prices and restrain
competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by GSEs.

The Defendants have traders in New York, who facilitated and
executed GSE bond transactions with the Class.

BofA Securities, Inc., which was formerly known as BofAML
Securities, Inc. before being rebranded in February 2019, is a
corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal
place of business in New York City.  Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware
with its principal place of business in New York City.

Barclays Capital Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
Connecticut with its principal place of business in New York City.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in New York
City.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York with its principal place of business in New York
City.  Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is a corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of
business in New York City.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in New York
City.  FTN Financial Securities Corp., a subsidiary of First
Tennessee Bank N.A. and formerly known as First Tennessee
Securities Corp., is a corporation organized under the laws of
Tennessee with its principal place of business in Memphis,
Tennessee.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is a corporation organized under the laws
of New York, with its principal place of business in New York City.
J.P. Morgan. Securities LLC, formerly known as J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware with its principal place of business in New York City.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, formerly known as Morgan Stanley & Co.
Inc. until 2011, is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware with its principal place of business in New York City.
UBS Securities LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Delaware with its principal place of business in Stamford,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
          Atara Hirsch, Esq.
          Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
          ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: MTwersky@aftlaw.com
                  AHirsch@aftlaw.com
                  Mguarnero@aftlaw.com


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Ruling in Internet Service Suit under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAUL JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff-Petitioner, vs. CABLEVISION
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and ALTICE, N.V.,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 19-628 (2nd Cir.), is an appeal
filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the
decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York in the lawsuit entitled PAUL JENSEN, individually and on
behalf of all others situated v. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation; ALTICE N.V. and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-00100-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y.).

The putative class action was filed on behalf of subscribers to
internet service provided by Defendants Cablevision Systems
Corporation and Altice N.V. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
used Class Members' wireless routers to broadcast a second, public
Wi-Fi network, without first obtaining their customers'
authorization. Indeed, discovery revealed an "edict" from
Cablevision's CEO to avoid mentioning the signal in marketing
materials and instructions to customer service representatives to
falsely claim the signal could not be disabled. The only purported
disclosure that is even available to consumers is buried in online
terms of service -- the Optimum Online Residential Terms of Service
-- which Plaintiff alleges was not "incorporated by reference" into
the paper work order provided to Class Members at the time of
installation.

The Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt has entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to
      exclude the report and testimony of Dr. Mitchell Smooke;

   2. granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to
      exclude the report and testimony of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck;
      and

   3. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 23.

Altice USA, Inc. is an American cable television provider/multiple
system operator with headquarters in New York City, with broadband,
pay television, telephone services, Wi-Fi hotspot access,
proprietary content and advertising services to approximately 4.9
million residential and business customers in 21 states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Davis Slade, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7 th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          hbates@cbplaw.com
          dslade@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD &
          WADE, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com

               - and -

          M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
          21 THE CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          20 NE Thompson St.
          Portland, Oregon 97212
          Telephone: (503) 928-7611
          Facsimile: (503) 345-7470
          E-mail: ryan@rcaseylaw.com

               - and -

          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.
          18501 Pines Blvd., Suite 209-A
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33029
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: brian@kumussman.com

CANADA: 2 Law Firms File $3.05-Bil. Lawsuit for First Nations Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sotos LLP (Toronto) and Kugler Kandestin LLP (Montreal) have
launched a lawsuit against the Federal Government in Federal Court
seeking $3.05 billion in damages on behalf of First Nations youth,
both on- and off-Reserve, who have been subject to discrimination
by the Federal Government.

The discrimination has taken two forms. First, the Government's
chronic underfunding of First Nations Child and Family Services has
led to epidemic numbers of First Nations youth being removed from
their homes and communities and placed into out-of-home care -- a
practice known as the "Millennial Scoop." Second, the Government's
failure to honour and abide by Jordan's Principle has resulted in
tens of thousands of First Nations youth being denied necessary
services and products due to bureaucratic wrangling over which
level of government (federal or provincial) or which department
within the Federal Government will cover the costs. Both practices
were found by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ("Tribunal") to
constitute systemic discrimination against First Nations youth in
the landmark decision of First Nations Child and Family Caring
Society of Canada et al. v. Canada, 2016 CHRT 2.

This same conduct has been strongly criticized by independent
reviews, reports, and audits, including two reviews by the Auditor
General of Canada, and by the international community. Most
importantly, the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission cited the
Government's underfunding of child youth services on Reserves as
the most serious and pressing concern facing First Nations; the
Commission made this the subject of its first Call to Action. The
third Call to Action in the Report urged the Government to
faithfully honour Jordan's Principle. These clearly prioritized
calls to action underscore the need for this Government to respond
promptly and fairly to the needs of plaintiffs in this class
action.

This Government and its predecessors fought in the Tribunal for
nine years over whether its funding of child and youth services on
Reserves and its failure to comply with Jordan's Principle were
discriminatory. It lost on both counts. The Tribunal found that the
Government had engaged in systemic discrimination against First
Nations youth contrary to section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights
Act. This case asserts legal claims that rest on the same factual
findings as were made by the Tribunal and seeks compensation for
First Nations youth who have been harmed by the conduct.

As the former Minister of Justice stated: "Moving forward with
recognition and reconciliation means we cannot continue to rely on
adversarial court proceedings to lead the way. By issuing this
Directive, our Government is taking transparent and meaningful
action that encourages a shift in legal strategies towards
collaborative approaches which respect the important relationship
between the Crown and Indigenous peoples."

David Sterns, counsel for the class, said: "This class action
provides a clear and pressing opportunity for this Government to
demonstrate its true commitment to these principles, to the Calls
to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and to the
goals of reconciliation with First Nations."

For further case information:

         Sotos LLP
         180 Dundas Street West,
         Suite 1200
         Toronto, Ontario, Canada
         M5G 1Z8
         Phone: 416.977.0007
         Toll-free: 1.888.977.9806
         Fax: 416.977.0717
         Email: info@sotosclassactions.com [GN]


CARITAS MANAGEMENT: Jaochico Files Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caritas Management
Corporation. The case is styled as Cristina Jaochico, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caritas
Management Corporation, a California Corporation and Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC19575243 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco, April 12, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as non exempt complaints.

Caritas Management Corporation is a Property management company in
San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Walter Lewis Haines, Esq.
   United Employees Law Group
   5500 Bolsa Ave, Ste 201
   Huntington Beach, CA 92649
   Tel: (562) 256-1047
   Fax: (562) 256-1006
   Email: whaines@uelglaw.com

      - and -

   Spivak Law Firm
   16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312
   Encino, CA 91436



CAVALRY SPV I: Goldklang Asserts Breach of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry SPV I, LLC.
The case is styled as Rochel Goldklang, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC,
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 7:19-cv-03387 (S.D. N.Y., April 16, 2019).

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

Cavalry SPV I LLC is one of the largest debt buyers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com




CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Greifman Appeals Opinion and Order to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sarah Greifman filed an appeal from the District Court's
opinion and order issued on April 9, 2019, in the lawsuit titled
Greifman v. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-8784, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
asserts violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The
complaint says the Defendant's requested that the Plaintiff make
payment for a debt that she does not owe, which is a false
representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect
any debt.

The appellate case is captioned as Greifman v. Cawley & Bergmann,
LLC, Case No. 19-930, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Sarah Greifman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Michael Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-4799
          E-mail: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

Defendant-Appellee Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, is represented by:

          Donald S. Maurice, Jr., Esq.
          MAURICE WUTSCHER, LLP
          5 Walter East Foran Boulevard
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237-4550
          E-mail: dmaurice@MauriceWutscher.com


CDPQ INFRA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Against REM Disruptions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that a request for authorization to launch
a class-action lawsuit was filed with Quebec Superior Court on
March 7, against the Reseau express metropolitain light-rail
project, which is causing disruptions to commuter trains service on
the Deux-Montagnes and Mascouche lines.

The request was filed in the name of Magali Barre of Laval, who is
being affected by the temporary measures put in place during the
REM's construction. It names CDPQ Infra, Exo and the Autorite
regionale de transport metropolitain, as well as Quebec's attorney
general, as defendants.

If it's authorized, the class action would be in the name of all
residents of the area affected by the interruption of services
along the two train lines.

During the REM's construction, train services will be partially or
totally interrupted for two years because of construction in the
Mount Royal Tunnel. During this period, commuters will be forced to
take buses and the metro.

Lawyers Gerard Samet, Esq., Gabrielle Azran, Esq. and Agathe
Basilio, Esq.–Parra d'Andert, who represent Barre, qualify the
disruption as a "hostage-taking" of the sector's residents, who
will see their commute times more than double.

Barre and her partner bought a home in the Ste-Dorothee sector of
Laval near the train station, and Barre is thinking of leaving her
home to care for her children.

Samet explains that the lawsuit is against the consequences of the
REM's construction rather than the project itself. "We believe that
the accommodation measures are too late, unreasonable and
especially insufficient," he said.

It will be seven to 10 months before Barre's lawyers can appear
before a judge in this matter, Samet estimated. He said they are
ready to listen to offers to improve the situation for his client
and the people the class action hopes to represent.

Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec,CDPQ Infra, which is
responsible for the REM project, did not immediately respond to a
message from La Presse canadienne requesting comment. [GN]


CHERRY BEKAERT: Carpenters' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cherry Bekaert LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01022 (N.D. Ga., March 4, 2019) seeks
redress for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Carpenters Pension Fund purchased MiMedx common stock at the time
when Cherry Bekaert served as MiMedx's independent auditor for
fiscal years 2008 through 2016. MiMedx experienced an explosive
growth from 2012 to 2017. However, MiMedx's growth was predicated
on improper revenue recognition practices in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounted Principles, reporting nearly six years of
materially misleading financial results, as well as issuing
numerous other misstatements and omissions under the watch of
Cherry Bekaert. Cherry Bekaert was dismissed by MiMedx effective
August 4, 2017 and replaced with Ernst & Young LLP.

MiMedx's stock price fell from $18.25 per share on January 29, 2018
to $3.93 per share on July 2, 2018, resulting in millions in
investor losses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Herman, Esq.
      Peter M. Jones, Esq.
      Carlton R. Jones, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Telephone: (404) 504-6500
      Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
      Email: jherman@rgrdlaw.com
             cjones@rgrdlaw.com
             pjones@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
      Hillaryb. Stakem, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: 619/231-1058
      619/231-7423 (fax)
      Email: artl@rgrdlaw.com
             hstakem@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Jack Reise, Esq.
      Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Fax: (561) 750-3364
      Email: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
             sastley@rgrdlaw.com
             eshonson@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      John T. Long, Esq.
      CAVANAGH & O'HARA
      2319 West Jefferson Street
      Springfield, IL 62702
      Telephone: (217) 544-1771
      Fax: (217) 544-9894


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Michaels Sues Over False Claims re Multivitamins
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAIN MICHAEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, and
CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02668 (C.D. Cal., April 8,
2019),  accuses the Defendants of cheating customers by selling
"Complete" multivitamins that promise to provide "Essential"
nutrition, under the brand names Vitafusion and L'il Critters.

However, these purportedly "Complete" multivitamins fail to contain
a number of essential nutrients, including vitamin K, thiamine
(vitamin B-1), riboflavin (vitamin B-2), niacin (vitamin B-3), and
pantothenic acid (vitamin B-5), asserts the Plaintiff.

Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in Ewing, New Jersey.  Church &
Dwight is a major American manufacturer of household products,
including Arm & Hammer baking soda.  As part of its operations,
Church & Dwight is engaged in the processing, manufacturing,
packaging, distribution, and/or sale of Vitafusion and L'il
Critters-brand multivitamins.

CVS Health Corporation is a Rhode Island corporation with its
principal place of business located in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
CVS Health is engaged in the processing, packaging, distribution,
marketing, and/or sale of Vitafusion and L'il Critters
Multivitamins.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., is a Rhode Island corporation with its
principal place of business located in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
CVS Pharmacy is a subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation.  CVS
Pharmacy, Inc. is engaged in the processing, packaging,
distribution, marketing, and/or sale of Vitafusion and L'il
Critters Multivitamins.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com


CIRCLE K STORES: Naffaa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled MOESES NAFFAA,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CIRCLE K STORES, INC., THE CIRCLE K CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
100 inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1906590, was removed on April 8, 2019,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00624 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff filed its original complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino on
March 1, 201.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts five causes
of actions on behalf of himself and on behalf of the putative
class: (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide off-duty
meal and rest breaks or premium pay in lieu thereof; (4) failure to
provide timely itemized wage statements; and (5) failure to timely
pay wages due at termination.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq.
          Stuart H. Kluft, Esq.
          THE VAN VLECK LAW FIRM, LLP
          5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 535
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 920-0259
          Facsimile: (323) 920-0249
          E-mail: bvanvleck@vtzlaw.com
                  skluft@vvlawgroup.com

Defendants Circle K Stores, Inc. and The Circle K Corporation are
represented by:

          Vince M. Verde, Esq.
          Mark F. Lovell, Esq.
          Graham M. Hoerauf, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: vince.verde@ogletree.com
                  mark.lovell@ogletree.com
                  graham.hoerauf@ogletree.com

CITY OF BARSTOW: Griego Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
The complaint JESSE R. GRIEGO, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BARSTOW,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00630 (C.D. Cal., April 8, 2019) seeks
a claim under the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The City of Barstow and the bargaining units representing the
City's employees, including the Plaintiffs, have entered into
agreements set forth in Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs), which
allows for employees to choose a health insurance "cash-out"
option. Defendant is obligated to follow the terms of the MOUs.
Under the City's Benefit Plans, employees of the City, including
Plaintiffs, were entitled to receive "cash-out" payments in
exchange for not using some or all of the medical benefits provided
by the City ("Cash-in-Lieu"). The complaint alleges that the
Defendant has failed to apply the Cash-in-Lieu payments to
Plaintiffs in Plaintiffs' "regular rate" of pay.

The Defendant knew or should have known of their obligation to
include the Cash-in-Lieu payments in employees' regular rate of pay
but nevertheless failed to do so. Thus, Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiffs for overtime compensation at one and one half times
their regular rate of pay. As a result of City not properly paying
the overtime by the pay check following the pay period it was
earned, City has also violated the FLSA by not timely paying
overtime to Plaintiffs. The Defendant acted voluntarily and
deliberately in maintaining an intentional practice of failing to
compensate Plaintiffs in accordance with the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are United States citizens and are either currently or
formerly employed by the Defendant, City of Barstow.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dieter C. Dammeier, Esq.
     DAMMEIER LAW FIRM
     9431 Haven Avenue, Suite 232
     Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
     Phone: (909) 240-9525
     Facsimile: (909) 912-1901
     Email: Dieter@DammeierLaw.com


CLAIRE'S STORES: Bowman Suit Alleges Misrepresentation
------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Bowman and Angela Cosgrove, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Claire's Stores, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-01459 (E.D. N.Y., March 13, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law,
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Consumer
Protection Statutes of Other States and Territories.

The Defendant misrepresented its products' composition by failing
to disclose the presence of asbestos, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased one or more of the Defendant's product for
personal use.

The Defendant manufactures, imports, packages, distributes, labels
and sells cosmetic products including eye shadows, compact powders
and contour palettes under the "Claire's" brand and has almost one
billion female customers worldwide who rely on it for obtaining
cosmetic and aesthetic-enhancement products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Fax: (516) 234-7800
      E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


CLEAN HARBORS: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Harris, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Clean Harbors Industrial Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00172 (E.D. Tex., April 8, 2019) is a
lawsuit brought to recover unpaid wages from the Defendant.

The lawsuit alleges that Clean Harbors violated the California
Labor Code by employing Mr. Harris and other similarly situated
non-exempt employees and not paying them overtime at one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay (1) when they worked more
than eight hours in a day and (2) for the first eight hours of work
on the seventh day of the workweek.

Mr. Harris was employed by the Defendant as a vacuum truck driver
during the last three years.

Clean Harbors provides environmental, energy and industrial
services, including hazardous waste disposal, to customers
throughout North America and Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     Bridget Davidson, Esq.
     Lyric Centre
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


CONAGRA BRANDS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Conagra Brands, Inc. ("Conagra" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CAG) and certain of its officers and directors.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, and indexed under 19-cv-01805, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other
than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, Conagra common stock from June 27, 2018 through December
19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").  The Exchange Act claims allege that certain defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price.

The action is also brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased shares of Conagra's common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading registration
statement, prospectus and prospectus supplement (the "Offering
Documents") issued in connection with the Company's secondary
public offering commenced on or about October 9, 2018, for the sale
of approximately 16.3 million shares of Conagra common stock (the
"SPO"), at $35.25 per share, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Conagra securities between
June 27, 2018, and December 19, 2018, you have until April 23,
2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Conagra manufactures and markets packaged foods for retail
consumers, restaurants and institutions.  The Company has a
portfolio of well-known food brands including Reddi-wip, Hunt's,
Healthy Choice, Slim Jim and Orville Redenbacher's.  Conagra is
based in Chicago, Illinois.

In January 2013, Conagra acquired Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., a
manufacturer of private branded food, for $6.8 billion including
debt.  After trying and failing to address executional shortfalls
and customer service issues, Conagra divested its Private Brands
business in February 2016 to TreeHouse Foods for $2.7 billion,
recognizing a substantial loss.

Less than two years later, Conagra was again acquiring another
large publicly traded food service company.  On June 27, 2018,
Conagra announced the acquisition of Pinnacle in a cash and stock
transaction valued at approximately $10.9 billion (the
"Transaction").

At the time of the Transaction and throughout the Class Period,
Conagra represented the merger as a combination of two "growing
portfolios" and "a no brainer of a deal" that would enhance
Conagra's multi-year transformation plan and expand its presence
and capabilities in its most strategic categories, including frozen
foods and snacks.  Conagra highlighted their due diligence of the
deal, the similar cultures and work ethics of the two companies,
and the tremendous synergies of the deal.  Specifically, Defendants
represented that the Company was acquiring "a portfolio of
complementary, leading brands" as "the Pinnacle team has done an
absolutely phenomenal job driving innovation and growth here, and
that meant a lot to us."  In addition, Defendants represented that
the Company had a "proven track record of executing strategic
transactions" and "will be able to implement a smooth integration
process," as "we've been very clear-eyed from the beginning" of the
Transaction.

The Complaint alleges that in Conagra's Offering Documents and
throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, including
the troubled acquisition of Pinnacle Foods, Inc. ("Pinnacle").  As
a result of Defendants' wrongful acts, false and misleading
statements and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market
value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages.

On or about October 9, 2018, in order to partially finance the
pending acquisition of Pinnacle, Defendants effectuated a secondary
public offering of 16,312,057 shares of common stock, priced at
$35.25 per share.  In connection with the SPO, Defendants issued
the materially false and/or misleading Offering Documents.  The
Company received net proceeds of approximately $612 million after
underwriters exercised their option of an additional 1,631,206
shares of Conagra common stock.

Unbeknownst to shareholders, however, Conagra and its management
were aware or recklessly disregarded that the Transaction would not
result in the sort of benefits that Defendants had publicly
represented.  Just a few weeks after the closing of the merger, on
December 20, 2018, Conagra stunned the market by releasing its
third quarter 2018 results, as well as an update on the performance
of the newly merged company, which revealed that Pinnacle's
performance had been much worse than Defendants had previously
represented.  In addition, Defendants revealed that Pinnacle's
three leading brands had "suffered sales and distribution losses"
in 2018 and accounted "for the vast majority of Pinnacle's current
challenges" due to self-inflicted subpar innovation and executional
missteps.

As a result of the disclosure, on December 20, 2018, Conagra's
stock price fell $4.81 per share to $24.28, or nearly 17%, wiping
out over $2.3 billion in Conagra's market capitalization.  On the
next trading day, Conagra's stock declined an additional $2.13 per
share, or approximately 8.8%.  In fact, in three trading sessions,
Conagra stock declined $8.13, or nearly 28%, to close at $20.96 on
December 24, 2018.

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


CONDUENT INC: Wolf Popper Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Conduent,
Inc. (NYSE: CNDT) and certain of its officers, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case Number
2:19-cv-08237) on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
Conduent common stock during the period February 21, 2018 through
November 6, 2018, and were damaged thereby.  The Action alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than May 7, 2019 to be appointed lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.

For more information please;

         Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
         Wolf Popper LLP
         Telephone: 877.370.7703
         Fax: 877.370.7704
         Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com [GN]


CONNECTICUT: Legislators Press Bill to Learn Hepatitis C Problem
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Kovner, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that with a
class-action lawsuit supplying some urgency, two state legislators
are pushing a bill that would "study the prevalence" of the
hepatitis C virus among state prisoners and gauge the cost of
screening and testing inmates.

"My hope for the long run is that we can diagnose and treat the
virus in our facilities," said Rep. William Petit, R-Cheshire, a
medical doctor and the ranking House Republican on the
legislature's public health committee. Assuming many prisoners seek
to go back on Medicaid when they get out, "it's the old pay now or
pay more later situation," he said. "A liver transplant down the
line is going to cost 10 times as much as the [hepatitis C]
treatment."

Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown and vice chair of the public health
committee, said the rate of hepatitis C behind bars "is a big
issue, a national issue, that the state needs to get a handle on."

With each course of hepatitis C medication costing $30,000 or more,
and estimates that as many as 15 percent to 30 percent of the
state's 13,349 inmates are infected with the virus, "we need to
look at how to provide screening and treatment in a way that
doesn't bankrupt the state," he said.

Many of the people who have died of intravenous opioid overdoses in
Connecticut served stints in prison, and the sharing of dirty
needles is one of the main ways the virus is spread.

Lesser said he spoke earlier this week about a potential hepatitis
C crisis with the state's new prison chief, Rollin Cook.

"It was one of the first things I asked him: How are you going to
address this?" Lesser said. "And he said it was going to be a
priority. I realize he has to deal with the the takeover of medical
care from UConn Health, but we have to start thinking outside of
the box on this. Can we get the medication in bulk at a lower cost,
as Louisiana seems to be doing?"

Connecticut is one of more than a dozen states contending with
lawsuits alleging a failure to screen for and treat the virus, and
failing to maintain data on prevalence.

Lawyers Kenneth J, Krayeske, Esq. -- attorney@kenkrayeske.com --
and DeVaughn L. Ward, Esq., who brought the hepatitis C lawsuit in
Connecticut, said it's ironic legislators are taking the lead while
the executive branch, in the form of Attorney General William
Tong's office, is fighting every assertion in the lawsuit — some
of which the Lesser-Petit bill seeks to study and understand.

Assistant State Attorney General Steven R. Strom argues in a motion
to have the lawsuit dismissed that "there are no reported decisions
in the United States Supreme Court or this circuit that would
clearly establish a right to the treatment plaintiffs seek or the
other relief contained in their complaint."

Strom also argues that "three of the five current plaintiffs ...
are receiving treatment for HCV."

The lawsuit counters that federal courts have "upheld orders
mandating prisoner access to [direct-acting anti-viral]
treatment."

Both sides are waiting for U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea's
ruling on the state's motion to dismiss.

"Instead of fighting the fact that there's a problem, spend the
time figuring out ways to solve it," Ward said.

Petit said he's been thinking about hepatitis C screening and
treatment as a budget issue for more than a year.

"It's a hot-button issue now and we have something that can cure
it," Petit said. "We have to figure out the cost of treatment."

Petit has said he would lend his expertise and do all he could to
aid the study that is called for in the bill.[GN]


CONSOLIDATED SERVICES: Zick Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH ZICK v. CONSOLIDATED SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
4:19-cv-01305 (S.D. Tex., April 10, 2019), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Consolidated Services of North America, LLC, is a Texas limited
liability company.

CSNA specializes in HVAC, refrigeration, plumbing, and electrical
services; it does business in the territorial jurisdiction of the
Court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  bridget@mooreandassociates.net


CORBUS PHARMA: Wood Says Statements over Lenabasum Drug Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SCHYLER RYOKO WOOD, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. CORBUS PHARMACEUTICAL
HOLDINGS, INC., YUVAL COHEN, and SEAN MORAN, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10600-MBB (D. Mass., March 29, 2019), alleges that
Corbus made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Corbus's drug candidate, Lenabasum, had "failed its
major trials in systemic sclerosis and cystic fibrosis", in
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Corbus Pharmaceutical
Holdings, Inc. securities between November 14, 2016 and February
28, 2019, both dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, Corbus and the Individual Defendants
acted with scienter in that they knew that the public documents and
statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were
materially false and misleading.

As the Corbus Article reveals, Corbus made false and/or misleading
statements with respect to Lenabasum. Corbus changed the primary
efficacy endpoint of the Lenabasum study after the Company was
unblinded to the results, extending the efficacy readout to 16
weeks which was a full 4 weeks after patients were off the
therapy.

Initially, the clinicaltrials.gov page listed the primary endpoint
as Day 85, but after the study was unblinded, the clinical endpoint
was changed to Day 85 and 113. Moreover, Corbus reported a
one-sided p value, not the traditional two-sided p value that is
normally reported in clinical trials, in order to conceal the fact
that the study results did not have statistical significance. The
Corbus article also reveals that the patients who received
Lenabasum were healthier on average than those who received the
placebo, coming into the Phase 2 trial. Thus, given that SSC is "an
extensive and progressive fibrotic disease," patients who were
placed into the placebo arm had a muted placebo response compared
to healthier patients.

Following the release of the Corbus Article, the Company's common
stock price declined by $1.32 per share, or almost 16%, to close at
$6.94 per share on February 28, 2019, the lawsuit says.

Corbus purports to be a Phase 3 clinical-stage pharmaceutical
company focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat inflammatory and fibrotic diseases.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617 936-2796
          E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
                  daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

COWORKRS LLC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Coworkrs LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene
Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Coworkrs LLC and Coworkrs hospitality LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03334 (S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2019).

Coworkrs LLC provides interior designing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CWA LOCAL 4502: Worker Sues Over Forced Union Dues
--------------------------------------------------
National Right to Work Foundation reports that CWA union officials
claim workers can be forced to wait years until end of union
contract before exercising First Amendment rights to stop dues
payments.

A civil servant in Ohio has filed a federal class action lawsuit
with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation staff attorneys against Communication Workers of America
(CWA) Local 4502 for violating her constitutional rights recognized
in the U.S. Supreme Court's Janus v. AFSCME decision by continuing
to seize forced dues from her paycheck.

Connie Pennington, an employee of the city of Columbus, filed the
lawsuit to challenge CWA Local 4502 union officials' "escape
period" policy that blocks her and hundreds of her coworkers from
exercising their constitutional right under the National Right to
Work Foundation-won Janus Supreme Court decision to refrain from
financially supporting the union.

Pennington resigned her union membership and revoked her dues
deduction authorization shortly after the landmark Janus decision.
However, CWA union officials refused to honor her revocation,
instead claiming that she could only stop union dues payments at
the end of their collective bargaining agreement with her employer
in May 2020, leaving her trapped in forced dues for the entirety of
a union monopoly bargaining contract.

Faced with being forced to subsidize the union against her will for
more than a year, Pennington sought free legal aid from Foundation
staff attorneys. Veteran Foundation staff attorney William
Messenger, Esq. who argued the Janus case at the Supreme Court,
sent a letter to CWA Local 4502 union officials for Pennington,
reiterating her dues deduction revocation and explaining that a
policy blocking her from exercising those rights violated the First
Amendment. However, CWA officials continued to refuse to recognize
her revocation and continued to deduct union dues from Pennington's
paycheck.

Pennington filed a class action lawsuit with help from Foundation
staff attorneys challenging the "escape period" policy as
unconstitutional, because the policy limits when she can exercise
her First Amendment rights under Janus and allows CWA Local 4502
officials to collect union dues without her affirmative consent.
Her lawsuit argues that the "escape period" should be eliminated to
allow her and other workers to exercise their Janus rights without
restriction.

Pennington also seeks a refund of union dues forcibly seized after
she had resigned her union membership, as well as for all other
workers whose attempts to exercise their rights under Janus were
blocked by the illegal policy.

In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to require
public employees to subsidize a labor union. The Court further held
that deducting any union dues or fees without a public employee's
affirmative consent violates the employee's First Amendment
rights.

"Ms. Pennington joins many other public sector workers across the
country in standing up to Big Labor's coercion," said Mark Mix,
president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Union
officials have a long history of creating obstacles such as
‘escape period' schemes, arbitrary union-enacted limitations
trapping workers into forced dues. This case shows that the
National Right to Work Foundation must remain vigilant to protect
government employees' rights under Janus."

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are providing
free legal aid to public sector workers in over two dozen cases
across the country to enforce the Janus decision. To assist public
employees in learning about their First Amendment rights under
Janus, the Foundation established a special website:
MyJanusRights.org. [GN]


DASCOR CORP: Spinelli Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wage Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, DOREEN SPINELLI, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DASCOR CORPORATION, a Florida
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60857-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
April 1, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to her were
formerly or are currently employed in various hourly paid positions
by Defendant. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly wage office
administrator for Defendant's plumbing business located in Broward
County, Florida.

From July 2010 until August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff worked more
than 40 hours per week during nearly every week of her employment,
without being paid the federally mandated wage for overtime.
Specifically, the Plaintiff was paid only straight time and
Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff for
all overtime hours worked in excess of forty per week at the
applicable time and one-half rate.

The Defendants pay all of their hourly wage employees in the same
fashion. There are at least thirty other current and former
employees who were paid only straight time for overtime hours, and
are thus owed the half-time premium as well. In addition, these
similarly situated individuals were not paid for all hours worked,
and are therefore owed the full time and half overtime rate for
many, if not all of these hours, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70 th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


DELOITTE AND TOUCHE: Ciuffitelli Files Class Suit in Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deloitte and Touche
LLP. The case is styled as Lawrence P. Ciuffitelli for himself and
as Trustee of Cuiffitelli Revocable Trust, Greg Julien, Angela
Julien, James MacDonald as Co-Trustees of the MacDonald Family
Trust, Susan MacDonald as Co-Trustees of the MacDonald Family
Trust, R.F. MacDonald Co., Andrew Nowak for himself and as Trustee
of the Andrew Nowak Revocable Living Trust U/A 2/20/2002, Greg
Warrick for himself and, as Co-Trustees of the Warrick Family
Trust, Susan Warrick, as Co-Trustees of the Warrick Family Trust
and William Ramstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Deloitte and Touche LLP,
EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, TonkonTorp LLP, TD Ameritrade,
Inc., Integrity Bank and Trust, Duff and Phelps, LLC and Clifton
Larsen Allen Wealth Advisors, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-mc-00332-AC (D. Or., April 17, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, commonly referred to as Deloitte,
is a multinational professional services network. Deloitte is one
of the "Big Four" accounting organizations and the largest
professional services network in the world by revenue and number of
professionals.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

   Peter Allen Wald, Esq.
   Latham and Watkins LLP
   505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 391-0600
   Fax: (415) 395-8095

      - and -

   Eric Chen, Esq.
   Latham and Watkins LLP
   505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 391-0600
   Fax: (415) 395-8095

      - and -

   Gavin Mitchel Masuda, Esq.
   Latham and Watkins LLP
   505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 391-0600
   Fax: (415) 395-8095

      - and -

   Nicole Charlene Valco, Esq.
   Latham and Watkins LLP
   505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 391-0600
   Fax: (415) 395-8095



EB2 GOURMET: Martin Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CISE MARTIN, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v.
EB2 GOURMET, INC. d/b/a TURKISS, MELEK ESRA CAVUSOGLU, BOGAC
DUMANKAYA, CEM BURAK DUMANKAYA, and MAX UNKER, Case No.
1:19-cv-03114 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2019), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, she and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid wages and liquidated damages,
among other costs.

EB2 Gourmet Inc., doing business as Turkiss, is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of New York State, with a
principal place of business located in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants are owners or managers of Turkiss.

Turkiss is a restaurant located at 104 MacDougal Street, in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EDEN MANAGEMENT: Bermudes Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Bermudes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eden Management, LLC, Case No. 2019CH03300 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., March 13, 2019), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendant violated the terms of BIPA by failing to provide its
employees with a written, publicly available policy identifying its
retention schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying its
employees' handprints when the initial purpose for collecting or
obtaining their handprints is no longer relevant. The Defendant's
collection, storing and usage of the biometric identifiers and
biometric information has violated the Plaintiff's and the Class'
rights to privacy in their biometric identifiers and biometric
information.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Illinois who worked for Defendant through mid-2018.

The Defendant is an Illinois limited liability company that has
operated in Illinois, including in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Fish, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com


EDISON LIQUIDATING: Waller Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Waller, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Edison Liquidating, LLC and Nae
Edison, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 152254/2019, (N.Y. Sup., New York
Cty., March 4, 2019), seeks to recover wages and benefits which
Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
pursuant to New York Labor Law, New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations, New York Public Health Law and Title 6, Section 6-109
of the New York City Administrative Code.

Edison Liquidating operates as Edison Home Health Care where Waller
worked as a home health aide, providing personal care, assistance,
health-related tasks and other home care services to clients within
the State of New York. Waller worked 24-hour shifts, generally
working more than 40 hours per week but was only paid for
approximately 13 hours of her 24-hours shifts. She was forced to
eat her meals between her daily duties and did not receive the
"spread of hours" premium of one additional hour at the minimum
wage rate for the days in which she worked 10 or more hours, notes
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Joel L. Goldenberg, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: llusher@vandallp.com


EEMERGE.NYC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Eemerge.NYC LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene
Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Eemerge.NYC LLC and SL Green Realty Corp., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03336 (S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2019).

SL Green Realty Corp. is a real estate investment trust that
primarily invests in office buildings and shopping centers in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Manzo Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ESPERANZA LOPEZ MANZO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENERGIZER
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ENERGIZER MANUFACTURING,
INC., a Delaware corporation; ENERGIZER, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV06344 was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on April 12, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02844.

Plaintiff's Complaint contains claims for: (1) violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) two claims for
alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL);
(3) violations of the California False Advertising Law (FAL); and
(4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, says the
complaint.

The Defendants are represented by:

     ROBERT J. HERRINGTON, ESQ.
     SHELLEE E. LINDSTEDT, ESQ.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 586-7700
     Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
     Email: HerringtonR@gtlaw.com
            LindstedtS@gtlaw.com


ENTERTAINMENT LINK: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entertainment Link LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Entertainment Link LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03267 (S.D. N.Y., April 11, 2019).

Entertainment Link LLC is an event ticket seller in New York City,
New York.[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




FABRIC.COM INC: Figueroa Suit Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric.com, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose
Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Fabric.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03269
(S.D. N.Y., April 11, 2019).

Fabric.com, Inc. operates as an online fabric store. It offers
various fabrics, including apparel and fashion, quilting, apparel
sewing, and home decorating. The company provides various notions
and patterns, such as wedding and eveningwear, dress, skirt, pant
and short, shirt and top, coat and jacket, activewear, loungewear,
lingerie, maternity, infant and toddler, children&apos's, handbag
and purse, fashion accessory, quilting, home decor and
organization, kitchen and tabletop accessory, and toy and
crafts.[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


FALLS TOOL RENTAL: Faces Smith Labor Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Falls Tool Rental Company (FTRC) and Thomas M. Overfield, Jr. for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Constitution.
The case is captioned RANDY SMITH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FALLS TOOL RENTAL
COMPANY, and THOMAS M. OVERFIELD, JR., Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00819 (N.D. Ohio, April 12, 2019).  Smith accuses Defendant
FTRC of underpayment of overtime and minimum wages to non-exempt
employees.

FTRC is a for-profit Ohio corporation that is registered to conduct
business in Ohio. Its principal place of business is located in
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. Thomas Overfield is the owner and the
corporate president of FTRC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


FARM ENTERPRISES: Duncan Alleges ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------
The Farm Enterprises, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Farm Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03333 (S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2019).

Farm Enterprises LLC is a local farmers' market in Lexington,
Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


FCA US: Grigorian Moves for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARIAM GRIGORIAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA
US, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, Defendant v. MUDD,
INC. d/b/a Mudd Advertising, Third-Party Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-24364-MGC (S.D. Fla.), moves the Court to certify this
class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

     All persons within the United States who, within the four
     years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a
     prerecorded message, from Defendant through Mudd, Inc.,
     advertising Defendant's Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, to said
     person's cellular telephone number.

Ms. Grigorian also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
representative, and appoint Hiraldo PA and Edelsberg Law as Class
counsel.

This case concerns FCA's alleged blatant disregard for the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the use of powerful
technology to bombard individuals with unwanted, prerecorded
telemarketing calls.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          2875 NE 191st St., #703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

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


FCA US: Sorrentino Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
Defendant FCA US LLC removed on April 9, 2019, the lawsuit entitled
Sorrentino v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No.
50-02019-CA-003429-XXXX-MB, from the 15th Judicial Circuit in and
for Palm Beach County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (West Palm Beach).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:19-cv-80490-RLR to the
proceeding.[BN]

Plaintiff Claudio Sorrentino, an individual, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
          12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
          Miami, FL 33186
          Telephone: (305) 234-2060
          Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
          E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
                  elizabeth@beckandlee.com

Defendant FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, is
represented by:

          Michael Roland Holt, Esq.
          Scott M. Sarason, Esq.
          RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL
          Brickell Bayview Centre
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33130-3047
          Telephone: (305) 358-5577
          E-mail: mholt@rumberger.com
                  ssarason@rumberger.com


FERROGLOBE PLC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ferroglobe PLC ("Ferroglobe" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
GSM) and certain of its officers and directors.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and indexed under 19-cv-02368, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Ferroglobe
securities between August 21, 2018 and November 26, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ferroglobe securities during
the class period, you have until March 25, 2019, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Ferroglobe purports to produce silicon metal, silicon-based alloys,
and manganese-based alloys and to sell products such as aluminum,
silicone compounds, automotive parts, photovoltaic cells,
electronic semiconductors, and steel.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) there was excess supply of the
Company's products; (ii) demand for the Company's products was
declining; (iii) consequently, the pricing of the Company's
products would be materially impacted; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 26, 2018, the Company reported a net loss of $2.9
million for the third quarter 2018, compared to a net profit of
$66.0 million the prior quarter.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.97 per share, more
than 62%, to close at $1.80 per share on November 27, 2018, on
unusually high trading volume.

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


FISHER-PRICE INC: Kimmel Sues Over Dangerous Infant Sleeper Product
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Candace Kimmel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and Mattel, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-09613 (D. N.J., April 11, 2019) is
action on behalf of plaintiff and all other persons who purchased
the Fisher-Price Rock n' Play Sleeper between January 1, 2009 to
the present, seeking redress under New Jersey and federal law.

The Fisher-Price Rock n' Play Sleeper is an inclined infant
"sleeper" that Defendants market as suitable for all night and
prolonged sleep. However, as Defendants were recently forced to
admit, the Rock n' Play Sleeper has caused at least ten infant
deaths since 2015, and, because infant "deaths continue to occur",
the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") "is recommending
consumers to stop use of the product by three months of age, or as
an infant exhibits rollover capabilities".

The Defendants have known about these risks for as long as they
have sold the Rock n' Play Sleeper, asserts the complaint. Among
other things, the American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP") and other
infant sleep experts have repeatedly issued warnings about the
dangers of inclined sleepers, including the Rock n' Play Sleeper.
Further, in 2011, the Canadian and Australian governments refused
to allow Defendants to sell the Rock n' Play Sleeper as a "sleeper"
due to its dangers. Defendants have also been sued in connection
with infants deaths in the Rock n' Play Sleeper. Nonetheless,
Defendants kept on marketing the Rock n' Play Sleeper as a sleeper
in the united States, unconsciously exposing their customers' babes
to the known risk of death and injury.

Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware of the
potentially fatal dangers and other risks posed by Defendants' Rock
n' Play Sleeper, they would not have purchased them or paid for
them as much as they did, says the complaint.

Candace Kimmel purchased a Rock n' Play Sleeper for her infant
daughter in September 2017.

Defendants manufactures and markets products for infants and
preschool children to consumers throughout the united States,
including the state of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
     DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
     5 Greentree Centre
     525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
     Marlton, NJ 08053
     Phone: 856-797-9951
     Fax: 856-797-998
     Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


FIVE BELOW: Abdelmessih Sues on Failure to Secure Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Abdelmessih individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Five Below, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01487-JP (E.D. Pa., April 8, 2019) is a putative class
action lawsuit brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to
properly secure and safeguard the payment card data ("PCD") and
personally identifiable information ("PII") of its on-line
customers and for alleged failure to provide them timely, accurate
and adequate notice that such information had been compromised.

On or about February 14, 2019, Five Below publicly revealed that
"customers' payment card information, including name, address,
credit card number, expiration date, and security code (CVD)" had
been compromised, accessed and subsequently stolen by an
unauthorized third party. According to the announcement, the Data
Breach was first noticed by Five Below on January 11, 2019, and
subsequently confirmed on January 17, 2019. Despite this, neither
affected consumers, not the public, were informed of the Data
Breach for another month, during which time the unauthorized third
parties had unfettered use of th Consumer Data.

Five Below disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class members
by: (1) intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take adequate and reasonable measure to ensure its data
systems were protected; failing to disclose the material fact that
it neither had adequate security practices, nor sufficient
safeguards in place to protect the Customer Data with which was
entrusted; (2) failing to take available steps to prevent the Data
Breach; (3) failing to monitor and timely detect the Data  Breach;
and (4) failing to provide Plaintiff and putative class members
prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. As a result of the
defendant's failure to implement and follow standard security
procedures, Plaintiff's and Class members' Customer Data is in the
hands of thieves, says the complaint.

Plaintiff made a purchase through Five Below's website located at
www.fivebelow.com between November 13, 2018 and January 11, 2019.

Five Below is dedicated to retail sales of teen and pre-teen
merchandise under five dollars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
     Phone: (215) 592-1500
     Fax: (215) 592-4663
     Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


FLIGHT SERVICES: Sued by Millan for not Paying Regular & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE MILLAN, and others similarly situated v. FLIGHT SERVICES AND
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-10667 (D. Mass., April 8, 2019),
alleges that in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the
Massachusetts Overtime Laws, FSS failed to pay the Plaintiff and
other workers for all of the hours that they worked in a pay period
and/or work week, resulting in a failure to compensate them for
their appropriate regular wages and overtime wage rate.

FSS is a foreign corporation registered and engaged in commerce in
Massachusetts.  FSS has its principal place of business and
corporate headquarters located in Cleveland, Ohio.

FSS provides aviation staffing and technology solutions partner for
airlines and airports.  The Company offers service in the areas of
passenger experience, ground handling, and airport security and
safety.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard H. Kesten, Esq.
          Samuel Perkins, Esq.
          Michael Stefanilo, Jr., Esq.
          BRODY HARDOON PERKINS & KESTEN, LLP
          699 Boylston Street, 12th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 880-7100
          E-mail: lkesten@bhpklaw.com
                  sperkins@bhpklaw.com
                  mstefanilo@bhpklaw.com


FOX CORPORATE: Hawkins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
The complaint, Misty Hawkins, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants,
Plaintiff, v. Fox Corporate Housing, LLC and Tanya Leach,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01270 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2019),
seeks unpaid over time wages from the Defendants.

Ms. Hawkins worked for FCH as a senior account executive in August
2017 and worked regularly for more than 40 hours per week. Ms.
Hawkins alleged that she was not paid one and one-half times her
regular hourly rate for every hour she worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek during the Relevant Time Period. The complaint avers
that the Defendants owe Ms. Hawkins unpaid wages for unpaid
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Defendant Fox Corporate Housing, LLC ("FCH") is a Texas domestic
limited liability company with its principal place of business in
The Woodlands, Montgomery County, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     G. SCOTT FIDDLER, ESQ.
     HARRIS J. HUGUENARD, ESQ.
     JACKSON WALKER LLP
     1401 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
     Houston, TX 77010
     Phone: 713-752-4217
     Fax: 713-754-6717
     Email: sfiddler@jw.com
            hhuguenard@jw.com


FRANCISCAN HEALTH: Underpaid Nursing Staff, Etcheverry Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HANA ETCHEVERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRANCISCAN HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A CHI FRANCISCAN HEALTH,
FRANCISCAN MEDICAL GROUP, FRANCISCAN HEALTH VENTURES, HARRISON
MEDICAL CENTER, and HARRISON MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION, Case No.
3:19-cv-05261 (W.D. Wash., April 9, 2019), alleges that the
Plaintiff and similarly situated nursing staff have been denied
proper payment for all hours worked, including overtime, and have
been denied meal and rest periods in compliance with Washington law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Franciscan Health System, doing business as CHI Franciscan Health,
is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Washington with its headquarters located in in Tacoma,
Washington.  FHS's sole voting member is non-defendant CHI, a
Colorado non-profit corporation.

Headquartered in Tacoma, Washington, Franciscan Medical Group, also
doing business as CHI Franciscan Health, is a non-profit
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Washington.
Franciscan Medical Group's sole member is Defendant FHS.
Operationally, Franciscan Medical Group functions as the
wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant FHS.

Franciscan Health Ventures is a foreign non-profit corporation
doing business in Washington, with its principal office located in
Tacoma.

Harrison Medical Center is a non-profit corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Washington.  Harrison Medical Center
operates a hospital campus and clinics with its principal office
address located in Bremerton, Washington.  Harrison Medical Center
Foundation is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under
the laws of Washington.  Harrison Medical Center and Harrison
Medical Center Foundation are owned and operated by Defendant FHS.

The Defendants operate a network of hospitals and clinics that
provide healthcare services throughout the state of Washington.
The Defendants employ hundreds of hourly non-exempt workers
similarly situated to the Plaintiff across these hospital and
clinical facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  whogg@schneiderwallace.com


G & G ROOFING: Yep Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
WALTHER G. YEP, And other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff (s), v. G & G ROOFING CONSTRUCTION, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 6:19-cv-00604 (M.D. Fla., March 29, 2019), seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant. He and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to him, worked in excess of 40
hours during one or more weeks on or after September 2018 without
being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, the lawsuit
says.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not clock in and out,
the Defendant was in control of Plaintiff's working hours, through
his supervisor and foreman and because every day Plaintiff had to
wait to be transported to the workplace in a Company vehicle, and
at the end of his shift he was returned to his original pick up
point. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, and
other similarly situated employees, overtime hours at the rate of
time and a half his regular rate, in violation of the FLSA. The
Plaintiff was paid with checks and paystubs that did not reflect
the number of days and hours worked. Plaintiff was paid by direct
deposits.

G & G Roofing is a general construction contractor, specialized in
residential, commercial, and industrial new roofing construction,
roofing replacement, and roofing restorations.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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


GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Appeals Ruling in Booth Suit to 5th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Galveston County filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Aaron Booth v. Galveston County, Case No.
3:18-CV-104, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Galveston.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 2, 2019,
Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison recommended that the Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Class Certification be granted.

The lawsuit concerns Galveston County's pretrial detention system.
Booth was arrested and charged with felony drug possession in
Galveston County in April 2018.  After his arrest, Booth claims his
bail was set at $20,000 in accordance with the County's standard
operating procedures.  Booth was dissatisfied with this bail
determination because he believed that the County's standard
operating procedure resulted in arrestees being routinely detained
before trial solely due to their inability to pay bail in violation
of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United
States Constitution.

The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Booth v. Galveston County,
Case No. 19-90009, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent AARON BOOTH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2400
          Telephone: (212) 284-7364
          E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org

               - and -

          Kali Cohn, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          6440 N. Central Expressway
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 346-6577
          E-mail: kcohn@aclutx.org

               - and -

          Andre Segura, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS
          P.O. Box 8306
          Houston, TX 77288
          Telephone: (713) 325-7012
          E-mail: asegura@aclu.org

               - and -

          Adriana Cecilia Pinon, Esq.
          Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS
          1500 McGowen Street
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          E-mail: apinon@aclutx.org
                  ttrigilio@aclutx.org

               - and -

          Christopher Odell, Esq.
          Hannah DeMarco Sibiski, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002-2755
          Telephone: (713) 576-2416
          E-mail: christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com
                  hannah.sibiski@arnoldporter.com

Defendant-Petitioner GALVESTON COUNTY is represented by:

          Robert Barron Boemer, Esq.
          GALVESTON COUNTY LEGAL DEPARTMENT
          722 Moody Avenue
          Galveston, TX 77550-2317
          Telephone: (409) 770-5566
          E-mail: Bob.Boemer@co.galveston.tx.us

               - and -

          Norman Ray Giles, Esq.
          LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, L.L.P.
          24 Greenway Plaza
          Weslayan Tower
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (832) 460-4637
          E-mail: Norman.Giles@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Nixon, Esq.
          Paul A. Ready, Esq.
          BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, L.L.P.
          1300 Post Oak Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 871-6809
          E-mail: jnixon@bmpllp.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Corvette Z06 Cooling Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Joseph, writing for CarBuzz, reports that the District Court
ruling says GM had to have been aware of defective cooling system.

A lawsuit filed against General Motors by a group of disgruntled
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 owners has been given the green proceed in
court after a federal judge reviewed the case.

United States District Judge Victoria A. Robert for the Eastern
District of Michigan ruled on March 29 that "it would be
implausible to infer that GM was not aware of the car's alleged
defective cooling system as a result of its testing." This
according to a statement released by the law firm of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs in the
class action.

Showing just how slowly the wheels (of justice in this case) can
turn, the origins of the lawsuit date back nearly two years now to
June of 2017. According to the complaint, a defective cooling
system in the 6.2-liter supercharged V8 engine powering the 2015-17
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is prone to overheat, causing the vehicle to
enter a protective "Limp Mode" after 15 minutes of driving on the
track.

Hagens Berman alleges that GM knew the vehicles weren't up to the
task, and marketed them as track-ready anyway. It's seeking
monetary damages as well as "injunctive relief" on behalf of some
30,000 owners under various state laws. [GN]


GETSWIFT: Clutterbuck, KPT Opt Out of Shareholders' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clutterbuck Capital Management LLC, along with KPT Capital LLC,
released the following letter announcing their decisions to opt out
of the current GetSwift (ASX: GSW) class action and to acknowledge
their supportive position of the Company and senior management.

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Fellow GetSwift Shareholders,

"We write to you as two of GetSwift's larger shareholders --
Clutterbuck Capital Management LLC (CCM) and the founder of KPT
Capital LLC (KPT), respectively. While both parties act
independently in relation to the GetSwift shares which they
respectively hold or otherwise control and also in relation to
GetSwift generally, we both think it is timely to draw the
following important points to your attention. "

"Although the Company has recently endured a very tumultuous and
public existence, we believe general commentary fails to address
the highly supportive position of long-term shareholders. Instead,
we believe it portrays the position of those parties driving the
well-publicized class action proceedings and of particular media
outlets, who both may stand to benefit by negatively distorting
facts and/or sentiment in relation to the Company.

"We have already notified the Court of our decision to opt-out of
the current class action proceedings. We thought it pertinent to
also voice our full and strong support of the entire senior
management team of GetSwift, in particular, Bane Hunter and Joel
Macdonald. We believe it is essential for the future success of the
Company that Messrs. Hunter and Macdonald remain at the helm for
many reasons, including their strong customer relationships, deep
industry expertise, and the ability to attract and retain key
talent. The Company has already started to demonstrate a concrete
path to growth, as exemplified by the Company reporting consistent
ongoing quarter-over-quarter growth in 2018 and the Company's
announcement of two strategic North American acquisitions in
February this year.

"It is important to note the Company has, in recent times, taken
definitive action to remedy potential points of concern. These
steps have included the appointment of an independent Chairman,
Michael Fricklas. Mr. Fricklas has an exceptional reputation and
was formerly Executive Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary of Viacom Inc from 1993 to 2017. The Company also added
former deputy chair of the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission, Belinda Gibson, as a Non-Executive Director. In
addition, GetSwift enlisted the services of PricewaterhouseCoopers
to review GetSwift's continuous disclosure compliance and corporate
governance framework, and also brought on board tier-1 legal
litigation representation through Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP. We consider that these positive actions should go a
long way towards addressing concerns surrounding the Company's
corporate governance practices, and provide additional structural
support for the Company moving forward.

"Externally, we believe that inappropriate and questionable actions
by certain proponents behind the various class action proceedings
filed against the Company have, to date, resulted in an
unsatisfactory treatment to shareholders. These actions include
seemingly unreasonable claims as to the total monetary claim size
of certain of the announced representative class actions.

"We believe it is in the best interests of the Company to move
forward with a fair process where the legal obstacles are put
behind us. This will allow Messrs. Hunter and Macdonald to solely
focus on delivering -- to the benefit of all shareholders -- the
Company's value proposition that we believe to be very real. Thus,
in light of the decisive action which the Company and its
management have recently taken, and the Company's positive business
outlook, CCM and KPT's founder have both decided that it is
unlikely to be in their best interests as shareholders to
participate in the class action, and accordingly have opted out.
Instead, we are intent on putting our support behind Messrs. Hunter
and Macdonald and their fellow management team, and their plans to
drive the Company forward, with the collective aim of generating
enhanced value for all shareholders."

Robert T. Clutterbuck
Managing Partner
Clutterbuck Capital Management LLC

Richard Leahy
Managing Partner
KPT Capital LLC [GN]


HANSEN MEDICAL: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $7.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Monteverde & Associates
PC and Wolf Popper LLP in regard to a proposed class action
settlement.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF HANSEN MEDICAL, INC.'S
("HANSEN MEDICAL") COMMON STOCK AS OF JULY 27, 2016, THE DATE OF
THE CONSUMMATION OF HANSEN MEDICAL'S MERGER WITH AURIS SURGICAL
ROBOTICS, INC. (THE "MERGER"), INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, SUCCESSORS,
PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST, PREDECESSORS, REPRESENTATIVES, TRUSTEES,
EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, ESTATES, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFEREES,
IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE, AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ACTING FOR OR ON
BEHALF OF, OR CLAIMING UNDER, ANY OF THEM, AND EACH OF THEM,
TOGETHER WITH THEIR PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST, PREDECESSORS,
SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS (THE "CLASS").

THE PARTIES TO A SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION SUIT CONCERNING THE
MERGER HAVE AGREED TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN THE ACTION
CAPTIONED:

IN RE HANSEN MEDICAL INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Lead Case No.
16-CV-294288

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382 and an Order of the Court, that the
above-captioned action has been provisionally certified as a class
action and that a settlement for $7,500,000 has been proposed (the
"Settlement"). Under the Settlement, the settlement amount, minus
any Court-approved attorneys' fees (not to exceed one third of the
total Settlement Fund), incentive awards (not to exceed $1,000.00
per named Plaintiff), expenses (approximately $60,000.00), and
notice and administrative costs estimated to be approximately
$65,000.00), will be distributed on a per share basis to Class
members who owned shares of Hansen Medical common stock as of July
27, 2016, the date of the consummation of the Merger. The expected
payment, assuming the Court approves Plaintiffs' Counsel's
requestfor attorneys' fees will be approximately $.76 per share,
but may vary based upon the amountof other Court-approved
deductions and costs.

If a dispute arises regarding an Eligible Class Member's
participation and/or recovery in the Settlement, the Eligible Class
Member shall contact the claims administrator at 877-253-3661 and
provide the claims administrator with documents sufficient to show
the total number of Hansen Medical shares that he or she owned as
of July 27, 2016 (the date on which the Merger was consummated).
The claims administrator shall contact Class Counsel regarding any
such dispute. Based upon the documentation presented, within
fourteen (14) calendar days, Class Counsel shall make a
determination whether payment (or an additional payment) is owed to
the Eligible Class Member. If the Eligible Class Member disputes
this determination, Class Counsel shall request a hearing with the
Court to address that dispute.


A hearing will be held before the Honorable Brian C. Walsh in the
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Department 1, located at 191
North First Street San Jose, CA 95113, at 9:00 AM on July 12, 2019
to determine whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application
of Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses and incentive awards for the named Plaintiffs (the
"Settlement Hearing").

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THIS SETTLEMENT. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE
SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED
CLAIMS. You may obtain copies of the Stipulation of the Agreement
of Settlement, Compromise, and Release, a detailed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Settlement Hearing,
and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), and instructions concerning
your right to appear and object to the Settlement or award of
attorneys' fees by visiting the website
www.HansenMedicalLitigation.com or contacting Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.       
         Monteverde & Associates PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: 212-971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

         Carl L. Stine, Esq.
         Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
         Adam J. Blander, Esq.
         Wolf Popper LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: 212-759-4600
         Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
                ablander@wolfpopper.com
                MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.comG

As described more fully in the Notice, you need not file a written
objection in order to object and may appear at the Settlement
Hearing personally to make an oral objection. In the event there is
a written objection it shall be filed with the Court and served
upon Plaintiff's counsel above such that they are received no later
than twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the SettlementHearing,
or no later than June 21, 2019. If you want to be excluded from the
Class and Settlement, you must make a request in writing nolater
than twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing,
or no later thanJune 21, 2019.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Plaintiffs'
counsel.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT.

By Order of The Court

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         Monteverde & Associates PC
         Telephone: 212-971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

         Carl L. Stine, Esq.
         Wolf Popper LLP
         Telephone: 212-759-4600
         Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com [GN]


HARCOURTS INT'L: Faces Valdes Suit over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Harcourts
International USA, Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned JORGE VALDES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HARCOURTS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02845 (C.D. Cal., April
12, 2019). Plaintiff Jorge Valdes brings this complaint and demand
for jury trial to stop Harcourts from directing realtors to violate
the TCPA by making unsolicited autodialed calls to cellular
telephone numbers and/or unsolicited calls to consumers who have
registered their telephone numbers on the national Do Not Call
registry. Accordingly, Plaintiff Valdes seeks to obtain injunctive
and monetary relief for all persons injured by Harcourts's
conduct.

Harcourts is a California corporation with its headquarters located
at 27372 Aliso Creek Rd., Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. It offers a full
range of real estate services and specializes in residential,
commercial, and rural property sales as well as property management
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Afshin Siman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF AFSHIN SIMAN
     11040 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 212
     Telephone: (424) 229-9778
     E-mail: siman@simanlawfirm.com

            - and -

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


HILL'S PET: Alberto Sues Over Pet's Untimely Death
--------------------------------------------------
Ana Alberto, Sabrena Alvin, Kathy Amor, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hill's Pet
Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-02135 (D. Kans., March 12, 2019),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

The Defendant sells pet food for dogs and has worked to build a
premium brand specifically targeted at ingredient-conscious pet
owners.

In its advertising, marketing material and packaging, the Defendant
represents that Hill's Products provide "nutrition that can
transform the lives of pets and comfort the pet parents and vets
who care for them." In order to better sell its Products, and to
entice veterinarians to prescribe them, the Defendant markets the
Products as formulated and intended for dogs with specific needs or
illnesses, such as: age-specific dietary needs, breed-specific
dietary needs, digestive issues, heart issues, liver issues, or
kidney issues.

On January 31, 2019, the Defendant announced an initial recall of
canned Prescription Diet and Science Diet products. Hill's issued a
press release detailing the risk of excessive vitamin D consumption
and identifying certain affected products. On February 7, 2019, the
Defendant announced an expansion of the recall to include
additional SKU and lot numbers of canned Prescription Diet and
Science diet products.

The Plaintiff Ana Alberto is a citizen of California and resides in
Northridge, California. The Plaintiff Sabrena Alvin is a citizen of
Georgia and resides in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff Kathy Amor
is a citizen of Florida and resides in Jacksonville, Florida. At
various times within the Relevant Time Period, the Plaintiffs
purchased Hill's products. Consumption of the product by their pets
resulted in illness of the animals.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Isaac Diel, Esq.
      SHARP MCQUEEN PA  
      Financial Plaza
      6900 College Boulevard Suite 285  
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Tel: (913) 661-9931  
      Fax: (913) 6619935
      E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com


HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Flowers Sues Over Housing Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY FLOWERS, NATALIE BROWN, NATASHA BROWN, CURLEY DICKENS, and
VELDA CROCKETT, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. H Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-MHL (E.D. Va., April
8, 2019) is an action brought against Defendants for damages,
declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for violations of the
United States Housing Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Virginia
Consumer Protection Act, breach of the Annual Contributions
Contract, and for breach of contract under Virginia law.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant implemented an unlawful and
arbitrary utility billing scheme that resulted in Plaintiffs and
other tenants being unlawfully billed for electric and gas usage.
These charges amounted to an unlawful rent increase contrary to
Virginia and federal law and harmed low-income tenants by burdening
them with undue rent obligations and unwarranted late fees. The
United States Housing Act of 1937 ("Housing Act"), which is
administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD"), prevents PHAs from discriminating against low
income tenants by limiting the amount that tenants must pay in rent
and utilities.

After failing to set new utility allowances for more than twenty
years, which is itself a violation of federal law, HRHA promulgated
utility allowances in 2014 that were inadequate to cover the cost
of tenants' reasonable energy usage, which resulted in unlawful,
excessive charges to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals, i.e., other tenants of HRHA. HRHA's failure to
establish lawful utility allowances is a direct result of: (1)
repeated procedural oversights, (2) HRHA's failure to engage in
reasoned decision-making in deciding to adopt the new utility
allowance schedule, (3) HRHA's reliance on a utility allowance
study that failed to take account of the statutory factors required
under the Housing Act, (4) a staff who, records show, prioritized
saving money over complying with federal regulations, and (5)
unreliable procedures for measuring actual utility consumption for
meters owned by HRHA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dorothy Flowers is a public housing resident of an HRHA
property and lives in Hopewell, Virginia.

Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("HRHA") is a duly
organized and recognized agency of the State of Virginia under the
Code of Virginia. It provides shelter for qualified low-income
families in the City of Hopewell.  The authority receives annual
funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
to administer affordable housing to residents in its public housing
and housing choice voucher programs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Rachel C. McFarland, Esq.
     Brenda Castañeda, Esq.
     Sylvia Cosby Jones, Esq.
     Mary DeVries, Esq.
     Caroline Klosko, Esq.
     LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
     123 East Broad Street
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: 804-643-1086
     Fax: 804-643-2059
     Email: rmcfarland@justice4all.org
            brenda@justice4all.org
            sylvia@justice4all.org
            maryd@justice4all.org
            carrie@justice4all.org

          - and -

     Larry F. Eisenstat, Esq.
     Tyler O'Connor, Esq.
     CROWELL & MORING LLP
     1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20004
     Phone: 202-624-2600
     Fax: 202-628-5116
     Email: LEisenstat@crowell.com
            Toconnor@crowell.com


IKEA: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit in Israel for Male-Only Catalog
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Chabin, writing for Religion News Service, reports that an
Ikea catalog aimed at Israel's Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community
has spurred a class-action suit on the grounds of gender
discrimination.

The 2017 catalog, which was marketed to religious neighborhoods
around the country, featured photos of Haredi men and boys in its
home-furnishing layouts but excluded images of women or girls.

Ikea's Swedish headquarters issued an apology at the time after
widespread condemnation from Israeli rights organizations.

The 2018 catalog geared toward the Haredi market contained no
photos of either men or women.

The lawsuit, which was filed last week against the Israeli division
of Ikea and its director, Shuki Koblenz, charges that the exclusion
of females "sends a serious and difficult message that women have
no value and that there is something wrong with their presence,
even in the family-home space depicted in the catalog."

The complaint seeks $4 million in compensation for Haredi women,
according to The Jerusalem Post.

A 2017 Ikea catalog targeted toward ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel
was criticized for including no images of women. Photo courtesy of
Sam Sokol

Religious modesty and the marginalization of women have long been
flashpoints in Israel, where many Haredi rabbis have deemed it
unholy to portray women's images in everything from newspapers and
government notices to billboards and bus ads.

The same rabbis have called for gender segregation on public buses
and in other public places.

The Israel Religious Action Center, which filed the suit, has
already won gender-discrimination suits against a national bus
company and a radio station.

Hannah Katsman, the suit's co-petitioner, told Religion News
Service she learned about the 2017 Haredi catalog after it was left
in her mailbox. She is modern Orthodox and lives in a religiously
diverse city in central Israel.

Katsman said she objects to the catalog "because it conveys the
message that women don't count and aren't part of the family."

Yet in reality, she said, women are at the very heart of the
typical Haredi home.

"Girls growing up in that community don't see other girls in the
media, in ads. It doesn't portray them having a role," she said.
"They have been eliminated."[GN]


INDIANA: Nicole K. Files Class Action v.  Dept. of Child Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marion County,
Indiana. The case is styled as Nicole K. by next friend Linda R.;
for themselves, Abigail R. by next friend Nancy B, Anna C. by next
friend Jessie R., Roman S. by next friend Linda R, Lily R. by next
friend Nancy B., Rachel H. by next friend Nancy B., Brian P. by
next friend Jessie R., Amelia P. by next friend Jessie R., Alexa C.
by next friend Jessie R. and Zachary H. by next friend Jessie R.;
for themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Marion
County, Indiana, Scott County, Indiana, Lake County, Indiana, Terry
J. Stigdon, Director of the Indiana Department of Child Services in
her official capacity, Marilyn A. Moores, Honorable, Marion
Superior Court Judge, in her official capacity, Thomas P.
Stefaniak, Jr., Honorable, Lake Superior Court Jude, in his
official capacity, Marsha Owen Howser, Honorable, Scott Superior
Court Judge, in her official capacity and Jason M. Mount,
Honorable, Scott Circuit Court Judge, in his official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01521-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 16,
2019).

The docket of the case states the suit is filed pursuant to the
Civil Rights Act.

Indiana is a Midwestern U.S. state known for its farmland and
renowned auto race, the Indianapolis 500, held at the Indianapolis
Motor Speedway. .[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Annavieve C. Conklin, Esq.
   Delaney & Delaney LLC
   3646 Washington Blvd.
   Indianapolis, IN 46205
   Tel: (317) 920-0400
   Fax: (317) 920-0404
   Email: aconklin@delaneylaw.net

      - and -

   Kathleen Ann DeLaney, Esq.
   Delaney & Delaney LLC
   3646 North Washington Blvd.
   Indianapolis, IN 46205
   Tel: (317) 920-0400
   Fax: (317) 920-0404
   Email: kathleen@delaneylaw.net

      - and -

   Mark C. Zebrowski, Esq.
   Morrison & Foerster LLP
   12531 High Bluff Drive
   San Diego, CA 92130-2040
   Tel: (858) 720-5100
   Fax: (858) 720-5125
   Email: mzebrowski@mofo.com

      - and -

   Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq.
   Children's Advocacy Institute
   5998 Alcala Park
   San Diego, CA 92110
   Tel: (619) 260-4806
   Fax: (619) 260-4753
   Email: cpil@sandiego.edu

      - and -

   Stephen D. Keane, Esq.
   Morrison & Foerster LLP
   12531 High Bluff Drive
   San Diego, CA 92130-2040
   Tel: (858) 720-5100
   Email: skeane@mofo.com


INMATE SERVICES: Removes Stearns Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Inmate Services Corporation removed on April 10, 2019,
the lawsuit captioned Stearns v. Inmate Services Corporation, et
al., Case No. 18CV-19-142, from the Crittenden County Circuit Court
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
(Jonesboro).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00100-DPM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged personal injury.[BN]

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

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

               - and -

          Paul J. James, Esq.
          JAMES CARTER & PRIEBE, LLP
          Post Office Box 907
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 372-1414
          Facsimile: (501) 372-1659
          E-mail: pjj@jamescarterlaw.com

Defendant Inmate Services Corporation is represented by:

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


INSTALLATION SQUAD: Gutierrez Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GUTIERREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INSTALLATION SQUAD, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Corporation, Case No. 6:19-cv-00671 (M.D. Fla., April 9, 2019),
seeks to recover damages for alleged unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages and compensatory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Installation Squad, LLC, is a Florida corporation that maintains
its business operations in Doral, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Installation Squad provides signage and graphic installation work.
The Company works with advertising agencies, printers, and retail
and signage suppliers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574-4999
          Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
                  yhernandez@theleachfirm.com


IOC-CARUTHERSVILLE LLC: Dunlap Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Pamela G. Dunlap, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, brought a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against IOC-Caruthersville,
LLC, d/b/a Lady Luck Casino Caruthersville, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00055 (E.D. Mo., April 8, 2019) to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated workers employed by the Defendant.

The complaint alleges that pursuant to its company-wide policies
and procedures, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, and other
similarly situated employees, the mandated federal and/or state
minimum wage rate for all hours worked and overtime for all hours
worked over 40 in a single workweek.

In particular, the Defendant's time-clock rounding policy,
procedure, and practice is used in such a manner that it results,
over a period of time, in the failure to compensate its employees
properly for all time worked, including overtime hours. In
addition, Defendant failed to properly inform its tipped employees
of the required tip credit provisions. Defendant also made improper
deductions from its employees' paychecks for gaming license fees
and other deductions which reduced its employees' compensation
below the required minimum wage and, in some situations, overtime
rate under state and federal law for all hours worked, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at the casino from
approximately September 1999 through October 2017.

Based in Missouri, IOC-Caruthersville, LLC, doing business as Lady
Luck Caruthersville, provides gaming services with various slot
machines and table games. It also provides dining services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
     McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
     The Flagship Building
     200 Westwoods Drive
     Liberty, MO 64068-1170
     Phone: (816) 781-0002
     Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
     Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


JACOB LAW GROUP: Johnson Alleges FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jacob Law Group PLLC.
The case is styled as Betty Johnson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael A Jacob, II, Jacob
Law Group PLLC, Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management
Inc, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00267-JM (E.D. Ark., April 16,
2019).

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

Jacob Law Group PLLC is a law firm in Oxford, Mississippi focusing
on various areas of law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
   Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
   20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
   Chicago, IL 60603
   Tel: (312) 626-3585
   Email: ccombs@edcombs.com

      - and -

   Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq.
   Crowder McGaha, LLP
   5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 202
   Little Rock, AR 72223
   Tel: (501) 205-4026
   Fax: (501) 367-8208
   Email: cmcgaha@crowdermcgaha.com

      - and -

   Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
   Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
   20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
   Chicago, IL 60603
   Tel: (312) 626-3585
   Email: dedelman@edcombs.com

      - and -

   William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
   Crowder McGaha, LLP
   5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 202
   Little Rock, AR 72223
   Tel: (501) 205-4026
   Fax: (501) 367-8208
   Email: wcrowder@crowdermcgaha.com


JAY SUITES: Duncan Alleges Disabilities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Jay Suites I, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jay Suites I, LLC and Jay Suites II, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03335 (S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2019).

Jay Suites provides luxury private office suites, virtual offices,
conference room rentals and event spaces in NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com




JUST BORN: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Escobar Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Just Born, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Stephanie Escobar v. Just Born, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-01826-TJH-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of "all persons who
purchased opaque boxes of 5-oz. Mike and Ike and 5-oz. Hot Tamales
in California for personal use and not for resale during the time
period February 3, 2013, through the present.  Excluded from the
Class are Defendants' officers, directors, and employees, and any
individual who received remuneration from Defendants in connection
with that individual's use or endorsement of the Products."

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Escobar v. Just Born,
Inc., Case No. 19-80041, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent STEPHANIE ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ryan Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com

Defendant-Petitioner JUST BORN, INC., is represented by:

          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 580-3981
          E-mail: kizirian@lbbslaw.com


KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Loughlinon Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Florette Loughlinon, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips,
P.C., Defendant, Case No. 621791/2018 was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April
15, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02194.

The Complaint alleges, in sum and substance, that the Defendants
violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 692-7709

The Defendant is represented by:

     Michael L. Kohl, Esq.
     3018 Merrick Road
     Wantagh, NY 11793
     Phone: (631) 219-1810


KUEHNE + NAGEL: Removes Vasquez Labor Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kuehne + Nagel Inc. removed the case, ROBERT VASQUEZ AND JORGE
VASQUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KUEHNE +
NAGEL, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1905560 (Filed Feb. 21,
2019), from the San Bernardino County Superior Court to the U.S.
District court for the Central District of California on March 29,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:19-cv-00567 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants violated the California Labor
Code for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest
period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid,
and wages not timely paid during employment.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Brendan W. Brandt, Esq.
          Jeff T. Olsen, Esq.
          Ankit H. Bhakta, Esq.
          VARNER & BRANDT LLP
          3750 University Avenue, Suite 610
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 274-7777
          Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
          E-mail: Brendan.Brandt@varnerbrandt.com
                  Jeff.Olsen@varnerbrandt.com
                  Ankit.Bhakta@varnerbrandt.com

LASER SPINE: Sacked Workers Without Proper Notice Under WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna E. Ali, individually and as class representatives for all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Laser Spine
Institute, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00535 (M.D. Fla., March
4, 2019), seeks recovery of compensation and benefit plans, actual
payroll checks for payment of wages/salary, vacation benefits,
deferred compensation and bonuses, including incentive bonuses,
severance and retention bonuses as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Laser Spine Institute provides invasive spine surgery services. It
operates an outpatient surgery center which offers open neck and
back surgery services.

Ali was terminated by Defendants in March 2019 after Laser Spine's
closure of its Tampa facility. He claims that employees were not
provided the mandatory 60 days advance written notice of their
termination as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN). [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Luis Cabassa, Esq.
      Brandon Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL, FENTON AND CABASSA PA
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             twells@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com
             mk@wfclaw.com


LASER SPINE: Terminated Workers Without Warning, Embry Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Embry, individually and as class representatives for all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Laser Spine
Institute, LLC, LSI Management Company, LLC and LSI Holdco LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00539 (M.D. Fla., March 4, 2019), seeks
recovery of compensation and benefit plans, actual payroll checks
for payment of wages/salary, vacation benefits, deferred
compensation and bonuses, including incentive bonuses, severance
and retention bonuses as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

Laser Spine Institute provides invasive spine surgery services. It
operates an outpatient surgery center which offers open neck and
back surgery services.

Embry was terminated by Defendants in March 2019 after Laser
Spine's closure of its Tampa facility and claims that employees
were not provided the mandatory 60 days advance written notice of
their termination as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
      Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
      KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
      133 North Fort Harrison Avenue
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Tel: (727) 441-4947
      Fax: (727) 447-3158
      Email: rbarack@employeerights.com
             jackie@employeerights.com
             mnadeau@employeerights.com


LATSHAW DRILLING: Helenberger Seeks OT Pay for Electricians
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HELENBERGER, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. LATSHAW DRILLING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
4:19-cv-00193-TCK-JFJ (N.D. Okla., April 9, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant does not pay its oilfield electricians for overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act.

Latshaw is a drilling company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that
employed Helenberger as a rig electrician.

Mr. Helenberger originally filed his claim on July 19, 2016, by
joining the collective action Sanders v. Latshaw Drilling Co., LLC,
Case No. 3:16-cv-1093 (N.D. Tex.).

On March 14, 2019, the Sanders court decertified the collective
action and dismissed Mr. Helenberger, in part, because he worked as
an electrician and the other plaintiffs were top drive technicians
and a mechanic.  The Sanders court also tolled the statute of
limitations to allow Mr. Helenberger to refile.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan E. Shook, Esq.
          SHOOK & JOHNSON, P.L.C.
          7420 S. Yale Ave.
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: (918) 293-1122
          Facsimile: (918) 293-1133
          E-mail: jshook@shookjohnson.com

               - and -

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


LITTLE CUPCAKE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Espinal Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN GONZALEZ ESPINAL, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. LITTLE CUPCAKE AT 9102 THIRD, LLC,
LITTLE CUPCAKE CORP., and LUIGI LOBUGLIO; jointly and severally,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02049 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law by not paying or underpaying overtime compensation.

Little Cupcake at 9102 Third, LLC, is a New York limited liability
company with its office in Kings County.  Little Cupcake Corp. is a
New York business corporation with its office in Kings County.
Luigi Lobuglio is an owner, shareholder, officer, or manager of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants operate a limited-service restaurant doing business
as Little Cupcake Bakeshop and located at 9102 Third Avenue, in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


LYFT INC: Hinson Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyft, Inc. The case
is styled as Brian Hinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lyft, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
CGC19575293 (Cal. Super., San Francisco, April 16, 2019).

The lawsuit arises under the Securities/Investment Act.

Lyft, Inc. is a transportation network company based in San
Francisco, California and operating in 640 cities in the United
States and 9 cities in Canada. It develops, markets, and operates
the Lyft mobile app, offering car rides, scooters, and a
bicycle-sharing system.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.




MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Lindsey Files Class Suit in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is styled as Charles Lindsey,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Marriott International, Inc. and Starwood
Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00278-ECM-SRW (M.D. Ala., April 17, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Benjamin Finley, Esq.
   The Finley Firm PC
   200 13th St
   Columbus, GA 31901
   Tel: (706) 322-6226
   Fax: (706) 322-6221
   Email: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Rodden Claims Conflict of Interest in Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis Rodden, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Steven
Bilodeau, Richard Bergman, Jorg Buchheim, Franz J. Fink, Burkhard
Goeschel, Ilya Golubovich and John Mutch, Defendants, Case No.
2019-0176 (Del. Ch., March 4, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and
all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed sale of Maxwell Technologies
to Cambria Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla,
Inc.; rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger;
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Each Maxwell stockholder who participates in the offer will
receive, for each share of Maxwell common stock validly tendered
and not withdrawn, shares of Tesla Common Stock, $0.001 par value
per share. Following the completion of the offer, Cambria will be
merged with and into Maxwell, with Maxwell surviving as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla.

Said buyout was plagued by numerous conflicts of interest,
including Maxwell management's interest in post-close arrangements,
the directors' and officers' interests in lump sum buyout-related
payments and lucrative arrangements for the company's financial
advisor, Barclays, who in the past, received compensation for other
deals involving Tesla, asserts the complaint.

Maxwell develops, manufactures and markets energy storage and power
delivery products for transportation, grid energy storage,
industrial and other applications. Bilodeau, Bergman, Buchheim,
Fink, Goeschel, Golubovich and Mutch sit in its Board.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 984-3800
      Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

             - and -

      D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
      KASKELA LAW LLC
      201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (888) 715–1740
      Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com


MDL 2311: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bridgestone APM Company, Bridgestone Corporation, DTR
Industries, Inc., Sumitomo Riko Company, Ltd., Toyo Automotive
Parts (USA), Inc., Toyo Tire & Rubber Company, Ltd., Toyo Tire
North America OE Sales, LLC, YUSA Corporation and Yamashita Rubber
Company, Ltd., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re: Auto Parts Antitrust
Litigation, et al., Case No. 2:12-md-02311, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
in the litigation seek disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
actual and treble damages, punitive and exemplary damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements
including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief
resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the Sherman Act.

The Defendants are global manufacturers and suppliers of
Anti-Vibration Rubber Parts and are accused of rigging bids and
fixing, raising, maintaining or stabilizing prices of such item
sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive
levels.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Auto Parts Antitrust
Litigation, et al., Case No. 19-106, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents LAURA L. LARUE, JERRY A. ANDERSON, SR., and
CHRISTOPHER A. LEE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Nathan Joshua Fink, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                 nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION, BRIDGESTONE APM
COMPANY, YAMASHITA RUBBER COMPANY, LTD., YUSA CORPORATION, SUMITOMO
RIKO COMPANY, LTD., DTR INDUSTRIES, INC., TOYO TIRE & RUBBER
COMPANY, LTD., TOYO TIRE NORTH AMERICA OE SALES, LLC, and TOYO
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS (USA), INC., are represented by:

          Steven Alan Reiss, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANAGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: steven.reiss@weil.com


MDL 2741: Tsakrios vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MANUEL TSAKRIOS and ANDREA
TSAKRIOS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01617-VC (Filed Feb. 27, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on March 29, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01617-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendants' 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 Tsakrios 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:

          C. Moze Cowper, Esq.
          COWPER LAW LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1840
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (877) 529-3707
          Facsimile: (877) 284-0980

               - and -

          Marcus John Susen, Esq.
          Justin R. Parafinczuk, Esq.
          KOCH PARAFINCZUK WOLF SUSEN
          110 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1630
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462-6700
          E-mail: susen@kpwlaw.com
                  parafinczuk@kpwlaw.com

MDL 2886: DeVries Suit Consolidated in Allura Product Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled DeVries, et al. v. Allura USA LLC,
et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00014, was transferred on April 9, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01042-DCN to the
proceeding.  The lawsuit is consolidated in the lawsuit litigation
titled IN RE: ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2886.

The lawsuit is a class action asserting unfair and deceptive trade
practices in violation of the Iowa Consumer Protection Act,
negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach
of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and
seeking damages and declaratory relief in connection with defective
fiber cement siding designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
and sold by the Defendants.[BN]

Plaintiffs Brian DeVries, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, and Nicholas J. Price, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Hayes Biderman, Esq.
          Karen A. Lorenzen, Esq.
          HAYES LORENZEN LAWYERS PLC
          125 South Dubuque St., Suite 580
          Iowa City, IA 52240
          Telephone: (319) 887-3688
          Facsimile: (319) 887-3687
          E-mail: mbiderman@hlplc.com
                  klorenzen@hlplc.com

Defendants Plycem USA LLC, doing business as: Allura and Elementia
USA Inc. are represented by:

          Michael R. Reck, Esq.
          BELIN MCCORMICK, P.C.
          666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3989
          Telephone: (515) 283-4645
          Facsimile: (515) 558-0645
          E-mail: mrreck@belinmccormick.com


MDL 2886: Juvland Suit Consolidated in Allura Product Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Juvland v. Allura USA LLC, et al., Case No.
0:18-cv-03492, was transferred on April 10, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston).

The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01052-DCN to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
IN RE: ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2:19-mn-02886-DCN.

The actions in the litigation commonly allege that (1) the
Defendants' fiber cement siding products sold under the names
Allura and Maxitile are defective because they have a propensity to
crack, peel, warp, and break off soon after installation; (2) the
Defendants misrepresent that the products have a service life of
fifty years, but fail in less than five years; and (3) the
Defendants uniformly misrepresent to customers that the problems
are caused by improper installation, rather than a known product
defect.[BN]

Plaintiff Jacob W. Juvland, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

Defendants Plycem USA LLC, doing business as: Allura, Plycem USA,
Inc., and Elementia USA Inc. are represented by:

          Joanna Salmen, Esq.
          FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
          250 Marquette Ave., Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 261-0302
          E-mail: jsalmen@foleymansfield.com


MEMBERS 1ST CREDIT: White Balks at Collection of Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WHITE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEMBERS 1ST CREDIT UNION, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00556-JEJ (M.D. Pa., March 29, 2019),
seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from
Defendant arising from the unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of "Overdraft Fees" on accounts that were never actually
overdrawn.

Besides being deceptive, unfair and unconscionable, these practices
breach contract promises made in the Members 1st's adhesion
contracts -- specifically, the promise to charge OD Fees only on
transactions which actually overdraw an account, the lawsuit says.

In plain, clear, and simple language, the checking account contract
documents discussing OD Fees promise that the Members 1st will only
charge OD Fees on transactions with insufficient funds to "pay" a
given transaction. As happened to the Plaintiff, however, Members
1st charges OD Fees even when the transaction has not overdrawn an
account.

For example, Plaintiff White was charged an OD Fee on October 12,
2017. But, according to the monthly account statement prepared by
Members 1st, Plaintiff's account balance was never negative during
the entire two weeks preceding the supposed overdraft event. By
definition, then, there were always funds to "cover" that
transaction -- yet Members 1st assessed an OD Fee on it anyway.

In short, Members 1st is not authorized by contract to charge OD
Fees on transactions that have not overdrawn an account, but it has
done so and continues to do so. Its assessment of OD Fees in this
manner also violates federal Regulation E, which requires full and
fair disclosure of overdraft practices.

Members 1st is a credit union with approximately $4 billion in
assets. It is one of the largest credit unions in
Pennsylvania.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 346-7338
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10 th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Greg F. Coleman, esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Galino FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Robert Galino v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 622617/2018, was removed on April
10, 2019, from the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02083 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.[BN]

Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., is represented by:

          Matthew B. Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com


MOBILE RENAL CARE: Humphry Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Randy Humphry, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. Mobile Renal Care, L.L.C., Humble
Dialysis, L.P., and Anthony Hanson, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-01279 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2019) is a collective action
alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) by engaging in illegal pay practices.

The Defendants operate a health care clinic and systematically,
through uniform corporate policies. The complaint notes that the
Defendants failed to pay their hourly employees for the overtime
the FLSA guarantees them. The Defendants' compensation policies
violate the FLSA which requires non-exempt employees, such as
Plaintiff and the Class Members, be compensated at the minimum wage
and at one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants owe its
employees back pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and court
costs, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Humphry worked for the Defendants from June 2013 through
January 2019 as a dialysis technician.

Defendants operate a dialysis clinic in Humble, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
     John Neuman, Esq.
     SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN
     5612 Chaucer Drive
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (281) 885-8844
     Facsimile: (281) 885-8812
     Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
            JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


MOLSON COORS: Schmier Says Financial Statements Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as STEWART SCHMIER, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOLSON COORS
BREWING COMPANY, PETER H. COORS, GEOFFREY E. MOLSON, MARK R.
HUNTER, TRACEY I. JOUBERT, PETER J. COORS, ANDREW T. MOLSON, BETTY
K. DEVITA, CHARLES M. HERINGTON, DOUGLAS D. TOUGH, FRANKLIN W.
HOBBS, H. SANFORD RILEY, IAIN J.G. NAPIER, LOUIS VACHON, MARY LYNN
FERGUSON-MCHUGH, BRIAN C. TALBOLT, and ROGER G. EATON, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00898 (D. Colo., March 26, 2019),
alleges that officers and directors of Molson Coors made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Molson Coors failed to properly reconcile the outside basis
deferred income tax liability for Molson Coors' investment in its
MillerCoors, LLC partnership; (ii) consequently, Molson Coors
misreported net income in its consolidated financial statements for
the fiscal years ending December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017,
resulting in an overall downward revision to net income; (iii)
Molson Coors lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Molson Coors' business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

On February 14, 2018, Molson Coors filed a Form 10-K with the SEC,
which provided its financial results and position for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017. The 2017 10-K was signed by all the
Defendants except Riley. The 2017 10-K contained signed SOX
certifications by Hunter and Joubert attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal control over financial reporting and the
disclosure of all fraud. The 2017 10-K stated that the Company's
internal control over financial reporting was effective as of
December 31, 2017.

The 2017 10-K provided the Company's consolidated statement of
operations, which reported comprehensive income attributable to
Molson Coors as $2.126 billion for the period covered by the 2017
10-K. The statements were materially false and/or misleading
because they misinterpreted and failed to disclose the following
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business and operations,
which were known to the Individual Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them.

On February 12, 2019, before the market opened, Molson Coors
announced that its "previously issued consolidated financial
statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016 should be restated and no longer be relied upon."
On this news, Molson Coors' stock price fell $6.17 per share, or
9.44%, to close at $59.19 per share on February 12, 2019. The
Company's stock price has not recovered.

As a result of the Individual Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common shares, the Company has been damaged.  Thus, the
Plaintiff rightfully brings this action derivatively on behalf of
Molson Coors to vindicate the Company's rights against the
Defendants, and to hold them responsible for the damages that they,
as wayward fiduciaries, have caused the Company, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Molson Coors and has continuously
held Molson Coors common stock since January 2014.

Molson Coors is one of the world's largest brewers with a diverse
portfolio of owned and partner brands.  Molson Coors manufactures
and sells beer and other beverage products in the United States,
Canada, Europe, and internationally. Delaware and Colorado.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Meghan C. Quinlivan, Esq.
          BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH &
          JARDINE PC
          40 Inverness Drive East
          Englewood, CO 80112
          Telephone: (303) 792-5595
          Facsimile: (303) 708-0527
          E-mail: MQuinlivan@burgsimpson.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          Brett D. Stecker, Esq.
          James M. Ficaro, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22 Cassatt Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677
          Facsimile: (610) 408-8062

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305

MONSANTO CO: Bullock Seeks Damages From Roundup Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN BULLOCK v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02418 (N.D.
Ill., April 10, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the injuries,
like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across
the country, sustained by the Plaintiff as the direct and proximate
result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing,
labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Brennan, Esq.
          TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2650
          Chicago IL, 60606
          Telephone: (312) 313-2273
          E-mail: kbrennan@thlawyer.com

               - and -

          Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
          OCHS LAW FIRM, PC
          690 US 89, Suite 206
          PO Box 10944
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 739-3959
          Facsimile: (307) 235-6910
          E-mail: Jason@ochslawfirm.com


MONSANTO CO: Dyes Sues Over Inadequate Warnings for Roundup(R)
--------------------------------------------------------------
O. D. DYES, JR. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-03189
(S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019), alleges that the Defendant's herbicide
Roundup(R) did not contain adequate warnings and precautions that
would have enabled the Plaintiff, and similarly situated
individuals, to utilize the product safely and with adequate
protection.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and glyphosate are defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul D. Rheingold, Esq.
          RHEINGOLD GIUFFRA RUFFO & PLOTKIN LLP
          551 Fifth Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 684-1880
          E-mail: prheingold@Rheingoldlaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Faces Mazzeo Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
PETER ANTHONY MAZZEO, an individual v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-00504 (W.D. Wash., April 8, 2019), alleges that the
Plaintiff's Roundup(R)-related injuries, like those striking
thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were
avoidable.

The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant's herbicide Roundup
(containing the active ingredient glyphosate) and/or glyphosate are
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 their use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM PLLC
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 1300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 787-1915
          Facsimile: (206) 299-9725
          E-mail: corrie@cjylaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Pearlson Sues Over Inadequate Roundup(R) Warnings
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PEARLSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No.
4:19-cv-00899-NAB (E.D. Mo., April 9, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants did not provide adequate warnings and precautions that
would have enabled the Plaintiff, and similarly situated
individuals, to utilize the herbicide Roundup(R) safely and with
adequate protection.

This is an action for damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff the
as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' 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(R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.  The Plaintiff
maintains that Roundup(R) and/or its active ingredient glyphosate
is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is incorporated in the state of Delaware, and is a
Foreign For Profit Corporation registered with the Corporations
Unit of the State of Missouri under Charter Number F00488018.  The
identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
based in St. Louis, Missouri.  The Company is the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Raymond C. Silverman, Esq.
          Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: rsilverman@yourlawyer.com
                  mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com


MONSANTO CO: Roundup(R) Did Not Have Enough Warnings, Lewis Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM E. LEWIS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 5:19-cv-00160-JMH
(E.D. Ky., April 8, 2019), alleges that the Defendant's Roundup(R)
herbicide did not contain adequate warnings and precautions that
would have enabled the Plaintiff, and similarly situated
individuals, to utilize the product safely and with adequate
protection.

The action seeks to recover damages for the injuries sustained by
the Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful
conduct and negligence of the Defendant in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 South 4th Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
                  ashton@moorelawgroup.com


MONSANTO CO: Sued by Rawls Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT RAWLS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01630-MHC (N.D.
Ga., April 10, 2019), arises from alleged injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, sustained by the Plaintiff as the direct and proximate
result of the wrongful conduct and negligence of the Defendant in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing,
labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and glyphosate are defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justyn D. Alioto, Esq.
          MILLS & HOOPES, LLC
          1550 N. Brown Road, Suite 130
          Lawrenceville, GA 30043
          Telephone: (770) 513-8111
          Facsimile: (770) 513-8150
          E-mail: justyn@millshoopeslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
          OCHS LAW FIRM, PC
          690 US 89, Suite 206
          PO Box 10944
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 739-3959
          Facsimile: (307) 235-6910
          E-mail: Jason@ochslawfirm.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bashers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDE B. BASHER and BETTY L. BASHER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00679 (E.D. Mo., March
28, 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 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. Claude B.
Basher'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: Chalks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE E. CHALK and MARIAN F. CHALK, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00686-NAB (E.D. Mo.,
March 28, 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 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. George E.
Chalk'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
Plaintiffs 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: Chascos Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC M. CHASCO and KRISTINA CHASCO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00688 (E.D. Mo., March
28, 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 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. Eric M.
Chasco'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
Plaintiffs 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: Courtiers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARY J. COURTIER and DERORAH L. COURTIER, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00689 (E.D. Mo.,
March 28, 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 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. Cary J.
Courtier'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: Evans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES E. EVANS and JANET EVANS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01570-VC (E.D. Mo., Feb.
20, 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 Plaintiffs 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. James E.
Evans' 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: Feehans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS E. FEEHAN and VICKI FEEHAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00692 (E.D. Mo., March
28, 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 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. Thomas E.
Feehan'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: Gibsons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARLYN GIBSON and ALVIN GIBSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00702 (E.D. Mo., March
28, 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 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. Rosemarlyn
Gibson' 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: Glassmans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROY GLASSMAN and THELMA M. GLASSMAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00708 (E.D. Mo., March
28, 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 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. Roy
Glassman'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: Jennings Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS D. JENNINGS and JO ANNE JENNINGS, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00745-SNLJ (E.D.
Mo., March 29, 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. Dennis D.
Jennings' 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
Plaintiffs 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: Jones Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT E. JONES and BARBARA S. JONES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00746-NAB (E.D. Mo.,
March 29, 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. Robert E.
Jones' 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
Plaintiffs 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: Matlocks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN T. MATLOCK and KATHY G. MATLOCK, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00756 (E.D. Mo., March
29, 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. Kevin T.
Matlock'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
Plaintiffs 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: Salahs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
YASER M. SALAH and SUMAR SALAH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00785 (E.D. Mo., March
29, 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. Yaser M.
Salah'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
Plaintiffs 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: Shockeys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEROY SHOCKEY and BARBARA J. SHOCKEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00788 (E.D. Mo., March
29, 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. Leroy
Shockey'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
Plaintiffs 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: Wong et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. WONG and HONG LUO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00763-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., March 29,
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. James P.
Wong'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
Plaintiffs 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

MT. GOX: Former CEO May Avoid Jail Time
---------------------------------------
Mark Emem, writing for CCN, reports that Mark Karpeles, the former
CEO of the defunct bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, may eventually avoid
jail time following the suspended sentence he received from a Tokyo
court but his legal troubles are far from over.

Earlier, Karpeles failed to have a U.S. class-action lawsuit in
which he is a defendant dismissed. This was after a court in
Illinois, a state where around 1.5% of Mt. Gox victims hail from,
ruled that there were legal grounds to go ahead with the case.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs acting on behalf of the class allege
that the Mt. Gox ex-CEO misrepresented facts. Specifically, they
argued that he did not give a true picture concerning the collapsed
bitcoin exchange's security and stability.

The plaintiffs also accused Karpeles of negligence which
subsequently led them to lose their assets. This means that if
found personally culpable, Karpeles could end up paying an
undetermined amount in damages and compensation. There are also
numerous lawsuits that have been filed against Mt. Gox.

While the prosecutors had sought a 10-year sentence for Karpeles,
the Tokyo court handed him 30 months. This was on charges of
tampering with Mt. Gox records but not on embezzlement.

As the sentence is suspended for four years, it could mean Karpeles
may not see the inside of a jail. Karpeles himself seemed pleased
with the prospect as he retweeted a Bloomberg tech reporter's call
that he is ‘not actually going to prison'.

The big rider here is that Karpeles will have to be on his best
behavior to avoid jail time. This could be a tall order though as
Karpeles found out following his arrest. The ex-CEO of Mt. Gox took
nearly a year before he could be granted bail as new charges kept
being filed. Japan also boasts a conviction rate of 99%.

Will The Truth Finally Come Out?

In 2017 Karpeles argued that proving his innocence lay in finding
the Mt. Gox heist masterminds per the Japan Times:

"Most people will not believe what I say. The only solution I have
is to actually find the real culprits.

Karpeles may have gotten his wish later that year as the U.S.
Justice Department indicted Russian national Alexander Vinnik. This
was for allegedly laundering funds obtained from the hacking of the
Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange, per the indictment:

"As to Vinnik, the indictment alleges that he received funds from
the infamous computer intrusion or "hack" of Mt. Gox -- an earlier
digital currency exchange that eventually failed, in part due to
losses attributable to hacking.  The indictment alleges that Vinnik
obtained funds from the hack of Mt. Gox and laundered those funds
through various online exchanges…

Karpeles has already signaled that he thinks Vinnik was behind the
Mt. Gox theft. As Karpeles wrote on his blog two years ago, the
money trail led to the Russian national:

"Either way the Mt. Gox theft has been flowing to wallets
controlled by Vinnik from the very beginning, without any wallet in
between, and there is no evidence of any other party being
involved. Evidence points without much doubt to Vinnik being not
only behind the money launderer of those coins, but the actual
theft. [GN]


NAPHCARE INC: Taylor Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
NaphCare, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts General Laws (MGL). The case is
captioned EILEEN TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NAPHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10703 (D. Mass., April 12, 2019).

Plaintiff Eileen Taylor accuses NaphCare, Inc. of unlawful failure
to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA and failure to pay wages
in violation of MGL. Taylor seeks, among other forms of relief,
statutory trebling of damages, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs, as provided for by law.

Taylor worked as a physician assistant for the Defendant. Her
assigned work site was the Essex County Jail & House of Correction
in Middleton, Massachusetts, where she began working in or around
September 2016. Her contract was terminated effective June 2018.
During Taylor's employment, she and other Defendant's staff are
required to punch in at the Second Time Clock by the beginning of
their assigned shift time. They had to arrive at the jail early in
order to allow sufficient time first to go through the initial
security point, then to clock in at the First Time Clock, and then
pass through the various sally ports. Moreover, this policy has
violated MGL, which states that working time includes, among other
things, all time during which an employee is required to be on the
employer's premises or to be on duty, or to be at the prescribed
work site or at any other location.

Founded on Jan. 4, 1989, NaphCare, Inc. provides healthcare
services to the city, county, state and federal correctional
facilities nationwide. It is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama,
and successfully operates comprehensive healthcare programs across
the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
    FAIR WORK, P.C.
    192 South Street, Suite 450
    Boston, MA 02111
    Telephone: (617) 607-6230
    E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com

            - and –

    John W. Davis, Esq.
    DAVIS & DAVIS, P.C.
    350 Park Street
    Park Place South, Ste. 105
    North Reading, MA 01864
    Telephone: (978) 276-0777
    E- mail: jdavis@davisanddavispc.com


NATIONAL EXPRESS: Hakeem Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CHAUENGA M HAKEEM, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT;
NATIONAL EXPRESS, LLC; NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. C19-00452 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 15, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-02023.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted nine causes of action against
Defendants arising out of her employment with NETC. Specifically,
Plaintiff brought claims for: (1) failure to pay wages for all
hours of work; (2) failure to pay wages for all time worked at
overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods and meal period
premium wages; (4) failure to provide rest periods and rest period
premium wages; (5) failure to timely pay employee wages; (6)
failure to pay all accrued and vested vacation/PTO wages; (7)
failure to provide accurate wage statements; (8) failure to timely
pay final wages; and (9) unfair competition in violation of
Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     ELLEN M. BRONCHETTI, ESQ.
     ALICE KWAK, ESQ.
     McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
     415 Mission Street, Suite 5600
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: 628.218.3800
     Fax: 628.877.0107
     Email: ebronchetti@mwe.com
            akwak@mwe.com


NATIONAL PEN: Bukasa Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Bukasa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Pen Tennessee, LLC, and National Pen
Co., LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00024 (E.D. Tenn., March 13, 2019), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to pursue her unpaid "off-the-clock",
"edited-out" and "miscalculated" overtime wage claims against the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff was a resident of Tennessee and worked as an
hourly-paid employee for the Defendants.

The Defendants manufacture and sell pens and other promotional
items. The Defendant National Pen Tennessee, LLC is a division of
National Pen Co., LLC and is a Delaware Limited Liability Company
with its principal offices located at 12121 Scripps Summit Drive,
San Diego, California 92131-4609, and with its production facility
located in Shelbyville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
      Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 754-8524
      E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
              rbryant@jsyc.com
              rturner@jsyc.com
              nbishop@jsyc.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Corral Hits Illegal Account Debiting
---------------------------------------------------------
Frank Corral, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nationstar Mortgage, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00376, (E.D. Cal., March 4, 2019), seeks damages,
restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment
and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Corral sought a financing for his home by obtaining a mortgage with
Nationstar and set up his checking account with an automatic
recurring payment in order to make the monthly mortgage payments.
However, Corral disputed the charges that Nationstar electronically
debited his bank account without his consent. He claims that
Nationstar never provided him with a written or electronic document
authorizing any of the electronic withdrawals. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Hendrickson Asserts Breach of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Adam Hendrickson, Richard Wilheim and
Susan Wilheim, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Nationwide Credit, Inc. and Altisource
Portfolio Solutions S.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02165 (E.D.
N.Y., April 12, 2019).

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

Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services. The
company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted
accounts. Its customer relationship management services include
inbound/outbound customer care and back office services; and
accounts receivable management services comprising of pre
charge-off collections, post charge-off recoveries, charge-off
mortgage collections, and an attorney network.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCAA: Court Grants Trial Win to College-Athletes
------------------------------------------------
Today, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of a
nationwide class of college-athletes challenging NCAA-imposed caps
on college-athlete scholarships and granted their requested
injunction, according to Hagens Berman.

The injunction will prohibit the NCAA from enforcing any rules that
fix or limit compensation provided to college-athletes by schools
or conferences in consideration for their athletic services other
than cash compensation untethered to education-related expenses.
According to the Court, the NCAA is "permanently restrained and
enjoined from agreeing to fix or limit compensation or benefits
related to education" that conferences may make available.

The monumental ruling follows a September bench trial and clears
the way for individual Division I athletic conferences to
independently set the rules for education-related compensation or
benefits that their member institutions may provide to
college-athletes, free from NCAA rules that the court found violate
the antitrust laws.

"We have proven to the court that the NCAA's weak justifications
for this unfair system are based on a self-serving mythology that
does not match the facts," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman, and attorney representing the class. "Today's ruling
will change college sports as we know it, forever."

"Now, college-athletes will finally be able to receive some
additional benefits of competition for their services," Berman
added. "We believe the NCAA's system allowed a seemingly limitless
budget to attract top coaches and trainers, to construct lavish
stadiums and facilities, and to secure the most lucrative broadcast
and sponsorship agreements, but left college-athletes -- the ones
making it all possible -- constrained behind the sham of
amateurism." Berman added, "although the Court did not allow a
complete ban on any rules limiting cash compensation, this ruling
should result in conferences competing for athletes by offering
educational scholarships and incentive awards."

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve Berman of Hagens Berman,
Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn, and Bruce Simon of Pearson
Simon.

The court's decision followed a 10-day bench trial before Judge
Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, which pitted the plaintiffs against the NCAA and the
most powerful athletic conferences, including the Pac-12, Big Ten,
Big 12, SEC and ACC. The court previously granted partial summary
judgment for plaintiffs, finding that the NCAA's rules inflict
significant anticompetitive harm, causing college-athletes to be
compensated less than they would have been absent the challenged
rules. The question for the trial was whether these anticompetitive
rules could withstand scrutiny under antitrust laws.

After presentation of evidence by plaintiffs and the NCAA and
Conference defendants, the court determined that defendants'
alleged procompetitive justifications only supported national rules
limiting cash compensation untethered to education-related
expenses. The court also found that the alleged justifications --
maintaining consumer demand for college sports and the integration
of college-athletes into their campus or academic communities --
could be achieved without extinguishing all competition for student
athletes' services on the basis of educational compensation and
benefits.

The court's injunction will permit individual conferences to set
their own rules concerning compensation and benefits tethered to
education, as long as the conferences do not collude with one
another. The conferences and their member institutions will be able
to make decisions about what is in their own best interests, while
competing with one another for the attendance of talented
college-athletes. The court's injunction will take effect in 90
days unless the defendants appeal.

In late 2017, Judge Wilken also granted final approval of a $208
million settlement on behalf of tens of thousands of current and
former NCAA Division 1 college-athletes impacted by a prior NCAA
cap on grant-in-aid scholarships. Affected college-athletes can
visit the settlement website for an estimated calculation of their
individual recovery and eligibility. Currently, distribution of the
settlement proceeds is being held up pending resolution of the
Ninth Circuit appeal of Darrin Duncan, the only person out of
53,748 class members to object to the deal.

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


NEW ENGLAND MOTOR: Workers Drop Class-Action Over Mass Layoffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
FreightWaves staff reports that former employees of bankrupt
less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier New England Motor Freight (NEMF)
have dropped their lawsuit charging the company violated federal
law by failing to give adequate notice of mass layoffs, the
attorney representing a class of terminated NEMF workers confirmed
today.

The suit was dropped after Elizabeth, New Jersey-based NEMF
reportedly agreed to grant enhanced severance benefits to about
2,500 former workers. Workers will receive at least 14.5 days of
severance, and could be granted severance beyond that period
depending on the number of vacation days accrued. The initial
package called for two weeks of severance. Workers will be provided
health benefits for a near two-month period ending April 13. The
new package adds $2.7 million to the original severance total. The
information was first reported in Transport Topics.

The class-action suit against NEMF was filed just days after the
carrier announced on February 11 that it would file for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection and wind-down its operations. The suit
alleged that NEMF violated a 1988 statute requiring employers with
100 or more employees to give 60 calendar days notice of plant
closings and mass layoffs. NEMF employed 3,540 people.

Charles A. Ercole, Esq. -- cercole@klehr.com -- the
Philadelphia-based attorney representing the employee class, said
at the time the suit was filed that approximately 350 drivers and
other workers had signed up across nearly all of the 15 states and
35 terminals where the carrier operated. Ercole had said he was
seeking class status for all affected NEMF employees. The suit had
demanded eight weeks of pay and benefits.[GN]


NEW YORK: OCA Faces Class Action for Personal Injury
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Office of Court
Administration of the State of New York. The case is styled as
Anonymous 1, Anonymous 2, and Anonymous 3, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and the Manhattan D.A.'s Office,
Plaintiffs v. Office of Court Administration of the State of New
York, Defendant, Case No. 450457/2019 (N.Y. Sup., April 11, 2019).

The lawsuit asserts Personal Injury.

The Office of Court Administration ("OCA") is the administrative
arm of the court system, under the direction of the Chief
Administrative Judge.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Corporation Counsel
   100 Church St, Rm 4-313
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 788-0303




NORTH SHORE: Hinrichs Asserts Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Shore Agency,
LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Hinrichs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. North Shore
Agency, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02255 (E.D. N.Y., April
17, 2019).

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

North Shore Agency, LLC provides receivables management solutions
in the United States and Canada. The company offers a range of
outsourced billing and collection services, including first party
billing; first party and third party collection letters; mailing
services and postal expertise; contingency collection programs;
e-commerce solutions, including electronic bill presentment and
payment, e-payment processing, e-dunning, e-statements,
e-collection, e-order confirmations, and e-product announcements;
client support programs; and compliance with statutory
requirements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Miller Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ortrie D. Smith issued an order and opinion preliminarily
approving a proposed class action settlement in the lawsuit titled
JOE MILLER, et al., individually and o/b/o others similarly
situated v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-00687-ODS (W.D. Mo.).

The parties have agreed to settle and resolve this matter based
upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement
and Release.

The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only,
the Settlement Class defined as:

     All persons and other entities who purchased O'Reilly 303
     Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in Missouri at any point in time
     from July 20, 2013 to present, excluding those who purchased
     for resale.  Also excluded from the Settlement Class are
     Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or
     controlled person of Defendants; Defendants' officers,
     directors, agents, employees, and their immediate family
     members; as well as the judicial officers assigned to this
     litigation and members of their staffs and immediate
     families.

Judge Smith appoints Tom Bender, Esq., and Dirk Hubbard, Esq., from
the law firm of Horn Alyward & Bandy LLC; Gene Graham, Esq.,
William Carr, Esq., and Bryan White, Esq., from the law firm of
White, Graham, Buckley & Carr, LLC; and Clayton Jones, Esq., from
the Clayton Jones Law Firm as counsel for the Settlement Class.
The Court appoints Joe Miller, Kenny Higgs, Raymond Bieri, and Don
Sherwood as representatives of the Settlement Class.  The Court
appoints RG/2 Claims Administration LLC to serve as the Settlement
Administrator, which shall perform all of the Settlement
Administrator's duties as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and
Release.

The Court approves the form and content of the Long Form Notice and
Summary Notice.  The Court Orders that notice shall be provided to
the Settlement Class members according to the procedure set forth
in the Agreement.

A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on December 16, 2019, at
10:00 a.m.[CC]



OCEANIC DENTAL: Brite Bite Sues Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Brite Bite Dental, PC, an Illinois corporation, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oceanic
Dental Laboratory, LLC and Doe Defendants 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
2019CH04469 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 8, 2019) is an
action brought against the Defendant for sending one or more
telephone facsimile messages ("faxes") advertising its goods or
services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) and the regulations the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC).

Plaintiff did not grant Defendant prior express invitation or
permission to send any advertisement to Plaintiff by facsimile.
Moreover, Plaintiff does not have any "established business
relationship" (EBR) with Defendant. In any event, the faxes do not
contain a compliant opt-out notice, meaning Defendant cannot plead
or prove any EBR defense in this case, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a medical/dental provider.

Defendant is a dental laboratory that operates the website
www.oceanicdentallab.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
     David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
     Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
     Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
     134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 658-5500
     Email: service@classlawyers.com


ORION GROUP: Heck Hits Share Drop Over Misleading Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
John Heck, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ORION GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., MARK R.
STAUFFER, CHRISTOPHER J. DEALMEIDA, and ROBERT L. TABB, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01337 (S.D. Tex., April 11, 2019) is a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Orion securities between March 13, 2018 and
March 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

On October 18, 2018, the Company announced that it expected a
significant revenue shortfall for third quarter 2018 due to
production delays and that its Chief Financial Officer had
resigned. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.68, or
over 10%, to close at $6.11 per share on October 18, 2018, on
unusually heavy trading volume. On March 18, 2019, the Company
revealed that it would be unable to timely file its annual report
due to "extended evaluations of goodwill impairment testing and
income tax adjustments, among other things." The Company also
announced that it "expects that a significant change in results of
operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year
will be reflected in its financial statements." On this news, the
Company's share price fell $0.52, or over 12%, to close at $3.72
per share on March 18, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On March 26, 2019, the Company reported $94.4 million net loss for
the fourth quarter 2018 due to certain non-cash charges, including
a $69.5 million goodwill impairment charge. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $0.22, or nearly 7%, to close at $2.97
per share on March 26, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had overstated goodwill in certain
periods; (2) that the Company had overstated accounts receivable in
certain periods; (3) that the Company lacked effective internal
control over financial reporting, including over goodwill
impairment testing and allowance for doubtful accounts; (4) that,
as a result, the required adjustments would materially impact the
Company's financial results; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Plaintiff John Heck purchased Orion securities during the Class
Period and suffered significant losses and damages, says the
complaint.

Orion is purportedly a specialty construction company that operates
in United Stataes, Canada, and the Caribbean Basin. Its marine
segment services include marine transportation facility
construction, marine pipeline construction, and dredging of
waterways, channels, and ports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joe Kendall, Esq.
     KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
     3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Phone: 214-744-3000
     Facsimile: 214-744-3015
     Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

          - and -

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


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Hazel Sues Over $660MM Sale Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hazel, on behalf of himself and 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-01056-JKB (D. Md., April 8, 2019)
brought this stockholder class action against Osiris and the
Company's Board of Directors for violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and for breaches of
fiduciary duty in their efforts to sell the Company to Smith &
Nephew, Inc. ("Parent"), Smith & Nephew PLC ("Parent Holdco") and
Papyrus Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub," collectively with Parent
and Parent Holdco, "Smith & Nephew") via an alleged unfair process
and for an unfair price of approximately $660.5 million (the
"Proposed Transaction").

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a March
12, 2019, filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of
Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Osiris will become
an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Smith & Nephew, and Osiris
stockholders will receive $19.00 in cash for each share of Osiris
common stock they own. Thereafter, on March 20, 2019, Osiris filed
a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Form 14D-9 with the SEC
in support of the Proposed Transaction.

The Complaint asserts that the the Proposed Transaction is unfair
and undervalued for a number of reasons.  Significantly, the Form
14D-9 describes an insufficient sales process in which the Board
rushed through an inadequate "sales process" in which the only end
goal was a sale to Smith & Nephew, and in which no market check
whatsoever was conducted and in which no committee of disinterested
directors was created to run the process, the Complaint maintains.

In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Complaint relays, the
Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i)
agreeing to sell Osiris without first taking steps to ensure that
Plaintiff and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the
Proposed Transaction to benefit themselves and/or Smith & Nephew
without regard for Osiris public stockholders.

The Complaint seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and compel
the Individual Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary
duties to Osiris stockholders.

Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan and, at all times relevant, has
been an Osiris stockholder.

Osiris researches, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes
regenerative medicine products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Ste. 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Phone: (610) 667-6200
     Facsimile (610) 667-9029
     Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
            mackerman@brodskysmith.com


PAIGE LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages, Velasco Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCA VELASCO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PAIGE, LLC, limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV12114 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2019), arises from the Defendants
alleged violations of the California Labor Code and unfair business
practices relating to their failure to pay minimum and regular rate
wages, to pay overtime wages, to provide meal periods, to authorize
and permit rest periods, to maintain accurate records of hours
worked and meal periods, to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, and to furnish accurate wage statements.

Paige, LLC, is a California limited liability company with its
principal places of business in Los Angeles, California.  The
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

Paige, LLC provides apparels.  The Company offers pants, tops,
sweaters, shirts, tees, jumpsuits, jackets, coats, belts, zippers,
and other apparels.  Paige serves customers globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAUL MICHAEL: Mertz Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Mertz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Paul Michael Associates, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01859 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019), seeks
to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is regularly engaged, for
profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The
Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt. The Debt was primarily for
personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a "debt" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Sometime after the
incurrence of the Debt, Plaintiff fell behind on payments.
Thereafter, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the Debt was
assigned or owed, otherwise transferred to Defendant for
collection.

In its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff
by letter dated March 30, 2018. The Letter fails to identify by
name and label any entity as "creditor," "original creditor,"
"current creditor," "account owner," or "creditor to whom the debt
is owed." The Defendant violated section 1692e by using a false,
deceptive and misleading representation in its attempt to collect a
debt, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com

PILLPACK LLC: Faces Williams Suit over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against PillPack LLC for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is
captioned AARON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PILLPACK LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05282 (W.D. Wash., April 12, 2019).

Plaintiff Aaron Williams accuses PillPack LLC of using an automatic
telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice to
make calls that sought to sell pharmacy refill services to him.
Williams has not been a PillPack LLC customer at any time, and he
did not consent to receive calls from PillPack LLC or its agents.
In addition, Williams' telephone number is listed on the Do Not
Call registry maintained by the Federal Trade Commission, and has
been continuously listed there since Oct. 5, 2010. Accordingly,
Williams brings this class action for damages and other equitable
and legal remedies resulting from PillPack's violation of the
TCPA.

Headquartered at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington,
PillPack LLC operates as a full service online pharmacy. The
company boasts its online prescription management system. It offers
door-to-door delivery services of individually-packaged medications
that are sorted by date and time. Its center of operations for its
pharmacy services business is located in Manchester, New Hampshire.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
     Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Telephone: (206) 816-6603
     E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
             jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
             amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

            - and -

     Walter M. Smith, Esq.
     Steve E. Dietrich, Esq.
     SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES PLLC
     400 Union Avenue SE, Suite 200
     Olympia, WA 98501
     Telephone: (360) 918-7230
     Email: walter@smithdietrich.com
            steved@smithdietrich.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Booth FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled Peter Booth v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 615540/18, was
removed on April 10, 2019, from the New York State Supreme Court,
Nassau County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02089 to the
proceeding.

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

Defendants Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and PRA Group, Inc.,
are represented by:

          Stephen Jay Steinlight, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 704-6288
          E-mail: stephen.steinlight@troutmansanders.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Otero FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Elizabeth Otero v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 622711/18, was removed on April
10, 2019, from the New York State Court, Suffolk County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02092 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.[BN]

Defendants Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and PRA Group, Inc.,
are represented by:

          Stephen Jay Steinlight, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 704-6288
          E-mail: stephen.steinlight@troutmansanders.com


PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS: Clearview Imaging Sues Over Fee Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Clearview Imaging, LLC d/b/a Clearview Open
MRI, as assignee, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Express Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 87632733 (Thirteenth Circuit Ct., Hillsborough
Cty., Fla., April 8, 2019) involves a dispute concerning the amount
of insurance benefits which must be paid by Progressive Express
pursuant to the terms of an insurance policy it issued.  The
Plaintiff asserts that Progressive Express erroneously reduces an
insured patient's coinsurance portion of a medical bill.

On or about May 16, 2018, JW (the "Insured Patient") was involved
in a motor vehicle accident and as a result, sustained bodily
injuries related to the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor
vehicle. At the time of that accident, the Insured Patient was a
contracting party and/or a named insured and/or an omnibus insured
under an automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive Express
(or the Insurance Company.) As a result of the injuries sustained
by the Insured Patient at that accident, Clearview Imaging (or the
Health Care Provider) subsequently rendered health care services to
the Insured Patient on or about July 17, 2018. Prior to providing
such medical services and as a condition to providing them,
Clearview Imaging obtained from the Insured Patient a written
assignment of benefits.

Clearview Imaging contends that the Fee Schedule Method can only be
applied to the 80% portion of the medical bill covered by the
Reasonable Medical Expenses Mandate, and cannot lawfully be
extended to the portion of a medical bill that is covered by a PIP
insured's 20% coinsurance or co-payment amount. Progressive Express
disagrees, and routinely purports to extend the Fee Schedule Method
reductions to the portion of a medical bill that is covered by the
PIP insured's 20% coinsurance or co-payment amount, says the
complaint.

Clearview Imaging LLC operates diagnostic imaging centers in Tampa,
Florida.  It provides health care services to Florida residents who
have sustained personal injuries in motor vehicle accidents.

Progressive Express is a corporation doing business under the laws
of the State of Florida, and at all material times, sold automobile
insurance, including personal injury protection ("PIP") coverage,
in the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     J. Daniel Clark, Esq.
     CLARK & MARTINO, P.A.
     3407 W. Kennedy Boulevard
     Tampa, FL 33609
     Phone: (813) 879-0700
     Primary email: dclark@clarkmartino.com
     Secondary email: rsmith@clarkmartino.com

          - and -

     David M. Caldevilla, Esq.
     de la PARTE & GILBERT, P.A.
     Post Office Box 2350
     Tampa, FL 33601-2350
     Phone: (813) 229-2775
     Primary Email: dcaldevilla@dgfirm.com
     Secondary Email: serviceclerk@dgfirm.com


RAIN HOME: Sued for Not Paying Health Aides' Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
GLADYS PROCTOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. R.A.I.N. HOME ATTENDANT SERVICES, INC.,
ANDERSON TORRES, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Case No. 652059/2019 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., April 9, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff and
other home health aides worked overtime and were not paid time and
one half the New York minimum wage and/or time and one half their
regular wage rate for their overtime hours.

R.A.I.N. Home Attendant Services, Inc., is a New York corporation,
with its principal place of business located in Bronx, New York.
Anderson Torres is the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporate
Defendant.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown at
this time.

R.A.I.N. operates as a non-profit organization.  The Organization
offers senior centers, home-delivered meals, transportation, elder
abuse, and community-based mobile meals program services for
homeless and hungry persons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Coudert Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


RATCHFORD LAW: Williams Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ratchford Law Group,
P.C. The case is styled as Sondra Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ratchford Law
Group, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01625-NIQA (E.D. Penn.,
April 15, 2019).

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

Ratchford Law Group is a debt-collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ari H. Marcus
   Marcus & Zelman LLC
   701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
   Asbury Park, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com


REDWOOD CREDIT: Chaiyavong Files Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redwood Credit Union.
The case is styled as Smokey Chaiyavong, OBO: other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Redwood Credit
Union, Defendant, Case No. SCV-264292 (Cal. Super Ct., Sonoma Cty.,
April 17, 2019).

A case management conference has been set for Aug. 20, 2019, at
3:00 p.m.

RCU has been providing trusted, local financial services to the
North Bay and SF since 1950.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
   410 Arden Ave Ste 203
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: (818) 265-1020
   Fax: (818) 265-1021
   Email: edwin@lfjpc.com


REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORP: Collins Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Christopher Collins, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Regional Acceptance Corporation,
Case No. 19-cv-01464, (D. Ariz., March 7, 2017), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and declaratory relief resulting from violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Regional Acceptance Corporation is an auto finance company that
operates a call center located in Tempe, Arizona that places calls
to consumers usually without their express consent.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Trinette G. Kent, Esq
      LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
      43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com


REPUBLIC PARKING: Abrar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED ABRAR, HUSSEIN HUSSEIN AND SHIFERAW AWLACHEW, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC PARKING
SYSTEM, LLC and SCOTT TITMUS, Case No. 19-991 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Middlesex Cty., April 8, 2019), alleges that the Defendants
habitually refused to pay employees for hourly wages worked,
overtime and travel time.

Republic Parking System, LLC, is a foreign limited liability
company formed under the laws of the state of Tennessee with a
registered agent in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Scott
Titmus is the president and registered manager of Republic Parking
System, LLC, as registered with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Republic Parking provides parking management and ground
transportation services for airports, municipalities, on-streets,
taxi starters, hospitals, shuttles, offices, valet parking, events,
and private property owners in North America and Central America.
The Company also specializes in providing curbside valet and
traffic management services to airports; parking and citation
management systems for municipalities; and operating commercial
parking operations in Chattanooga, Denver, Houston, and
Seattle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Relethford, Esq.
          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: drelethford@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@forrestlamothe.com


REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc. ("Revolution
Lighting" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:  RVLT) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-02308, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired Revolution Lighting securities
between March 14, 2014, and November 14, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Revolution Lighting
securities between March 14, 2014, and November 14, 2018, both
dates inclusive, you have until April 1, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Revolution Lighting purports to design and manufacture
light-emitting diode ("LED") lighting solutions for industrial,
commercial, and government markets.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Revolution Lighting was
improperly recognizing revenue for certain transactions; (ii) as a
result, Revolution Lighting's financial statements were misstated;
(iii) Revolution Lighting lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; (iv) as a result, Revolution Lighting would be
subject to regulatory scrutiny and incur substantial costs; and (v)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
Revolution Lighting's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 17, 2018, Revolution Lighting reported preliminary
financial results for third quarter 2018, with revenue expected to
be $33 million, compared to guidance of $40-$41 million.
Revolution Lighting also announced that Defendant Robert V. LaPenta
("LaPenta"), its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), had offered to
acquire all of the common stock of the Company for a price of $2.00
per share.

On this news, Revolution Lighting's stock price fell $0.98 per
share, or over 38%, to close at $1.58 per share on October 17,
2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.11

On October 19, 2018, Revolution Lighting disclosed "an ongoing
investigation by the SEC regarding certain revenue recognition
practices, including bill and hold transactions that occurred
between 2014 through the second quarter of 2018."

On this news, Revolution Lighting's stock price fell $0.16 per
share, or over 10%, to close at $1.43 per share on October 22,
2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on November 14, 2018, Revolution Lighting announced that its
Transaction Committee was considering an updated proposal from
LaPenta to acquire all of the Company's outstanding stock for $1.50
per share, referring in part to the Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation as part of the reason LaPenta wished to
take Revolution Lighting private.

On this news, Revolution Lighting's stock price fell $0.55 per
share, or nearly 40%, to close at $0.85 per share on November 15,
2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Walton Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WILLIAM WALTON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04176 (Ill. Cir., March 29, 2019), seeks
to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary
biometric data.

When the Defendant hires an employee including Plaintiff, he or she
is enrolled in its employee database using a scan of his or her
hand geometry to monitor the time worked by its hourly employees.
While many employers use conventional methods for time tracking
(such as ID badge or punch clocks), Defendant's employees are
required to have their hand geometry scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as Defendant -- and financial institutions have
incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the
form of biometric timeclocks or authenticators, and into consumer
products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking
accounts and cell phones.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- one's hand geometry is a set of unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This
exposes Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy
risks. For example, if a database containing hand geometry data or
other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, efsay, Google,
Equifax, Uber, Home Depot. Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Trump
Hotels, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or
misuses -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity
theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of
this highly personal and private information, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Faces Egan Suit Over FLSA & NYLL Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG EGAN and PAUL TAVOLILLA, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INC., and STEVE CESTARO,
individually, and RAYMOND CESTARO, individually, Case No.
1:19-cv-02052 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Safeway is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business located in Maspeth, New York.  The Individual Defendants
are officers of the Company.

Safeway is a site development and utilities construction
corporation, which performs underground installation of
infrastructure relating to gas, water, steam, electricity, and
telecommunications, and additionally performs upgrades, expansions,
and ongoing maintenance and repair on those same infrastructures,
mainly on contracts that it possesses with Consolidated Edison,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Frank, Esq.
          Joan B. Lopez, Esq.
          MORITT HOCK & HAMROFF LLP
          400 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 873-2000
          E-mail: kfrank@moritthock.com
                  jlopez@moritthock.com


SANYO ENERGY: Faces Ziccarello Suit over Defective Solar Panels
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Sanyo Energy
(U.S.A.) Corporation, Sanyo North America Corporation, Panasonic
Corporation of North America for its failure to disclose the
delamination defects to the owners of solar panels and for
withholding the knowledge about the delamination defect and safety
risks. The case is captioned RICHARD ZICCARELLO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. SANYO
ENERGY (U.S.A.) CORPORATION; SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION;
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01995-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2019).
Once aware of the defect and safety hazards Sanyo and Panasonic
developed and implemented a claims suppression strategy to depress
and deny warranty claims and extract value belonging to Plaintiffs
and the Class. This has been accomplished in part by consciously
refusing to inspect the failing Sanyo Panels notwithstanding the
express warranty promise that "Upon receipt of a claim, Sanyo or
its designated representatives shall conduct measurements to
determine the actual power of the Product(s)." Not only did
Defendants refuse to perform the power output measurements which
the express warranty stated "shall be the sole determination for
purposes of warranty settlement" (Sanyo Express Warranty) SANYO
then unfairly and inaccurately represented that it was the owner's
responsibility to "perform the output measurements." Defendants'
illegal practices deceived owners into believing that they had to
generate "output measurements," in order to process a warranty
claim.

Founded in 1987 and based in Frisco, Texas, SANYO Energy (U.S.A.)
Corporation manufactures and supplies rechargeable batteries. It
offers lithium ion, lithium polymer, nickel metal hydride, fast
charge control chip modules, and amorphous solar cells and
batteries. It operates as a subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
SANYO North America Corporation was founded in 1961 and is
headquartered in San Diego, California with a manufacturing plant
in Salem, Oregon. It operates as a subsidiary of SANYO Electric
Co., Ltd. Panasonic Corporation of North America is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business located at Two
Riverfront Plaza, Newark, New Jersey 07102, and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation, a Japanese corporation based
in Osaka, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Birka-White, Esq.
     BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
     Steven T. Knuppel, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN T. KNUPPEL
     178 E. Prospect Avenue
     Danville, CA 94526
     Telephone: (925) 362-9999
     Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
     E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com

         - and -
     
     John D. Green, Esq.
     FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
     235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 954-4400
     Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
     E-mail: jgreen@fbm.com


SAVERA INDUSTRIES: Lyn Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE LYN, and MARKENS MASSE, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by Defendants
individually, Plaintiffs, v.  SAVERA INDUSTRIES, INC. f/k/a
SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC., INDUSTRIAL STEAM CLEANING OF LONG
ISLAND, INC. d/b/a THE GREASEBUSTERS, and related or affiliated
entities, KENDALL HARRINGTON and KIMARIE WRIGHT, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 153606/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., New York Cty.,
April 8, 2019) is an action brought pursuant to the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL") and 12 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
("NYCRR") to recover for unpaid wages, minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, and additional fees that are statutorily
owed to Named Plaintiffs and a putative class consisting of
employees who are presently or were formerly employed by the
Defendants within the state of New York from April 8, 2013 to the
present.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not compensating
Named Plaintiffs and putative class members for all hours worked
beyond their regularly scheduled shifts. As a result, when Named
Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours per week they were not paid
overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times her regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40. Accordingly, Defendants
failed to pay Named Plaintiff and putative class members all their
earned wages, including overtime compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs formerly worked for the Defendants performing cleaning
and supervisory/managerial services, among other things, from
approximately April 2015 through May 2018.

Savera Industries, Inc. f/k/a Superior Industries, Inc. is a
foreign business corporation incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware, and authorized to do business in New York. It is
a privately owned and operated company, which provides office
cleaning & janitorial services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, New York 10004
     Phone: 212-943-9080
     Fax: 212-943-9082
     Email: lambinder@vandallp.com


SMASHBURGER IP: Trevino Files Class Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smashburger IP Holder
LLC. The case is styled as Barbara Trevino, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Smashburger
IP Holder LLC, Smashburger Franchising LLC and Jollibee Foods
Corporation (USA), Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02794 (C.D. Cal.,
April 11, 2019).

Smashburger is an American fast-casual hamburger restaurant chain
founded in Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Tina Wolfson, Esq.
   Ahdoot and Wolfson PC
   10728 Lindbrook Drive
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (310) 474-9111
   Fax: (310) 474-8585
   Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Chavez Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
David Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Stellar Management Group VII, LLC, Stellar Management
Group, Inc. dba QSI Quality Service Integrity, The Vincit Company,
LLC dba The Vincit Group, and Vincit Enterprise, Case No.
3:19-cv-01353 (N.D. Calif., March 13, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The class action against the Defendants challenges its policies and
practices of failing to authorize employees to take meal periods
and rest breaks, failing to provide the required premium pay to
employees for missed or noncompliant meal and rest breaks and for
failing to pay required minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff worked for QSI as a sanitation worker in California
in 2018.

The Defendant QSI provides animal processing services, including
sanitation, engineering, chemical application, equipment
outfitting, and logistics support in California and throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
      Ori Edelstein, Esq.
      Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105


SWIFT TRANSPORTION: To Pay Drivers $100MM After Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley, writing for CDLLife, reports that one of the nation's
largest trucking companies has agreed to a massive settlement to be
paid out to nearly 20,000 current and former truck drivers
following a ten year legal battle.

According to legal documents filed on March 11, Swift
Transportation and a class action group of truck drivers agreed to
settle an employment misclassification lawsuit for $100 million.

More then 19,000 former and current Swift drivers could be eligible
to join the class action suit. The average payout will be about
$5000 per driver, though the exact amount depends on how long the
driver worked for Swift. Drivers who worked for Swift as long ago
as 1999 could be eligible for a payout.

The settlement ends a decade long legal battle that began in
December of 2009 when a group of truckers filed suit against Swift
Transportation in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona. This suit made the claim that the drivers were
misclassified as independent contractors and were therefore
unfairly denied certain labor benefits like guaranteed minimum wage
for all hours worked.

Court documents claim that Swift was actively working to settle the
lawsuit following the company's merger with Knight Transportation
in 2017.

"[Swift Transportation] ultimately generated an exceptional $100
million-plus-dollar fund for the class of thousands of drivers and
may potentially result in changes to the industry that could
benefit all misclassified drivers. Their actions ultimately
generated an exceptional $100 million-plus-dollar fund for the
class of thousands of drivers and may potentially result in changes
to the industry that could benefit all misclassified drivers," said
attorney Dan Getman, Esq. who represents the truck drivers. [GN]


TCF FINANCIAL: Faces White Suit over Merger Deal with Chemical Fina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against TCF Financial
Corporation and its executives for alleged violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is
captioned JAMES WHITE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TCF FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CRAIG
R. DAHL, VANCE K. OPPERMAN, PETER BELL, ROGER JEROME SIT, WILLIAM
F. BIEBER, GEORGE G. JOHNSON, BARRY N. WINSLOW, DR. JULIE H.
SULLIVAN, THERESA WISE, THEODORE J. BIGOS, KAREN L. GRANDSTRAND,
and RICHARD H. KING, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00683-UNA (D.
Del., April 12, 2019). Plaintiff James White accuses TCF Financial
Corporation and its board of violating the Securities and Exchange
Act by filing a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement to convince TCF shareholders to vote in
favor of the proposed merger with Chemical Financial Corporation.
In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial projections for the
TCF. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding
the shareholders vote on the proposed merger and taking any steps
to consummate the proposed merger unless, and until, the material
information discussed below is disclosed to TCF shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the proposed merger or, in
the event the proposed merger is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

TCF is a Wayzata, Minnesota-based national bank holding company.
Its common stock is traded on New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol TCF. It provides financial products and services for
consumers and businesses. It has $23.7 billion in total assets and
314 bank branches. [BN].

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Telephone: (302) 482-3182
     E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


TD BANK: Faces Simbulan Suit over Erroneous Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against TD Bank US Holding
Company for alleged violations of the California Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act. The case is captioned ERNIE SIMBULAN,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
v. TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00676-MMA-AGS (S.D. Cal., April 12, 2019).  Simbulan
accuses TD Bank of systematic issuance of erroneous credit reports.
He claims that the Defendant has erroneously reported continual
monthly payment obligations on accounts that have been closed and
paid in full. By reporting inaccurate information to the credit
bureaus, Defendant has misrepresented the status of Plaintiff's
financial obligations, specifically Plaintiff's payment obligations
for a paid and/or closed account.

Founded in 1988, TD Bank US Holding Company offers personal and
commercial banking products and services. It is based in Cherry
Hill, New Jersey and operates as a subsidiary of TD Group US
Holdings LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     Yana A. Hart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART, APC
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3609
     Telephone: (619) 233-7770
     Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
     E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             yana@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 222-7429
     Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
     E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


TECH MAHINDRA: Class Certification Denied in OT Wages Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that employees
of an information technology company have been denied class action
certification in a lawsuit over alleged non-payment of overtime.

Tech Mahindra, which provides tech services to banks, investment
firms, telecommunications companies, and railroads, is being sued
by two named engineers over being classified as exempt from
overtime protection under the "computer professional exemption"
banner of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

But the plaintiffs asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to certify the action as a class, to sue on
behalf of all of the company's information technology "delivery"
engineers.

Exemptions under the FLSA center on an employee's primary duties.
The company claims its engineers carry out various tasks, including
consulting with users, as well designing, developing, and testing
computer systems.

The plaintiffs claim their duties are different from those listed
in the company's manual, and therefore they are not exempt under
the act.

Two named plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of "other employees
similarly situated." According to the court documents, this
amounted to 47 employees.

District Judge John Ross, in his ruling, stated that, to certify a
class, the plaintiffs "need only make a modest factual showing,
based upon the pleadings and affidavits, that the proposed class
members were victims of a single decision, policy, or plan."

Tech Mahindra argued the plaintiffs are not "similarly situated"
and there is no way to determine overall damages because of the
disparate nature of the jobs done by the employees, who work in 15
different states and hold eight separate job titles.

"Given that members work in different offices, on different
projects, for different clients, and under different supervisors,
the differences far exceed any similarities they share," Ross
concluded. "Accordingly, this factor weighs against a finding that
the collective-action members are similarly situated and in favor
of decertification."

The judge ruled that it would be "both unfair and logistically
impossible to try this case on representative evidence."

The plaintiffs also wanted to move forward with class action under
Missouri and Washington state law. Ross also denied certification
under the state laws, again ruling "there are significant and
material differences between employees included in the class
definitions that would make it extremely difficult to make a prima
facie showing of liability based on the common evidence."

Denying the class certification, Ross said the claims of the two
named plaintiffs remain before the court. Others who opted in to
the action have 60 days to file separate claims.

The case is PANKAJ KUMAR, and IVAN CRADDOCK, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-00905-JAR (E.D. Mo.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated March 25, 2019,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyksrqpz from Leagle.com.

Pankaj Kumar, inidividually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, and the proposed Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff,
represented by Benjamin F. Westhoff, SEDEY HARPER, P.C., Caroline
Elizabeth Bressman, NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP & Rachhana T. Srey,
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP.

Ivan Craddock, inidividually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, and the proposed Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff,
represented by Caroline Elizabeth Bressman, NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP &
Rachhana T. Srey, NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP.

Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc., Defendant, represented by Ida S.
Shafaie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Jeremy Michael Brenner, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE LLP, Jovita M. Foster, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Robert A.
Kaiser, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP. [GN]


TICKPICK LLC: Figueroa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Tickpick, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose
Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tickpick, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03270 (S.D.
N.Y., April 11, 2019).

TickPick LLC operates an online ticket marketplace that allows
people to buy, bid on, and sell tickets for sports, concerts, and
other live events. It operates TickPick, a platform that connects
buyers and sellers of tickets. The company was founded in 2011 and
is based in New York, New York.[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


TRANS EXPRESS: Williams Seeks Unpaid OT for Shuttle Bus Driver
--------------------------------------------------------------
DINNEARL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. TRANS EXPRESS INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01857 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

Williams was employed by Trans Express as a shuttle bus driver from
May 2018 to January 3, 2019.  Williams was paid $160.00 per day.
Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Trans Express failed
to pay Williams overtime, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are
and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans,
programs, practices and procedures, protocols, routines, and rules,
all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one half times the
regular hourly rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Trans Express provides daily shuttle bus service to and from a
number of locations, including Resorts World New York.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
          Akin Law Group PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400

TWILIO INC: BakerHostetler Comments on Calif. Privacy Push Symptom
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Friel, Esq., Linda Goldstein, Esq., Amy Ralph Mudge, Esq.,
and Randal M. Shaheen, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for
Mondaq, report that class action is another symptom of California's
privacy push.

The Conversation

Quick show of hands -- how many of you out there have thought about
surreptitiously recording a conversation with someone? (Unless
someone is reading over your shoulder, go ahead and raise your hand
-- we can't see you.)

All right. It's a common fantasy. But how many of you have actually
gone ahead and done it? It's incredibly easy. Nowadays, smartphone
apps can record every conversation with no indication that anything
is amiss. So maybe you've given it a try.

But depending on where you live, recording any conversation can
open you up to liability. Some states allow you to record without
the other person's consent. Others require both parties to be aware
of the recording. You can find a good summary of state laws on
Wikipedia if you're curious.

You're only curious, of course.

The Wire

Flowers, et al. v. Twilio Inc., et al., a case that recently
settled in California Superior Court for Alameda County, deals with
a corporate actor accused of recording consumer phone calls.

Twilio, a cloud communications company, offers telephony and text
messaging solutions to its clients. Plaintiff Angela Flowers
claimed that Twilio surreptitiously recorded consumer phone calls
for two of Twilio's clients: Handy and Homejoy (if you're
wondering, they're online handyman and housecleaning marketplaces).
She also claimed that Twilio archived consumer text messages for
home- and neighborhood-scouting service Trulia.

The Takeaway

Turns out California has some rather intense recording consent laws
-- not a surprise from a state that's home to some of the country's
most aggressive privacy legislation. Flowers' specific claim is for
violations of California's Invasion of Privacy Act; California, a
so-called two-party consent state, requires that all members of a
recorded communication be aware that the recording is taking
place.

The case settled without Twilio admitting any wrongdoing while
agreeing to pay out $10 million to class members and for attorneys'
fees and costs. Text messages are worth one share while calls are
worth eight shares. (These days, does anyone really value the
privacy of their phone calls eight times more than their texts?).
The company also committed to a policy overhaul that will ensure
consumers give consent before recordings are made.

Influencers Allegedly Run Roughshod Over FTC Warnings
Truth in Advertising, Inc., tries to light a fire under the
Commission

Copywriter's Dream

We know how devoted our readership is; surely most of you remember
our post from July 18, 2017, titled "Celebrity Influencers Continue
to Flout FTC Disclosure Rules," right? Yes?

No?

Well, fine then.

Because we write not only to inform you but to amuse and delight
you, we won't simply recycle that old headline for this new
article. Which, if the folks at Truth in Advertising, Inc., (TINA)
are to be believed, would be entirely appropriate.

Uninfluential

Here's a refresher: In July 2017, we posted about the failure of a
number of celeb influencers to make any sort of change to their ad
design or text in response to warning letters sent out in April of
that year by the Federal Trade Commission.

Remember 2017? The halcyon days of the influencer, who roamed
free-range to and fro across the social media landscape without a
care in the world? The lexicon of troublesome advertising tactics
and omissions committed by influencers was just coming to the
public's attention: undisclosed material relationships between the
celebrity and the brand, ad notifications placed "below the fold"
of a social media post or missing altogether.

Surely a stern reminder from the Commission snapped these
influencers to attention?

Not so much.

At the time, public interest organizations were already hectoring
the FTC to take action against celebrities who seemed happy to
ignore the warnings altogether. But according to TINA, the FTC has
taken a page out of the influencer book and ignored the requests of
the organizations. And TINA ain't havin' it.

The Takeaway

TINA sent its own letter to the Commission in early March, taking
it to task for failing to curb the alleged celebrity misbehavior.
"It has now been almost two years since the FTC initially notified
these influencers of their obligation to refrain from actively
deceiving their social media followers," the letter states. "Yet
all but one of them have continued to mislead their fan base . . .
by refusing to consistently and appropriately disclose their
material connections to the brands they are promoting."

(If you're wondering about the identity of the one compliant
individual, it's Lindsay Lohan. However, Lohan seems to have
deleted her social media accounts several times in recent years, so
her compliance may be unrelated to the oversight of the FTC.)

All told, TINA claims it discovered "more than 1,400 examples [of
violations] across . . . 20 influencers collectively promoting more
than 500 companies." (Check out its influencer database for more
detail.)

The letter singles out Sofia Vergara, Ciara and Scott Disick for
detailed treatment, and was cc'd to an additional 16 celebrities
including JWOWW, Naomi Campbell and Lisa Rinna. Of course, as the
FTC itself found out when it sent its letters, influencers
sometimes promote products just because they happen to like them
and not because they are getting paid, so there could be less to
TINA's complaint than meets the eye.

We'll let you know if and when the FTC responds. [GN]


TWIN AMERICA: Class of CitySights Workers Certified in Ward Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Royce C. Lamberth grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
a Rule 23 Class and Postpone Notification Pending Class Discovery
in the lawsuit entitled Ieasha Ward, et al. v. Twin America, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00672-RCL (D.D.C.).

The certified class is comprised of:

     Plaintiffs and all other CitySights DC employees (i) who
     were terminated without cause as the reasonably foreseeable
     consequence of the "CitySights DC" "plant closing" that
     occurred on or about December 27, 2017; (ii) who are
     "affected employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section
     2101(a)(5); and (iii) who have not filed a timely request to
     opt-out of the class.

Ieasha Ward is appointed as Class Representative. Howard B.
Hoffman, Esq., of Hoffman Employment Law, LLC, is appointed class
counsel. The proposed form of Notice to the Class is approved.

The Court also grants the Parties' request to postpone a
determination, at least until liability is determined, as to (1)
how, when, by whom, and to whom the notice required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(c)(2) shall be given, (2) how and by whom payment therefore
is to be made, and (3) by whom the response to the notice is to be
received.  
Judge Lamberth directs the Plaintiffs to submit such a plan by
motion to the Court within 10 business days following the Court's
ruling on summary judgment.  At that time, either party may also
move for amendments to this Order with respect to the definition of
the certified class.[CC]



TYME TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Tyme Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: TYME), an emerging biotechnology
company developing cancer metabolism-based therapies (CMBTsTM)
announced the consolidated class action complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Case No. 1:19-cv-00843) was voluntarily dismissed, without
prejudice against all the defendants, by the plaintiff and his
counsel on March 28, 2019.

TYME had previously stated the class action allegations were
meritless and is pleased that plaintiff and his counsel agreed to
voluntarily withdraw the case. The case was never formally
certified as a class action lawsuit. No payments, settlements or
other agreements are required from TYME in association with the
dismissal of the case.

"TYME's core mission is to develop novel therapeutics for cancer
patients that have run out of options," said Steve Hoffman,
Chairman and CEO of TYME. "We are pleased that the case was
dismissed at such an early stage so that all of our resources and
attention can be focused on clinical development priorities,
including pivotal trials with our lead compound, SM-88, in
pancreatic cancer."

                    About Tyme Technologies

Tyme Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.tymeinc.com-- is an emerging
biotechnology company developing cancer therapeutics that are
intended to be broadly effective across tumor types and have low
toxicity profiles.  Unlike targeted therapies that attempt to
regulate specific mutations within cancer, the Company's
therapeutic approach is designed to take advantage of a cancer
cell's innate metabolic weaknesses to compromise its defenses,
leading to cell death through oxidative stress and exposure to the
body's natural immune system. [GN]


U.S. BANK: Ohio TCPA Class Action Resolved
------------------------------------------
The following is being issued by Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Class Counsel Abbas Kazerounian and Joshua Swigart announced an
agreement to resolve a class action pending against U.S. Bank
National Association in federal court in Ohio. The lawsuit alleges
that U.S. Bank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
calling cell phones without prior express consent using an
automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded
voice. Under the terms of the settlement, U.S. Bank denies any
liability but agreed to fund a $2.67 million settlement to fully
resolve the lawsuit without the time and expense of a court
proceeding.

The settlement of Guiette v. U.S. Bank National Association has
been preliminarily approved by the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Ohio, and is subject to the Court's final
approval.  The Settlement class consists of persons who received an
autodialed call from U.S. Bank to the persons' cellular telephone
without their prior express consent or with artificial or
prerecorded voice. There are two sub-classes defined as:

Subclass One: includes all users or subscribers to a wireless or
cellular service within the United States who used or subscribed to
a phone number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated one or more
Calls in connection with a Residential Mortgage Loan using any
automated dialing technology or artificial or prerecorded voice
technology during the Class Period August 7, 2014 through December
31, 2017.

Subclass Two: includes all users or subscribers to a wireless or
cellular service within the United States who used or subscribed to
a phone number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated one or more
Calls in connection with a Home Equity Loan using any automated
dialing technology or artificial or prerecorded voice technology
during the Class Period February 19, 2015 through December 31,
2017.

The settlement fund, less attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs of notice and claims administration as approved by the Court,
will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Settlement Class members
who submit claims under procedures implemented by the Court
overseeing the settlement.

Most persons included in the Settlement Class can be identified
from U.S. Bank's records and will receive mailed notice of the
settlement. Individuals who received such calls but cannot be
identified from U.S. Bank's records will need to contact the Claims
Administrator to determine if they are in the Settlement Class.
[GN]


U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION: Women Players File Pay Gap Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Anne M. Peterson, writing for Pro Soccer USA, reports that players
for the U.S. women's national soccer team have filed a federal
gender discrimination lawsuit seeking pay that is equitable to that
of their male counterparts.

The action comes just three months before the team will defend its
title at the Women's World Cup in France.

The players allege that they have been subject to ongoing
"institutionalized gender discrimination," including unequal pay,
despite having the same job responsibilities as players on the
men's national team. The 28 members of the current national team
player pool joined in the class-action lawsuit against the U.S.
Soccer Federation, which was filed on March 8 in federal court in
Los Angeles under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act.

The players are seeking equitable pay and treatment, in addition to
damages including back pay.

"We believe it is our duty to be the role models that we've set out
to be and fight to what we know we legally deserve," forward
Christen Press told The Associated Press. "And hopefully in that
way it inspires women everywhere."

The U.S. Women's National Team Players Association was not party to
the lawsuit, but in a statement said it "supports the plaintiffs'
goal of eliminating gender-based discrimination by USSF."

The U.S. Soccer Federation didn't have an immediate comment.

The USSF has maintained in the past that much of the pay disparity
between the men's and women's teams results from separate
collective bargaining agreements.  

The women's team set up its compensation structure, which included
a guaranteed salary rather than a pay-for-play model like the men,
in the last labor contract. The players also earn salaries -- paid
by the federation -- for playing in the National Women's Soccer
League.  

The women receive other benefits, including health care, that the
men's national team players don't receive, the federation has
maintained.

This is not the first time the players have sought equitable
compensation and conditions.

A group of players filed a complaint in 2016 with the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission that alleged wage discrimination
by the federation. The players maintained that players for the
men's team earned far more than they did, in many cases despite
comparable work.

The lawsuit effectively ends that EEOC complaint, brought by
Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Carli Lloyd and former
goalkeeper Hope Solo. The players received a right to sue letter
from the EEOC.

The team took the fight for equality into contract negotiations and
struck a collective bargaining agreement in 2017 that runs through
2021.

The players received raises in base pay and bonuses as well as
better provisions for travel and accommodations, including
increased per diems. It also gave the players some control of
certain licensing and marketing rights. Specific details about the
deal were not disclosed.

"This lawsuit is an effort by the plaintiffs to address those
serious issues through the exercise of their individual rights. For
its part, the USWNTPA will continue to seek improvements in pay and
working conditions through the labor-management and collective
bargaining processes," the players' union said.

The lawsuit filed on March 8 seeks "an adjustment of the wage rates
and benefits for Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn
and the class to the level these Plaintiffs and the class would be
enjoying but for the USSF's discriminatory practices."

"At the heart of this whole issue we believe that it's the right
thing. We believe that there has been discrimination against us,"
midfielder Megan Rapinoe said. "And while we have fought very hard
and for a long time, whether that be through our CBA or through our
players association, putting ourselves in the best possible
position that we can to get the best deal that we can, we still
feel that we don't have what we're trying to achieve, which is
equality in the workplace."[GN]


UBER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Capetown
--------------------------------------------
CapeTown ETC reports that eleven Uber customers have come forward
claiming that they received shocking treatment while using the
e-hailing service. Represented by Ulrich Roux Attorneys, a law firm
based in Parkhurst, Johannesburg, the eleven victims will be
approaching the High Court in order to claim for damages in the
form of a class action.

Four men are currently on trial for a number of charges, including
rape, kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and
attempted murder. The accused allegedly attacked five Uber clients
between July and August of 2016.

As reported by News24, the modus operandi of the accused includes
posing as an Uber driver, despite not being the driver linked to
the app.

In most reported cases, the other accused emerge from the car's
boot and attack the victims. In all cases but one, the victims were
stabbed and raped. The exception was an attempted rape. The victims
were also robbed of their belongings and forced to divulge their
bank account details.

"Our thoughts continue to be with the riders and their families,
these incidents are deeply upsetting," Uber said in an official
statement. "As soon as these incidents were reported we reached out
to local authorities and whatever information we could provide was
handed over to the police and it was this close collaboration that
led to the arrest of the suspect. In cases of this nature we work
closely with police to support their investigations."

"Safety is a top priority for Uber, and has been since our launch
in South Africa. We're committed to doing the right thing and take
on our part of the responsibility to increase safety," the company
said. "We constantly invest and innovate to raise the bar on
safety."[GN]


UBS FINANCIAL: Delia Sues Over Negligence and Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
The action, Gina Delia, individually and as Executor of the Estate
of Denis Delia, Plaintiff, v. UBS Financial Services Inc., UBS
Financial Services Inc. Financial Advisor Survivor Benefit Plan and
the Plan Administrator for the UBS Financial Services Inc.
Financial Advisor Survivor Benefit Plan, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03109 (S.D. N.Y., April 8, 2019), seeks to recover damages
caused by the Defendants wrongful withholding of compensation
(pursuant to the UBS Financial Advisor Compensation Plan
("Compensation Plan"), the UBS Financial Advisor Survivor Benefit
Plan ("Survivor Benefit Plan" or the "Plan"), and the UBS Group
Health and Welfare Benefits Plan ("Welfare Plan")) owed to Mrs.
Delia after her husband, Mr. Delia, died in June 2018 while working
and producing as a Financial Advisor for UBS in UBS's offices in
New York, New York.

The wrongdoing includes misrepresentation, negligence, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Program of 1974 ("ERISA"), the complaint
shows.

The Defendants represented and contractually agreed that they would
notify Mr. Delia of his purported obligation to enroll in the
Survivor Benefit Plan upon becoming "newly eligible" in December
2016. The Defendants failed to provide the required notice after
Mr. Delia became newly eligible and, upon becoming eligible, failed
to afford Mr. Delia the contractual right to enroll in the Survivor
Benefit Plan. Without being given the opportunity to enroll upon
becoming newly eligible, Mr. Delia did not affirmatively enroll in
the Plan. After Mr. Delia's passing, the Defendants refused to pay
the contractually due and earned remuneration.

The Plan Administrator breached his fiduciary duty by ignoring the
plain language of the Plan requiring that a newly eligible employee
be notified and afforded the opportunity to enroll, instead holding
that an alleged premature and defective notification could properly
substitute for the mandated actual notice and opportunity to enroll
after becoming eligible, says the complaint.

Mrs. Delia is the widow of Denis Delia, executor of the estate of
Mr. Delia and the beneficiary of UBS funded benefits under the
Survivor Benefit Plan and the Compensation Plan.

UBS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
at 1200 Harbor Boulevard, Weehawken, New Jersey 07086. UBS was the
Plan sponsor and Employer of Mr. Delia until his death in June
2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neil A. Sussman, Esq.
     SUSSMAN & FRANKEL, LLP
     805 Third Avenue, Twelfth Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Email: nas@sussman-frankel.com
     Phone: (212) 688-8895


ULTA BEAUTY: BakerHostetler Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Friel, Esq., Linda Goldstein, Esq., Amy Ralph Mudge, Esq.,
and Randal M. Shaheen, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for
Mondaq, report that we've reached the latest installment in the
sprawling, social-media-inspired class action brought by consumers
against Ulta Beauty and its subsidiary, Ulta Salon.

If you're not familiar with the Ulta brand name, the company is a
beauty retailer with a massive presence in the United States of
more than 1,000 stores nationwide in 2018, with ambitions to open
400 to 700 more. Ulta recently vaulted onto the Fortune 500 list of
companies at #471 and boasts more than $5 billion in quarterly
revenues.

The company's success has been meteoric.

Social Media Meltdown
But then came the lawsuits.

We covered the earlier chapters of this novella back when one of
the original class actions was launched in March of last year, and
a few months later when Ulta responded with its motion to dismiss
(by that time, the plaintiff list had swelled to 20 individuals).

The spark that set off the class actions was a social media
meltdown that occurred in January 2018. Customers joined with
former employees online to accuse Ulta of allegedly refurbishing,
repackaging and reselling products that had been returned by
customers. Bolstered by the testimony of former managers, the
complaints claimed that these practices were directed by Ulta's
corporate office. A report cited in one complaint maintained that
used makeup products from Ulta (and other retailers) contained
several nasty bugs, including E. coli. Generally, the plaintiffs
alleged breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and consumer fraud.

Ulta hit back, moving to dismiss the class action on a broad
variety of fronts, such as failure to plead fraud with
particularity and failure to state a claim under various state
unfair and deceptive practice statutes. It had the most success,
however, in arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because
they were suing over the purchase of products that were new, and
not used. The motion maintained lack of standing to sue for class
members who did not purchase the same beauty products as the
plaintiffs or on behalf of class members in other states whose
claims will be governed by different jurisdictions.

The Takeaway
The court largely agreed with the plaintiffs, allowing the case to
proceed.

One key instance where the court favored Ulta was in the first
accusation of lack of standing; the court dismissed the plaintiffs'
attempts to sue for damages for new products, finding the
allegations of injury for this category of product to be
insufficient to confer standing.

"[S]ome portions of plaintiff's complaint suggest that the
commingling of new and used products on Ulta shelves reduced the
value of all Ulta products," the court wrote in its recent opinion.
The plaintiffs were arguing that purchasers of new Ulta products
were suffering injury, because "if they received new products, they
still received less than they bargained for . . . had they known of
the risk that they might receive a used product that might cause an
infection, they would have paid less or even shopped elsewhere."

But this argument didn't cut it. "In this case, to the extent
plaintiffs or class members purchased new products, it was not the
. . . [product] with which they walked out of the store . . . that
was 'defective or dangerous,'" the court maintained. "Therefore,
such purchasers have not suffered an injury-in-fact," as is
necessary for standing.

So the case will go on, and we will learn through certification how
the court's injury ruling affects the size of the class. [GN]


UNDERWEST WESTSIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hilaire Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN HILAIRE, JEAN FRESNEL, SUALIO KAMAGATE, JEAN VERTUS, FOUSSEIMI
CAMARA, JEAN MOROSE, NOE PEREZ, EDGAR ESPINOZA, BOLIVIO CHAVEZ,
BRAULIO MATAMORES FLORES, JEORGE VENTURA CONCEPCION, ANGEL
SANDOVAL, CARLOS DE LEON CHIYAL, and LESLY PIERRE on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated who were employed by
Underwest West Side Operating v. UNDERWEST WESTSIDE OPERATING
CORP., MOSHE WINER, MARTIN TAUB, AVI GOLAN, and ELAD EFORATI, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03169 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2019), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs the minimum wage,
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, and other monies, as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Underwest is a business incorporated in the state of New York, with
its principal place of business located in Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.  The Individual Defendants are owners, operators or
managers of Underwest.

The Defendants are the owners, operators or managers of the
Westside Highway Car Wash, located at 638 W. 46th Street, in New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Arenson, Esq.
          ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
          200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 490-3600
          Facsimile: (212) 682-0278
          E-mail: steve@adklawfirm.com


UNITED MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Spencer, Odroniec Seek Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been compiled
against United Medical Systems (DE), Inc. (UMS) for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is
captioned JEFFREY SPENCER and ERIK ODRONIEC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED
MEDICAL SYSTEMS (DE), INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-10715-DHH (D. Mass., April 12, 2019). Plaintiffs
Jeffrey Spencer and Erik Odroniec challenge UMS's policies of
willfully and unlawfully misclassifying its drivers and
technologists as "exempt" and thereby refusing to pay them overtime
compensation as required under the FLSA. This misclassification
policy was in effect for at least three years prior to the filing
of this action. Even though UMS's drivers and technologists do not
meet the requirements for any exemptions to the FLSA's overtime
requirements, UMS knowingly allowed and/or pressured them to work
overtime hours without paying the legally required overtime premium
pay.

United Medical Systems (DE), Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with
its corporate headquarters in Westborough, Massachusetts. It is
engaged in the business of providing mobile, shared medical
equipment and related services to medical professionals. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Hillary Schwab, Esq.
     FAIR WORK, P.C.
     192 South Street, Suite 450
     Boston, MA 02111
     Telephone: (617) 607-3261
     E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

         - and –

     Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
     Elizabeth Gropman, Esq.
     LEONARD CARDER, LLP
     1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Telephone: (510 272-0169
     E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
             egropman@leonardcarder.com

          - and –

     Sam J. Smith, Esq.
     Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
     BURR & SMITH, LLP
     111 2nd Avenue N.E., Suite 1100
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Telephone: (813) 253-2010
     E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
             ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com


UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Block & Leviton Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, informs investors that there has been a class
action lawsuit filed against United Microelectronics Corp. ("UMC"
or the "Company") (NYSE: UMC) and certain of its officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. Shareholders are
encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn more.

According to the complaint, which was filed in the Southern
District of New York: (i) UMC conspired with Fujian to steal trade
secrets from Micron relating to its research and development of
DRAM; (ii) UMC hired former Micron employees for the purpose of
stealing such information from Micron; (iii) the foregoing conduct
placed UMC and certain of its employees at an increased risk of
criminal and regulatory investigation by the U.S. government; and
(iv) as a result, UMC's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired UMC securities between
October 28, 2015 and November 1, 2018, and have questions about
your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this
investigation, you are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at
(888) 868-2385, by email at info@blockesq.com, or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/cases/?case=umc.

Additionally, those interested in serving as lead Plaintiff must
apply to do so before the May 13, 2019, lead plaintiff deadline.

         Block & Leviton LLP
         155 Federal Street
         Suite 400 Boston
         MA 02110  [GN]


UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against United Microelectronics Corporation ("UMC" or
the "Company") (NYSE: UMC) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired the securities of UMC between October 28, 2015 and
November 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) UMC conspired with
Fujian to steal trade secrets from Micron relating to its research
and development of DRAM; (2) UMC hired former Micron employees for
the purpose of stealing such information from Micron; (3) the
foregoing conduct placed UMC and certain of its employees at an
increased risk of criminal and regulatory investigation by the U.S.
government; and (4) as a result, UMC's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 13, 2016, the Company announced that it had entered into a
Dynamic Random-Access Memory ("DRAM") Technology Cooperation
Agreement with Fujian Jianhua Integrated Circuit Co. Ltd.
("Fujian").  Under the agreement, Fujian was to provide UMC with
related equipment for its research and development, as well as
service fees subject to the progress of the technology development.
UMC was to develop DRAM related technologies for Fujian and
deliver such development results to Fujian before May 12, 2021.
The developed technologies were to be jointly owned by both
parties.  DRAM is a memory device product used in electronics to
store information.  DRAM is a technologically advanced commodity
that is widely used in digital electronics, as well as leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking, automotive, industrial, embedded,
and mobile productions.

At all relevant times, one of UMC's primary competitors has been
Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron"), a leading U.S. semiconductor
company known for its development and production of DRAM products.

On November 1, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
indicted UMC, Fujian, and Chen Zhengkun a.k.a. Stephen Chen
("Chen"), a former Micron employee hired by UMC, for conspiracy to
commit economic espionage, conspiracy to commit theft of trade
secrets, and economic espionage (receiving and possessing stolen
trade secrets).  The indictment stated that the companies conspired
to steal trade secrets from Micron relating to its research and
development of memory storage devices.  According to the
indictment, the conspiracy to commit economic espionage began in or
around January 2016, the conspiracy to commit theft of trade
secrets began in or about October 2015, and the economic espionage
(receiving and possessing stolen trade secrets) began in or about
February 2016.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 13, 2019 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action please;

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


UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of investors in United Microelectronics Corporation
("UMC" or the "Company") (NYSE: UMC) against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, and indexed under 19-cv-02304, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of UMC between October 28, 2015 and November 1,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its
senior officials.                                                  
                  

If you are a shareholder who purchased UMC securities during the
class period, you have until May 13, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

UMC purports to engage in the research, development, and
manufacture of products in the solar energy and light-emitting
diode industries.

On May 13, 2016, the Company announced that it had entered into a
Dynamic Random-Access Memory ("DRAM") Technology Cooperation
Agreement with Fujian Jianhua Integrated Circuit Co. Ltd.
("Fujian"). Under the agreement, Fujian was to provide UMC with
related equipment for its research and development, as well as
service fees subject to the progress of the technology development.
UMC was to develop DRAM related technologies for Fujian and
deliver such development results to Fujian before May 12, 2021.
The developed technologies were to be jointly owned by both
parties.

DRAM is a memory device product used in electronics to store
information.  DRAM is a technologically advanced commodity that is
widely used in digital electronics, as well as leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking, automotive, industrial, embedded,
and mobile productions.

At all relevant times, one of UMC's primary competitors has been
Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron"), a leading U.S. semiconductor
company known for its development and production of DRAM products.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding UMC's business, operational and
compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) UMC
conspired with Fujian to steal trade secrets from Micron relating
to its research and development of DRAM; (ii) UMC hired former
Micron employees for the purpose of stealing such information from
Micron; (iii) the foregoing conduct placed UMC and certain of its
employees at an increased risk of criminal and regulatory
investigation by the U.S. government; and (iv) as a result, UMC's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On November 1, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
indicted UMC, Fujian, and Chen Zhengkun a.k.a. Stephen Chen
("Chen"), a former Micron employee hired by UMC, for conspiracy to
commit economic espionage, conspiracy to commit theft of trade
secrets, and economic espionage (receiving and possessing stolen
trade secrets).  The indictment stated that the companies conspired
to steal trade secrets from Micron relating to its research and
development of memory storage devices.  According to the
indictment, the conspiracy to commit economic espionage began in or
around January 2016, the conspiracy to commit theft of trade
secrets began in or about October 2015, and the economic espionage
(receiving and possessing stolen trade secrets) began in or about
February 2016.

According to the DOJ's indictment, Chen, a Taiwanese national,
resigned as the President of Micron's subsidiary, Micron Memory
Taiwan Co., Ltd. ("MMT"), in July 2015. Thereafter, Chen began
working for UMC as its Senior Vice President and Fabrication
Director in Taiwan in September 2015.  According to the indictment,
Chen, as well as agents of UMC, later hired additional former
employees of Micron who stole Micron trade secrets and, at the
direction of UMC employees, used such trade secrets to enhance
UMC's DRAM technologies.

As news of UMC's indictment reached the market, UMC's ADS price
fell by $0.19 per share, or nearly 10%, over the following two
trading sessions to close at $1.71 per share on November 5, 2018.

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


UNITED MICROELECTRONICS: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of United Microelectronics Corp. (NYSE:UMC) from October
28, 2015 through November 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for United Microelectronics
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the United Microelectronics class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1507.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) United Microelectronics conspired with Fujian to steal
trade secrets from Micron relating to its research and development
of Dynamic Random-Access Memory ("DRAM"); (2) United
Microelectronics hired former Micron employees for the purpose of
stealing such information from Micron; (3) the foregoing conduct
placed United Microelectronics and certain of its employees at an
increased risk of criminal and regulatory investigation by the U.S.
government; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 13,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1507.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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


UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Stephens Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAUL STEPHENS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TRANZACTIONS, LLC,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00595-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., April 1, 2019),
challenges United Tranzactions' attempts to unlawfully and
abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, and this
conduct caused Plaintiff damages, pursuant to the the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In February 15, 2018, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial
obligation to Kearny Pearson Ford Kia that was money, property, or
their equivalent, which is due or owing, or alleged to be due or
owing, from a natural person to another person and were therefore
"debt(s)" and a "consumer debt" as the terms are defined by U.S.C.
section 1692a(6); and, California Civil Code section 1788.2(f).

Shortly thereafter, the Debt was assigned, placed, or otherwise
transferred, to Defendant for collection. In this regard, on or
about April 3, 2018, Defendant sent its initial written
communication to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section 1692g by failing to
include the proper debt verification procedures. Further, the
Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(10) by using false,
deceptive and misleading representations in connection with the
collection of Plaintiff's alleged debts. The Defendant did not
maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7249
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

USABLE MUTUAL: Brown Seeks Unpaid Wages Under AMWA & FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
LaTwaina Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USAble Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00183
(E.D. Ark., March 13, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum wage
and overtime compensations for all hours that the Plaintiff worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Pulaski County and
worked as an "Underwriter 2" at the Defendant's location in Little
Rock from 2003 through the present.

The Defendant is an insurance company registered to do business in
the State of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      April Rheaume, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
              josh@sandfordlawfirm.com


VALIANT 1915: Figueroa Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valiant 1915, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose
Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Valiant 1915, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03272-PGG (S.D. N.Y., April 11, 2019).

Valiant is a multi-channel merchant, offering designer linens,
fashion apparel, and cigars.[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


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Bell Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ema Bell, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. and Does
1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV02493 (Cal Super.,
January 28, 2019), was removed to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on March 4, 2019 under Case
No. 19-cv-01557.

Defendants cite that the class easily exceeds the 100-member
requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act, that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that Plaintiff and
Defendant are citizens of different states, as basis for removal.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan P. Cardona. Esq.
      Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY AND SMITH LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd PA 19004
      Tel: (877) 534-2590, (310) 300-8425
      Email: rcardona@brodsky-smith.com
             esmith@brodskysmith.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Amy B. Alderfer, Esq.
      COZEN O'CONNOR
      1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 900
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 393-4000
      Facsimile: (310) 394-4700
      Email: aalderfer@cozen.com

             - and -

      Brett N. Taylor, Esq.
      COZEN O'CONNOR
      601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 892-7900
      Facsimile: (213) 892-7999
      Email: btaylor@cozen.com


VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES: Faces Yu Suit over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volt Information
Sciences, Inc. for negligence, breach implied contract, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violations of the California
Consumer Records Act, the California Unfair Competition Laws, and
the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is captioned ALVIN YU, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, INC., a New York Corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01981 (N.D. Cal., April
12, 2019).

Plaintiff Yu brings this class action against Defendant Volt for
its failure to secure and safeguard its employees' personally
identifiable information (PII) including names, social security
numbers, driver's licenses and identification card numbers,
passport numbers, credit/debit card information, medical history
information, health insurance information, email addresses, and
other personal information and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff Yu and other class members that their
PII had been stolen, and precisely what information was stolen.

Volt Information Sciences, Inc. is a corporation with its principal
office located at 50 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard, Suite 206,
Uniondale, New York and is organized and existing under the laws of
the State of New York. The company provides staffing services,
outsourcing solutions, and information technology infrastructure
services. It also maintains a second corporate office located at
2401 Glassell Street, Orange, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael M. Astanehe
     ASTANEHE LAW
     71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Telephone: (415) 226-7170
     Facsimile: (415) 462-1732
     E-mail: mastanehe@astanehelaw.com


VOORTMAN COOKIES: Cervantes Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ANTONIA CERVANTES, RAQUEL FLORES, and RONNIE
VIRISSIMO, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VOORTMAN COOKIES LTD., a
Canadian Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100; Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00013330 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 17,
2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00700-H-BGS.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     EDWARD J. MILLER, ESQ.
     ASHLEY R. WEDDING, ESQ.
     Fabozzi & Miller, APC
     41911 Fifth Street, Suite 200
     Temecula, CA 92590
     Phone (951) 296-1775
     Facsimile (951) 296-1776 or 4139

          - and -

     TIMOTHY P. COON, ESQ.
     JOEL L. LENNEN, ESQ.
     SARAH MORRISSEY, ESQ.
     ECKERT SEAMENS CHERIN & MELLOT, LLC
     10 Bank Street, Suite 700
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Phone: (914) 286-6438
     Facsimile: (914) 419-7613


VOORTMAN COOKIES: Faces Cervantes Suit Over Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonia Cervantes, Raquel Flores and Ronnie Virissimo, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Voortman Cookies
Ltd. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 37-2019-00013330 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Diego Cty., March 12, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code.

The case stems from the Defendants' failure to reimburse expenses,
failure to pay wages for non-productive time, unlawful deductions
from wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages and unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiff Antonia Cervantes worked as a distributor employee
for the Defendant since November 2012 through the present. Her
distribution territory is the South Bay portion of Los Angeles
County.

The Plaintiff Raquel Flores worked as a distributor employee for
the Defendant since April 2012 through the present. Her
distribution territory is inland Orange County.

The Plaintiff Ronnie Virissimo worked as a distributor employee for
the Defendant since 2014 through the present.  His distribution
territory is San Diego County, south of Interstate Highway 8.

The Defendant is a Canadian Corporation with its principal place of
business in Burlington, Ontario, Canada. Voortman manufactures and
distributes cookies and other baked goods to retail locations
across North America, including California.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
      Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
      Jake Schulte, Esq.
      NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
      225 Broadway, 19th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 325-0492
      Fax: (619) 325-0496
      E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
              atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
              jschulte@nicholaslaw.org


WEIGHT WATCHERS: May 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Weight Watchers
International, Inc. ("Weight Watchers" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
WTW) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Weight Watchers securities between
May 4, 2018 and February 26, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/wtw.

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 Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Weight
Watchers was experiencing diminished subscriber demand attributable
to the onslaught of new competing smartphone fitness apps,
meal-delivery services, and other tech advances that were driving
down Weight Watchers' new subscriber growth and its subscriber
retention rates; (2) diminished subscriber growth, when coupled
with a much larger number of fourth quarter subscription lapses
than Weight Watchers typically experienced, made it highly unlikely
that the Company would retain four million subscribers by the end
of 2018; (3) Weight Watchers was not on track to grow its
subscriber count to five million or to drive annual revenues to
more than $2 billion by the end of 2020; (4) a decreased subscriber
count would result in decreased revenues and profits; and (5)
consequently, Weight Watchers stock was artificially inflated to
over $103 per share during the Class Period.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/wtw. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Weight
Watchers you have until May 3, 2019 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


WILSON LUCAS SALES: Nautilus Files Class Suit in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilson Lucas Sales.
The case is styled as Nautilus Insurance Company, Plaintiff v.
Wilson Lucas Sales doing business as: Miracle Siding, Miracle
Siding LLC, J Rutledge Young, III as Receiver for Wilson Lucas
Sales dba Miracle Siding LLC, Complete Building Corporation Inc,
Tri-County Roofing Inc, Palmetto Pointe at Peas Island Condominium
Property Owners Association Inc and Jack Love, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01083-DCN (D. S.C., April 12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance
seeking Declaratory Judgment.

Miracle Siding is a privately held company in Goose Creek, SC and
is a Single Location business. Categorized under Siding
Contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Janice Holmes, Esq.
   Gallivan White and Boyd
   PO Box 7368
   1201 Main Street, Suite 1200
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 779-1833
   Fax: (803) 779-1767
   Email: jholmes@gwblawfirm.com

      - and -

   Shelley S Montague, Esq.
   Gallivan White and Boyd
   PO Box 7368
   1201 Main Street, Suite 1200
   Columbia, SC 29202
   Tel: (803) 779-1833
   Email: smontague@GWBlawfirm.com



WIRECARD AG: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors that acquired Wirecard AG ("Wirecard" or the
"Company") (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF ) securities between  April 7, 2016
and February 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wirecard
investors have until April 9, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com

On January 30, 2019 the  Financial Times  reported that a Wirecard
executive was suspected of using forged contracts to complete
suspicious transactions. Then on February 1, 2019, the  Financial
Times  alleged that a law firm hired by Wirecard discovered
"serious offenses of forgery and/or of falsification of accounts."
On this news, shares of Wirecard fell nearly 20%, 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) for the period spanning from 2015 to 2018, a
senior Wirecard executive in Singapore had been accused of forging
and backdating contracts, including falsifying accounts and money
laundering; (2) an external law firm commissioned to investigate
Wirecard's Singapore office had reportedly found evidence of
"serious offences of forgery and/or of falsification of accounts";
(3) Wirecard had downplayed weaknesses in its internal controls
over financial reporting and failed to disclose the true extent of
those weaknesses; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
Wirecard's business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

If you purchased shares of Wirecard during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than  April 9, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters:

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


WM BOLTHOUSE: Felix FDCPA Suit Reply Deadline Moved to May 3
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC FELIX, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00312-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno
Division, extended the deadline for the Defendant to respond to the
Plaintiff's Complaint to May 3, 2019.

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

Eric Felix, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emil Davtyan --
emil@davtyanlaw.com -- Davtyan Professional Law Corporation, Eric
Bryce Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley
APC & Kelsey Szamet -- kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley &
Kingsley, APC.

WM. Bolthouse Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley
Adrianne Baltazar -- ashley.baltazar@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Jaffee Suit Removed to Nevada Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned SHAWN JAFFEE and DEREK KRITZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WYNN LAS
VEGAS, LLC a Nevada domestic limited-liability company,
EMPLOYEE(S)/AGENT(S) DOES 1-10; and ROE CORPORATIONS 11-20,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. A-19-790217-C was removed from the
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, to the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada on April 15, 2019,
and assigned Case No 2:19-cv-00644.

Plaintiffs bring their action as a collective action pursuant to
the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christian J. Gabroy, Esq.
     GABROY LAW OFFICES
     170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
     Henderson, NV 89012
     Phone: (702) 259-7777
     Facsimile: (702) 259-7704
     Email: christian@gabroy.com

          - and -

     Jon R. Mower, Esq.
     THEODORA ORINGHER PC
     535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7109
     Phone: (714) 549-6200
     Facsimile: (714) 549-6201
     Email: jmower@tocounsel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     TRAVIS F. CHANCE, ESQ.,
     BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
     100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
     Las Vegas, NV 89106-4614
     Phone: 702.382.2101
     Facsimile: 702.382.8135
     Email: tchance@bhfs.com


YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Admissions Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stannard, writing for New Haven Register, reports that a second
class-action federal lawsuit has been filed against Yale University
and seven other schools named in the college admissions scandal, as
well as William "Rick" Singer and his company, The Edge College and
Career Network.

Singer allegedly accepted bribes to have applicants' standardized
test scores fraudulently increased and bribed coaches to recruit
students who were not qualified athletes, including former Yale
women's soccer coach Rudy Meredith.

Officials at Yale and other schools have said they were victims of
the scheme and unaware it was going on. Meredith left Yale in
November. A student who was admitted based on a falsified record
claiming she was a varsity soccer player has had her admission
withdrawn by Yale.

The plaintiffs, who filed their suit in federal court in San
Francisco March 15, claim they and other members of the class were
denied "a fair admissions consideration process" and seek
compensatory damages.

The plaintiffs are Tyler Bendis of Orange County, Calif., a student
at a community college there; his mother, Julia Bendis; Nicholas
James Johnson of Middlesex County, N.J.; and his father, James
Johnson.

Tyler Bendis claims in the suit that he applied to the University
of California at Los Angeles, Stanford University and the
University of San Diego with a 4.0 GPA, "good test scores" and was
a pole vaulter on his high school track team.

Nicholas Johnson now attends the Honors College at Rutgers
University, according to the lawsuit. The suit claims that when he
applied to the University of Texas at Austin, Stanford and Yale, he
had an SAT score of 1500 out of 1600 and a 4.65 GPA, was a varsity
hockey player and star of the school math team.

The lawsuit states that the students and their parents paid $50 to
$100 for each college application.

"Had Plaintiffs known that the system was warped and rigged by
fraud, they would not have spent the money to apply to the school,"
the lawsuit states. They claim they are suing under "civil RICO
because each of them has suffered a concrete and distinct injury --
at a minimum, the payment of an application fee to one or more of
these seven universities -- which they paid under the assumption
that the college application process at these universities was fair
and impartial." RICO is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

They quote from the universities' websites, which they say
misrepresent the applications process as "based upon student
merit."

"To represent to students that the application process is based on
merit, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to rampant bribery
going on with the university's employees, constitutes a violation
of the [California Unfair Competition Law], and constitutes: an
'unlawful' business act and practice; 'unfair' business acts and
practices;' [sic] fraudulent business acts and practices; and
'unfair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading advertising.'"

The lawsuit claims the universities were "negligent and careless"
by "giving free reign (sic) to athletic coaches and directors to
fill athletic slots however they wanted to with inadequate
oversight; . . . failing to conduct regular audits of university
accounts; . . . failing to observe fraudulent sources of funds
coming into university accounts controlled by the coaches, athletic
directors and other university employees; [and] allowing coaches
and employees to remain in charge of university funds and admission
practices after it was known or suspected that they were engaging
in fraudulent activity."

A response to the lawsuit has been requested from Yale spokesmen.

A similar class-action lawsuit, brought March 13 by Erica Olsen and
Kalea Woods, was withdrawn by the plaintiffs two days later
"without prejudice," meaning they can refile their suit. The notice
of withdrawal adds the names of the defendants in the second suit,
as well as those of Keri and Lauren Fidelak. [GN]


YINOVA MANAGEMENT: Conner Suit Alleges ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Yinova Management Company, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Yinova Management
Company, LLC doing business as: www.yinovacenter.com, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02244 (E.D. N.Y., April 17, 2019).

Yinova Center is a top rated acupuncture clinic in NYC specializing
in acupuncture, Chinese medicine, women's fertility, and men's
health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.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 ***