CAR_Public/190502.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 2, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 88

                            Headlines

257 S G PIZZA CORP: Delivery Worker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
3M CO: Mendez Sues Over Defective Earplugs
AAF PLAYERS: Schmidt, Et Al. Sue Over Breach of Contract
ABBVIE INC: Kentucky Laborers Fund Sues Over Overpriced Humira Drug
AFNI INC: Broemer Files Class Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Alber Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
ALLURA USA: Files Support of Motion to Dismiss Johns Suit
ALLY FINANCIAL: Flint Sues Over Illegal Repossession of Vehicle
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Scanlan USERRA Suit
AMERICAN ASPHALT: Dennis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages

AMERICAN BOTTLING: Juan M. Guzman Files Wage and Hour Suit in Ca.
AMERICAN HONDA: Fain Sues Over Vehicles' Faulty Sensing System
APPLE INC: City of Roseville Says Reports are False & Misleading
ARGENT TRUST: Lee Files ERISA Class Action in North Carolina
ARKANSAS TOTAL: Bid for Conditional Certification Granted

AT&T MOBILITY: Ayala Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
AVON PRODUCTS: Misclassifies District Sales Managers, Rogel Says
AXON ENTERPRISES: Richey Sues Over Defective Safety Mechanism
BHARTI CORP: Douze Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BOEING COMPANY: Jeweltex Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement

BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Rodarte Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
BP EXPLORATION: Denial of $1.3MM Claimant Award Review Affirmed
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Jones Seeks Damages Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CARRIAGE CEMETERY: Barajas Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CATHAY EXPRESS: Kim Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CEDAR SHAKE: Bradow Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix CSS Prices
CHARTER COMMS: Court Confirms Final Award in Hart Infringement Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid to Certify Hispanic Employees Class Sought
CLIENT SERVICES: Campagna Seeks to Certify Class Suit
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Paul Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters

COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Sues Over Securities Fraud
CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Fastrich Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Initial Settlement Agreement Sought
CYGNUS MEDICAL: Himrod Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
DNC PARKS: Perez Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to E.D. California

ECO SHIELD: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Fanslau Suit
EHEALTH INC: Edwards Sues Over Illicit Telemarketing Calls
FISHER-PRICE: Mundys Blame Sleeper for their Baby's Death
FORD MOTOR: Flanery Seeks Damages for Defective Truck Doors
G & M MATTRESS: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS: Faces Shoults Labor Suit in Arizona
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Faces Garcia Suit Over Defective Wiring Harness
HEADLY MANUFACTURING: Cortez Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
HIGHER POWER: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Williams Says
HONEST & QUALITY: Bid for Intervention Filed in Li Wage Class Suit

HOTWORX COLLEGE: Davis Seeks Redress for Unsolicited Marketing
IDT TELECOM: Samara Seeks to Stop Sending of Unauthorized Texts
ISLE OF CAPRI BLACK: Simmons Seeks Overtime Pay
J.C.'S LANDSCAPING: Tonkinson Seeks OT Pay for Landscapers
JANSSEN BIOTECH: Louisiana Health Sues Over Monopoly on Zytiga

JEAN LAFITTEL Hughes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
JONATHAN NEIL: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Brown FDCA Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Failed to Record Reconveyance Deed, Osella Says
KSF ACQUISITION: Fusaro Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Kawa Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads

LOS ANGELES CTY, CA: Echeverria Suit Asserts Mishandling of Remains
LOWE’S HOME: Employees Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Wages
LPE INC: Lopez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MARC CAMPBELL: Boone Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 1877: Goyak Suit Remanded to Eastern District of Michigan

MDL 2244: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for Massey Suit
MDL 2244: Patton Suit Transferred to Northern District of Texas
MDL 2492: Glaud Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Graham Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Johnson Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Jones Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Jones Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Murray Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Niemi Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Porcelli Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Talley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2543: Court Denies Bid to Remand Hancock, et al. v. GM Lawsuit
MDL 2599: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order in Jeannis Case
MDL 2657: Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MDL 2666: O'Haver v. 3M Company Transferred to Dist. of Minnesota

MDL 2738: McConnell Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
MDL 2741: Aden v. Monsanto Transferred to N.D. California
MDL 2742: SESL Recovery vs. Deutsche Bank Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
MDL 2775: Fondren v. Smith & Nephew Moved to District of Maryland
MDL 2804: 28 Suits Transferred to Northern District of Ohio

MDL 2817: Paramount v. Reynolds & Reynolds Moved to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2873: 2 Suits vs. 3M Co. Moved to District of South Carolina
MDL 2879: Boyd Suit Consolidated in Security Breach Litigation
MDL 2883: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 2 NEI ERISA Lawsuits
MEADOW GREENS: Chrismon Seeks Proper Wages, Reimbursements

METROPOLITAN REALTY: Lindow Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Harris Sues Over Oreos' False, Misleading Labels
MONSANTO COMPANY: Carter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Frickson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Harper Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Kennedy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: McGary Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Smetana Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Treadway Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MRS BPO: Drake Suit Asserts TCPA Violation

NATIONAL CREDIT: Nash Sues Over FDCPA Violation
NATIONAL LABOR: Salazar Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
OWLET BABY: Sells Faulty Smart Sock Baby Monitors, Ruiz Alleges
PHARMACY ASSOCIATES: LifeBack Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Bay Area Sues Over Reduced Insurance Benefits

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Dees Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Keating Suit Asserts Breach of Duties
SNAP SHOT ROOFING: White Seeks OT Premium Pay, Minimum Wage
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE: Nurse Seeks Unpaid Wages
SOUTHERN OHIO PIZZA: Howard Seeks to Notify Class of Drivers

STEVE MADDEN: Kang Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
TEXAS DE BRAZIL: Faces Chavez Labor Class Action in Calif.
THREE DIAMOND: Hispanic Staff Asserts Discrimination
US ALLIANCE: Leverone Sues Over MCPA Violations
VANS INC: Haggar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

VERDE ENERGY: Davis Files Suit Over Exorbitant Electricity Rates  
VERTICAL REALITY: Altare Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
VXI GLOBAL: Failed to Pay Workers Overtime Wages, Ellis Suit Says
WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Faces Class Action for Sexual Abuse
WHITESTONE REIT: Clark Hits Share Price Drop Over False Reports

WORLD FINANCIAL: Adam Hage Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
YOUNG LIVING: Sued by O'Shaughnessy Over Illegal Pyramid Scheme

                            *********

257 S G PIZZA CORP: Delivery Worker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Del Rio, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 257 S G Pizza Corp. d/b/a Ciao
Bella Restaurant Pizzeria, Giuseppe Graci and Fransico "Doe",
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03426 (S.D. N.Y., April 17, 2019) is
an action brought by Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

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

Plaintiff Del Rio was hired by Defendants ostensibly as a delivery
worker for Defendants' Italian style restaurant from on or about
June 1, 2017 to on or around March 20, 2019.

Ciao Bella, operates an Italian style restaurant and pizzeria.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718) 353-8522
     Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com


3M CO: Mendez Sues Over Defective Earplugs
------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTONIO MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-21341-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2019) seeks
recover damages arising from personal injuries sustained in
training and/or on active military duty, while using Defendant's
Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs during training and combat
exercises.

The complaint alleged that the Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms
earplugs were defective and created a significant risk of hearing
loss, tinnitus, and other hearing related injuries to all
servicemembers who used the earplugs during training or combat
exercises.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs to the Department of
Defense ("DoD") for more than a decade without providing the
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other similarly situated servicemembers permanent
injuries. In fact, Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs were
standard issue in certain branches of the U.S. military between at
least 2003 to at least 2015, meaning Defendant's willful and
fraudulent actions have likely caused thousands, if not millions,
of U.S. servicemembers to suffer from significant and permanent
injuries, pain, suffering, and the loss of the pleasures of life,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff served in the U.S. Army and Florida National Guard from
1982 to 2008.

Defendant is one of the largest companies in the United States, and
among other things, is in the business of, and has a dominant
market share in, designing, manufacturing, and selling safety
products, including hearing protectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Martinez, Esq.
     Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
     Lazaro Fields, Esq.
     COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
     255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 476-7400
     Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
     Email: bob@colson.com
            frank@colson.com
            laz@colson.com


AAF PLAYERS: Schmidt, Et Al. Sue Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
Colton Schmidt, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated; Reggie Northrup, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AAF Players, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, d/b/a The Alliance of American
Football.; Thomas Dundon, an individual; Charles "Charlie" Ebersol,
an individual; Legendary Field Exhibitions, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; AAF Properties, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Properties, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
Ebersol Sports Media Group, Inc., SEQ. a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-575169
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 10, 2019) alleges
breach of contract claims and seeks to recover damages arising from
that breach.

In March 2018, AAF CEO Charlie Ebersol publicly announced the
creation of the AAF, purporting to be a legitimate league that
would provide a potential path to a successful career as a future
National Football League player.

The Defendant has materially breached the Contract, by among other
things, failing and refusing to pay Plaintiffs the annual base
compensation in the amounts stated in the Contract. The Defendant
has clearly and positively indicated, by words and/or conduct, that
it will not and cannot meet the Contract requirements, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs were players in a now-defunct football league commonly
known as the Alliance of American Football ("AAF") owned and
operated by the Defendants.

AAF owns and centrally operates all eight AAF teams and employs
each team's players, coaches, and staff. On further information and
belief, the players are not represented by a players' union.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Boris Treyzon, Esq.
     Jonathon Farahi, Esq.
     ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 935
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (424) 288-4367
     Facsimile: (424) 288-4368


ABBVIE INC: Kentucky Laborers Fund Sues Over Overpriced Humira Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky Laborers District Council Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD., and AMGEN INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02578 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2019) seeks to recover
overcharges for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

Humira (adalimumab) is a biologic injectable therapy indicated to
treat a variety of chronic conditions, including rheumatoid
arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque
psoriasis, Crohn's disease (adult and pediatric), and ulcerative
colitis. Humira is sold primarily in the United States and Europe.
Because Humira generates approximately half of AbbVie's revenues,
the company's profitability is highly dependent on its Humira
sales.

The original patent on Humira, a biologic drug approved in the U.S.
in 2002, would expire in late 2016, leading to competition for
Humira prescriptions from manufacturers of biosimilar drugs. AbbVie
has other drugs in the pipeline, but sales (and corresponding
revenues) of those drugs would not begin until many years after the
Humira patent expired.

AbbVie has filed more than 240 patent applications and obtained
over 100 patents purportedly covering Humira. Tellingly, the vast
majority of these were issued in 2014 or later, even though Humira
was approved and entered the market twelve years earlier. Many of
AbbVie's patents have clear deficiencies that even the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office ("PTO") has recognized by invalidating them.
In short, AbbVie's sole purpose has been to create a patent thicket
that unlawfully deters lawful competition. AbbVie scheme also
involved paying its would-be competitor to further delay entry. At
least nine companies have indicated an intent to market biosimilars
to compete with Humira. At least three currently have approval from
the FDA. But none have launched. Instead, AbbVie has entered into
deals with at least two manufacturers to delay their entry until
various dates in 2023.

Not everyone has the same 2023 entry date. Upon information and
belief, 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, AbbVie provided Amgen with a
de facto exclusivity by agreeing not to 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, asserts the complaint.

Because of AbbVie's unlawful scheme and the delay it bought from
Amgen, Humira's sales have not yet faced competition and may not
face competition until 2023. Under this scheme, AbbVie and Amgen
win. Humira purchasers lose, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff, the Kentucky Laborers District Council Health and
Welfare is a trust fund located in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, which is
administered pursuant to the requirements of the Taft-Hartley Act.

AbbVie has sold adalimumab under the brand name "Humira" in the
United States since 2002.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Justin N. Boley, Esq.
     55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 346-2222
     Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
     Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
            jnb@wexlerwallace.com

          - and -

     Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
     J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
     James G. Stranch, III, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: 615/254-8801
     Facsimile: 615/255-5419
     Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
            gerards@bsjfirm.com
            jims@bsjfirm.com


AFNI INC: Broemer Files Class Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH BROEMER, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AFNI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00551-WCG (E.D. Wis., April 16, 2019) is an action brought
over the illegal practices of Defendant when attempting to collect
an alleged debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, AFNI's first written communication to
BROEMER attempting to collect a debt is materially false,
deceptive, and misleading to an unsophisticated consumer. AFNI's
use of form letters like the one it sent falsely implies the Debt
could increase due to the accrual of fees. The collection letter
also does not clearly state the amount of the Debt.  The letter
deprived BROEMER of truthful, non-misleading information in
connection with AFNI's attempt to collect a debt, says the
complaint.

BROEMER is a natural person.

AFNI is a for-profit corporation formed under the laws of the State
of Illinois. It offers a range of customer lifecycle solutions,
such as customer growth and acquisition, customer care and loyalty,
consumer collections, and insurance subrogation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis R. Greene, Esq.
     Philip D. Stern, Esq.
     Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
     STERN*THOMASSON LLP
     3010 South Appleton Road
     Menasha, WI 54952
     Phone (973) 379-7500
     Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com
            Andrew@SternThomasson.com
            Francis@SternThomasson.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Alber Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
CATHIE ALBER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-10179-CCC-MF (D. N.J., April 16, 2019) seeks actual and
statutory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief arising
from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), which prohibits debt collectors from
engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

Sometime prior to April 16, 2018, Synchrony Bank either directly or
through intermediate transactions assigned, placed or transferred
an obligation to Defendant for collection. At the time the
obligation was assigned, placed or transferred to Defendant, the
obligation was in default. On or about April 16, 2018, Plaintiff
received in the mail a collection letter dated April 16, 2018 that
indicated that the letter was sent by Synchrony Bank, but directed
Plaintiff to call or contact Defendant Allied Interstate LLC. ("the
Collection Letter").

The Collection Letter identified Defendant by name twice in the
collection letter and listed Defendant's telephone number three
separate times in the letter. The Collection Letter does not
provide a telephone number for Synchrony Bank and does not direct
Plaintiff to contact Synchrony Bank. The Collection Letter attempts
to identify Synchrony Bank as the sender, but was essentially a
collection letter from Defendant, and was an attempt by Defendant
to avoid coverage under the FDCPA.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being
the Target of Defendant' debt collection communications. Defendant
violated Plaintiff's rights not to be the target of misleading debt
collection communications. Defendant further violated Plaintiff's
right to a trustful and fair debt collection process. Moreover, the
Defendant's collection letter provided confusing and incorrect
information, causing Plaintiff a concrete injury in that she was
deprived of her right to receive accurate and trustworthy
information regarding her rights under the FDCPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of Bergen County, in the
State of New Jersey, and is a "Consumer".

Defendant is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly engages in business, the principal purpose of which
is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
     17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
     Rutherford, NJ 07070
     Phone: (201) 507-6300


ALLURA USA: Files Support of Motion to Dismiss Johns Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as DONNA JOHNS and PAMELA JEAN FRICK, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ALLURA USA LLC, Plycem USA LLC, Elementia USA, Inc., and Elementia
S.A.B. de C.V., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01036-DCN (D. S.C.,
April 8, 2019), the Defendants submitted a reply brief in further
support of their motion to dismiss Counts II-V of Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Defendants argued that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiffs'
negligence and statutory claims (Counts III, IV, and V). Plaintiffs
contend that the economic loss rule does not apply because they
lack contractual privity with Defendants and they were not afforded
"an opportunity to fully negotiate the terms" of the Limited
Warranty. In doing so, Plaintiffs disregard well-settled Fourth
Circuit precedent holding that the economic loss rule applies when
there is a warranty remedy available to Plaintiffs, regardless of
whether or not privity exists, the Defendants asserted.

Plaintiffs asked the Court to disregard Ellis v. Louisiana-Pacific
Corp., 699 F.3d 778 (4th Cir. 2012) and Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific
LLC, 671 F. Supp. 2d 785 (E.D.N.C. 2009), in which the reviewing
courts rejected the same argument Plaintiffs now make, that North
Carolina law requires privity of contract for the economic loss
rule to apply, says the complaint.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Ashley K. Brathwaite, Esq.
     Ellis & Winters LLP
     4131 Parklake Avenue, Suite 400
     Raleigh, NC 27612
     Phone: (919) 573-1297
     Fax: (919) 865-7010
     Email: ashley.brathwaite@elliswinters.com

          - and -

     Joseph D. Hammond, Esq.
     Ellis & Winters LLP
     300 North Greene Street, Suite 800
     Greensboro, NC 27401
     Phone: (336) 389-5694
     Fax: (336) 217-4198
     Email: joe.hammond@elliswinters.com

          - and -

     Robert L. Hickok, Esq.
     Anthony Vale, Esq.
     Leah Greenberg Katz, Esq.
     Brian Callaway, Esq.
     PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
     3000 Two Logan Square
     Eighteenth and Arch Streets
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
     Phone: (215) 981-4000
     Fax: (215) 981-4750
     Email: hickokr@pepperlaw.com
            valea@pepperlaw.com
            katzl@pepperlaw.com
            callawab@pepperlaw.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Flint Sues Over Illegal Repossession of Vehicle
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL C. FLINT, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, UAR
NATIONAL SERVICES, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, and
ASSOCIATES ASSET RECOVERY, LLC, a South Carolina Limited Liability
Company, Jointly and Severally, Directly and Vicariously,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00189 (S.D. Ohio, April 16, 2019) is a
class action brought on behalf of a putative class that has been
damaged as a result of state and federal consumer protection
statutes. The subject matter of said action involves the illegal
repossession of Plaintiff's motor vehicle and the unfair and
deceptive business practices related to the same.

On August 11, 2018, an employee of either Defendant UAR National
Services or and/or Defendant Associates Asset Recovery
(collectively referred to as "AAR") entered Mr. Flint's private,
gated parking garage. After illegally trespassing on Mr. Flint's
property, the AAR employee repossessed Mr. Flint's 2015 Chevrolet
Camaro. At all times relevant, the vehicle was located in a gated
parking garage, which the general public did not have access to.
The entrance gate to the parking garage clearly and prominently
displayed a "no trespassing" sign. Moreover, the gate is
mechanically locked and can only be opened using a garage door
opener.

On August 13, 2018, Mr. Flint called Ally Financial, who informed
him that the redemption price to recover the vehicle would be
$3,127.39 (the "redemption price"). On August 13, 2018, Mr. Flint
paid Ally Financial the full $3,127.39 redemption price in order to
redeem the vehicle. Once Ally was paid, it directed Mr. Flint to
pick up the vehicle from AAR at 6500 Lakeview Road, Charlotte, NC
28269. When Mr. Flint arrived at AAR he was given a number of
documents to sign. Included in these documents was a release and
hold harmless clause, which stated: "By signing this Release, I
fully understand the above statements and do agree to Release and
Hold Harmless Associates Asset Recovery LLC and Ally Financial and
or its Agents from all claims, demands and or actions, which I or
my Representatives do have or may have against Associates Asset
Recovery LLD, Ally Financial and/or its Agents or Employees, prior
to this date" (the "Waiver"). At no point prior to making the
$3,127.39 payment was Mr. Flint informed that he would be required
to sign a release and hold harmless clause. Moreover, Mr. Flint
verbally objected to signing the Waiver.

In response to Mr. Flint's objection, AAR refused to release Mr.
Flint's vehicle, stating that it would not release the vehicle
until Mr. Flint signed all the documents, including the Waiver. Mr.
Flint informed the AAR representative that the full redemption
price had been paid and Ally Financial had already faxed AAR the
paperwork required to release the vehicle. Regardless, AAR told Mr.
Flint that the only way they could release the vehicle was if he
agreed to sign the Waiver, says the complaint.

Mr. Flint was the owner of the vehicle.

ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., ("Ally"), regularly and systematically
conducted business in the City of Charlotte, State of North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Flint, Esq.
     Law Offices of Daniel C. Flint, P.C.
     525 N. Tryon, Suite 1600
     Charlotte, NC 28203
     Phone: (704) 904-8469
     Email: info@flint-law.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Scanlan USERRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' motion to transfer
the case, JAMES P. SCANLAN on his own behalf and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC., et al, Civil
Action No. 18-4040 (E.D. Pa.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Section 1404(a).

Scanlan has brought the putative class action against American
Airlines Group and its wholly owned subsidiary, American Airlines,
Inc. under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act. Scanlan is an American Airlines pilot and a Major General in
the United States Air Force Reserve.  He claims that he and others
similarly situated have not received what is due under the American
Airlines Group One Global Profit Sharing Plan.

The Defendants have now filed a motion to transfer venue of the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

The parties have submitted declarations relevant to the venue
issues, and the Court has permitted limited discovery.  Scanlan is
a resident of Doylestown, which is located in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  He generally flies as a pilot for American
Airlines based out of LaGuardia Airport in New York.  Both
Defendants are Delaware corporations with their headquarters in
Fort Worth, which is in the Northern District of Texas.
Philadelphia, where the Court sits, is one of the Defendants' 10
"hubs."  American Airlines, as the country's largest domestic
airline with over 100,000 employees, has over 7,474 employees in
this city and has between 7 and 9 daily non-stop flights each way
between Philadelphia and Forth Worth, Texas.  The Global Profit
Sharing Plan in issue is administered in Fort Worth.

Judge Bartle finds that the Defendants' financial condition,
compared to that of the Plaintiff, clearly allows them to afford
more easily the inconveniences associated with travel.  The
Defendants are the nation's largest domestic airline and a Fortune
500 company with billions of dollars in assets.  They maintain a
"hub" in Philadelphia with thousands of employees and operate 7 to
9 daily flights from Fort Worth to Philadelphia.  They simply
cannot maintain that inconvenience would be greater to them than to
an individual Plaintiff, notwithstanding that they may need to fly
a number of individuals to the district.

Next, he finds that though more witnesses may be located in Fort
Worth than Philadelphia, there is no indication that any would be
unavailable in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.   And because
the Plaintiff brought the suit as a class action, the class members
would suffer harm wherever they are located.  

Court congestion also weighs in favor of remaining in the district.
The Judge finds that the Court has a slightly faster median time
from filing to disposition and from filing to trial.  Moreover, the
district has no "judicial emergencies" resulting from vacancies
while the Northern District of Texas has five vacancies considered
"judicial emergencies," including three vacancies of over three
years.  Perhaps most relevant, the Judge, to whom the matter is
assigned, is current in his work.  There will be no undue delay.

Finally, the Judge finds that the present lawsuit involves class
members and issues with notable differences from Hoefert v. Am.
Airlines Inc.  Significantly, Woodall and Hoefert were not assigned
to the same judge as related cases in the Northern District of
Texas.  It undermines any contention that transfer to the Northern
District of Texas would ensure that the present case would proceed
more efficiently than if it remained.  There would be no benefit to
having the case in the Northern District of Texas if it were in
front of a different judge.  He also notes that the Court is
dealing with federal and not state claims for relief.  The presence
of the Hoefert case in the Northern District of Texas is not a
persuasive reason for transfer under Section 1404(a).

Judge Bartle concludes that the Defendants have the burden to
establish the need for transfer for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses, in the interests of justice.  Most factors are
neutral, while others weigh slightly in favor of the Plaintiff.
The Defendants have not met their burden.  Accordingly, he denied
the Defendants' motion to transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Mm9ypD from Leagle.com.

JAMES P. SCANLAN, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM HARRISON GARNER,
THE GARNER FIRM LTD, COLIN M. DOWNES -- colin@blockesq.com -- BLOCK
& LEVITON LLP, HANNAH COLE-CHU, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, MATTHEW
ZACHARY CROTTY, CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC, PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN,
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, R. JOSEPH BARTON -- joe@blockesq.com -- BLOCK
& LEVITON LLP & THOMAS G. JARRARD.

AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC. & AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendants, represented by KENNETH A. MURPHY --
kenneth.murphy@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP & MARK W.
ROBERTSON -- mrobertson@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP.


AMERICAN ASPHALT: Dennis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL DENNIS, DEVANTE DENNIS, JAMEL DUNCAN, and BRADLEY KING,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ASPHALT PAVING, LLC and JOSEPH D. HOLLEY,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00935-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla., April 18,
2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages.

Plaintiffs were entitled to time and one-half Plaintiffs' regular
rate of pay for hours worked over 40 hours per week. During one or
more workweeks, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time and one half
Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

Moreover, Plaintiffs were not paid for all time spent driving to
and from the jobsite. This time was underestimated by Defendants.
Plaintiffs were unlawfully denied overtime wages in violation of
the FLSA. By reason of the intentional, willful and unlawful acts
of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including
liquidated, and will continue to incur costs and attorneys' fees,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as asphalt lutemen.

AMERICAN ASPHALT PAVING, LLC had employees engaged in interstate
commerce or in the production of goods for interstate
commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
     TODD W. SHULBr;, P.A.
     1792 Bell Tower Lane
     Weston, FL 33326
     Phone: (954) 530-2236
     Facsimile No.: (954) 530-6628
     Email: tshulby@shulbylaw.com



AMERICAN BOTTLING: Juan M. Guzman Files Wage and Hour Suit in Ca.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan M. Guzman-Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The American Bottling Company, a
corporation; Keurig-Dr. Pepper, Inc. a corporation; and Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13050 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 16, 2019) is a class action
seeking to remedy wage-and-hour violations by the Defendants.

For at least four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and
through the present, Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy
and systematic scheme of wage abuse against Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees of Defendants in violation of applicable
California laws, including, without limitation, failing to provide
meal and rest breaks, and failing to pay minimum and overtime
wages, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Juan M. Guzman-Lopez was jointly employed by Defendants
at its facility in Vernon, California as a merchandiser from
approximately November 2017 to September 2018.

Defendant The American Bottling Company is a subsidiary of
Keurig-Dr. Pepper, Inc. offering bottling services and is a
distributor of Dr. Pepper affiliated soft drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     VACHE A. THOMASSIAN, ESQ.
     CASPAR JIVALAGLAN, ESQ.
     KJT LAW GROUP LLP
     230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
     Glendale, CA 91206
     Phone: 818.507.8525
     Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
            caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

        - and -

     CHRISTOPHER A. ADAMS, ESQ.
     ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
     4740 Calle Carga
     Camarillo, CA 93012
     Phone: 818.425.1437
     Email: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Fain Sues Over Vehicles' Faulty Sensing System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Fain and Franzetta Cheathon, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor
Company, Inc., and Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02945 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2019) seek awards of damages as
well as injunctive and other equitable relief for Honda's conduct
that needlessly endangered drivers, unjustly enriched Honda at
consumers' expense, and violated consumer protection and warranty
laws.

Honda provides types of systems through a proprietary driver
support suite it calls "Honda Sensing." Honda Sensing relies on a
radar sensor (near the lower front bumper), an interior camera
(near the rearview mirror), along with computers and other
technology. The autonomous braking system within Honda Sensing is
called Collision Mitigation Braking System (or CMBS). Computerized
driver-assisting safety systems generally, and autonomous braking
systems like CMBS in particular, must undergo careful testing and
inspection to ensure they work properly. Otherwise, the systems put
lives at risk.

Honda, as one of the first manufacturers to institute an autonomous
braking system, has had a number of problems with false
alarms--which is where the system brakes abruptly even though there
is nothing around that risked a collision. Back in 2015, for
instance, Honda issued a safety recall for various 2014-2015 model
year vehicles that were having false alarms. Honda issued the
recall because these false alarms "could increase the risk of a
crash." Other manufacturers have likewise issued safety recalls
when their vehicles' automated braking systems deployed because of
false alarms.

Despite its longstanding familiarity with the failures of the Honda
Sensing system and the importance of functional driver-assisting
safety systems, Honda continues selling and leasing vehicles
equipped with Honda Sensing. Drivers have thus reported in droves
that their vehicles' Honda Sensing warning lights display without
explanation, brakes deploy seemingly randomly and parts of the
system like adaptive cruise control malfunction. As a result,
drivers are brought to abrupt halts in traffics, trailing vehicles
have to slam on the brakes or swerve dangerously out of their
lanes, to avoid a crash. According to public records, at least one
freeway collision has already occurred, and more are likely, absent
a quickly-implemented solution, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased new 2017 Honda CR-V around May and Agust
2017.

Honda manufactures, markets, and distributes mass-produced
automobiles in the United States under the Honda brand name.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
     David Stein, Esq.
     Steven Lopez, Esq.
     GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
     505 14th Street, Suite 1110
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 350-9700
     Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
     Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
            ds@classlawgroup.com
            sal@classlawgroup.com


APPLE INC: City of Roseville Says Reports are False & Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC.,
TIMOTHY D. COOK and LUCA MAESTRI, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Cal., April 16, 2019) is a securities fraud
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Apple common stock
between November 2, 2018 and January 2, 2019, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In the midst of the ongoing trade war between the United States and
China, on September 12, 2018, Apple introduced three new phones:
the iPhone XR (priced at $749/$799/$899), the iPhone XS (priced at
$999/$1149), and the iPhone XS Max (priced at $1099/$1249/$1449).
Unlike the prior iPhone releases, the 2018 iPhones were not viewed
as having significant technological advances beyond the iPhone X
released in late 2017 (priced at $999/$1149).  Meanwhile, Chinese
manufacturers like Huawei, Oppo, and Xiaomi, which have since
commandeered 24.6%, 20.5%, and 13.6% of the Chinese market,
respectively, were slashing Apple's Chinese market share to 7.5% by
offering arguably more innovative features for hundreds of dollars
less per phone. For instance, Huawei's P20 Pro sells for
approximately $800 in China and Xiaomi's MIX 2S sells for
approximately $500 in China.

The strength of the U.S. dollar and the high price of iPhones,
combined with a declining Chinese economy, placed the iPhone out of
reach of many Chinese consumers who might otherwise have
upgraded--at the same time that many less expensive Chinese
smartphones were flooding the market. Notwithstanding the impact of
slowing economic growth in China, geopolitical pressures caused by
U.S.-China sales tariffs, and the Company's ability to compel
unnecessary iPhone upgrades on customers, Apple issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements in November 2018
concerning demand for iPhones and Apples pricing power for its
hardware offerings, including its new iPhones launched in September
2018, in particular in China. For example, on November 1, 2018,
Apple reported its fourth quarter and FY18 financial results for
the period ended September 29, 2018.

While Apple's mid-point 1Q19 revenue guidance range provided on
November 1, 2018 was $1.9 billion below what the market expected,
defendants' materially false and misleading statements issued that
day served to prop up the market price of Apple common stock, which
continued to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the
Class Period, says the complaint.

Plaintiff City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System purchased
Apple common stock during the Class Period.

Apple is a multinational technology company headquartered in
Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and sells consumer
electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     SHAWN A. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: 415/288-4545
     Fax: 415/288-4534
     Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     SAMUEL H. RUDMAN, ESQ.
     MARY K. BLASY, ESQ.
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: 631/367-7100
     Fax: 631/367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
            mblasy@rgrdlaw.com


ARGENT TRUST: Lee Files ERISA Class Action in North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON LEE on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY,
CHOATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ESOP COMMITTEE, CHOATE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WILLIAM MILLARD CHOATE, DAVE PRIESTER,
MEMBERS OF THE CHOATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ESOP COMMITTEE (John and
Jane Does 1-10), MEMBERS OF THE CHOATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BOARD
OF DIRECTORS (John and Jane Does 11-20), and SELLING SHAREHOLDERS
(John and Jane Does 21-35), Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00156-BO
(E.D. N.C., April 17, 2019) is a civil enforcement action brought
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other
participants and beneficiaries in the Choate Construction Company
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Choate ESOP, the ESOP or the Plan).

The Choate ESOP is an ERISA protected retirement plan whereby the
individual retirement accounts of current and former employees are
invested entirely in the stock of Choate Construction Company.
There is no recognized market for Choate stock; thus, the value of
the stock must be determined based on a private valuation of the
Company.

Plaintiff's claims stem from the creation of the Choate ESOP in
December 2016 and, shortly thereafter, the sale of 80% of the
Company's stock to the Choate ESOP at an inflated value (the 2016
Sale). This transaction was not conducted in the best interests of
the employees, who are the ESOP participants, and resulted in tens
of millions of dollars of losses to the employees' retirement
savings held in the ESOP. On December 6, 2016, the ESOP purchased 8
million shares of the Company's voting common stock, representing
80% of the Company, for $198 million. According to public filings
available on the Department of Labor website, Choate stock was
valued at just $64.8 million less than a month after its sale to
the ESOP, meaning the stock had lost 2/3 of its value as of
December 31, 2016, after its purchase from the Selling
Shareholders.

Argent, the Trustee who represented the ESOP participants in the
2016 Sale, was chosen by the people who sold their interest in the
Company to the ESOP (the Sellers or Selling Shareholders). The fact
that Argent who represented the ESOP in the transaction was
selected and retained by the Sellers, who ultimately benefited from
ESOP overpaying the Selling Shareholders for the stock, meant that
Argent and the Sellers were operating under significant conflicts
of interest at the expense of the ESOP participants. The Selling
Shareholders, illegally profited from the 2016 Sale by receiving an
inflated price for the Company stock they sold to the ESOP. The
Selling Shareholders were enriched by tens of millions of dollars
at the expense of the ESOP participants, asserts the complaint.

Accordingly, the Selling Shareholders and the Trustee violated the
ERISA, and those violations caused tens of millions of dollars in
losses to the ESOP participants who overpaid for the 8 million
shares of Company stock they purchased, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Sharon Lee is a former employee of Choate and a current
participant in the Choate ESOP within the meaning of ERISA.

Argent is the Trustee of the Choate ESOP. Argent acquired its
fiduciary services business from Reliance Trust Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Martha Geer, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 980
     Raleigh, NC 27601
     Phone: (919) 890-0560
     Facsimile: (919) 890-0567
     Email: mgeer@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
     Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
     Jamie L. Bowers, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
     West Tower, Suite 500
     Washington, DC 20005-3934
     Phone: (202) 408-4600
     Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
     Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
            khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
            jbowers@cohenmilstein.com


ARKANSAS TOTAL: Bid for Conditional Certification Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. ARKANSAS
TOTAL CARE, INC., CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMET
COMPANY, LLC, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00580-JM (E.D.
Ark.), the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all Care Coordinators for Arkansas Total Care, Inc. and
      Centene Corporation at any time since August 27, 2015";

   2. approving the form of notice proposed by the Plaintiff;

   3. directing the Defendant to provide to counsel for the
      plaintiff the names and addresses of all persons who were
      employed by them as Care Coordinators during the specific
      time within 14 days from the entry of the Order. Defendant
      shall provide the information in electronic format only if
      it is currently maintained in electronic format;

   3. authorizing a 90-day opt-in period from the date the notice
      is mailed;

   4. authorizing lawyers for the Plaintiff to issue the notice and

      consent forms by mail, and to send a reminder postcard 30
      days after the initial notice is mailed; and

   5. denying Plaintiff's request to provide notice via electronic

      mailing or text message.

The Court said. "After carefully considering these factors, the
Court finds that the Plaintiff has provided enough information to
establish that she is similarly situated to the putative class
members at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the Court
finds that conditional certification is proper under the FLSA for
purposes of notice and discovery, and accordingly, certifies the
class requested by the Plaintiff."

The Plaintiff claimed that she and all putative class members
performed the same or similar job duties which inevitably required
more than 40 hours of work per week.[CC]

AT&T MOBILITY: Ayala Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, NATASHA AYALA, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AT&T MOBILITY
SERVICES, LLC, a MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Delaware Limited
Liability Company; AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT and DOES 1 THROUGH 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-08809-SVW-MRW (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 24, 2018), Natasha Ayala will move the Court on May 6,
2019, for an order:

   1. certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

      The Class:

      "all current and former hourly non-exempt employees of
      Defendant who, at any time from August 22, 2014 through the
      date of class certification, worked at Call Centers located
      in California and received commission payments";

      Wage Statement Sub-Class:

      "all current and former hourly non-exempt employees for of
      Defendant who at any time during the period of August 22,
      2017 through the date of class certification, worked at Call

      Centers located in California and received commission
      payments and were provided a wage statement";

      Regular Rate Sub-Class:

      "all current and former hourly non-exempt employees of
      Defendant who at any time during the period of August 22,
      2014 through the date of class certification, worked at Call

      Centers located in California and received commission
      payments and worked more than eight hours in a workday or 40

      hours in a workweek"

      Meal Period Pay Computation Sub-Class:

      "all current and former hourly non-exempt employees of
      Defendant who at any time during the period of August 22,
      2014 through the date of class certification, worked at Call

      Centers located in California and received commission
      payments and received meal period premium pay"; and

      Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class:

      "all former hourly non-exempt employees of Defendant who at
      any time during the period of August 22, 2015 through the
      date of class certification, worked at Call Centers located
      in California and received commission payments and is a
      member of Regular Rate Sub-Class and/or Meal Period
      Computation Sub-Class";

   2. finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative of
      the class members and certifying her as the class
      representative;

   3. finding the Plaintiff's counsel, namely David P. Myers,
      Robert M. Kitson, Jason Hatcher, and Morgan B. Good, of The
      Myers Law Group, A.P.C., as adequate class counsel and
      certifying them as class counsel;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiff's Counsel to send Class Notice
      pursuant to Rule 23 (in a form to be approved by the Court
      after a conference with Defense Counsel). The Notice shall
      permit class members to opt-out of the class if they so
      desire within 30 days of notice having been sent by sending a

      written letter request signed by the class member which lists

      the class member's full name, address, telephone number, and

      last four digits of the class member's social security
      number; and

   5. directing that notice shall be provided to the class via U.S.

      Mail to the last known address reflected on Defendant's
      records. Th Defendant shall cooperate with Class Counsel in
      preparing a computerized mailing list as required".[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated:

          Jason Hatcher, Esq.
          David P. Myers, Esq.
          Robert M. Kitson, Esq.
          Jason Hatcher, Esq.
          Morgan B. Good, Esq.
          MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (909) 919-2027
          Facsimile: (888) 375-2102
          E-mail: dmyers@myerslawgroup.com
                  rkitson@myerslawgroup.com
                  jhatcher@myerslawgroup.com
                  mgood@myerslawgroup.com

AVON PRODUCTS: Misclassifies District Sales Managers, Rogel Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA ROGEL, an individual; COLEEN GRAY-HAY, an individual; on
their own behalves and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., a New York corporation, NEW AVON, LLC., a
Delaware limited liability company, and CERBERUS CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, L.P., a foreign limited partnership, Case No.
3:19-cv-01993-EDL (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2019), challenges the
alleged systemic illegal employment practices by the Defendants,
which result in violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the
California WARN Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misclassified individuals
they employed in the position of "District Sales Manager" as
"independent contractors" when the true classification should have
been that of "employee."

Headquartered in New York City, Avon Products, Inc., was founded in
1886 and is the leading social selling beauty company in North
America and second largest direct sell enterprise in the world.  In
March of 2016, Avon Products separated its North American business
into a privately held company operating as Defendant New Avon LLC.
New Avon is a private company, majority owned by Cerberus Capital
Management.  New Avon is headquartered in New York City.

Cerberus Capital Management is an American private equity firm
specializing in "distressed investing."  The firm is based in New
York City.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants are major manufacturers and sellers of direct-sell
beauty, household, and personal care products.  Avon's product
portfolio includes award-winning skincare, color cosmetics,
fragrance and personal care products, featuring iconic brands such
as Anew, Avon Color, mark., and Skin So Soft, as well as fashion
and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


AXON ENTERPRISES: Richey Sues Over Defective Safety Mechanism
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Douglas Richey, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Axon Enterprises, Inc. formerly
d/b/a Taser international, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00192
(D. Nev., April 9, 2019) seeks damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired the
"Pulse", "X2" or "X26P" model Conducted Electrical Weapon ("CEW")
manufactured by Defendant during the four years preceding the date
of filing of the action.

Taser manufactured, supplied, promoted, and sold the "Pulse", "X2"
or "X26P" model CEW when it knew or should have known of a
defective safety mechanism which causes the weapons to
unintentionally discharge. Taser, acting individually and
collectively through its agents and dealers, failed to adequately
disclose to the consuming public the fact that Pulse, X2 and X26P
model CEWs had defective safety mechanism.

Furthermore, through a common and uniform course of conduct, Taser
failed to honor both legally mandated and voluntarily offered
warranties that would have required it to repair or correct, at no
cost to the consuming public, the nonconforming, defective safety
mechanisms.

The action seeks to hold accountable and to obtain maximum legal
and equitable relief from Taser for producing and placing into the
stream of commerce its defective Pulse, X2 and X26P model CEWs,
says the complaint.

Mr. Richey is an adult consumer who acquired the Taser product for
personal, family or household purposes.

Taser, through its agents, distributors, servants and/or employees,
engaged in the design, manufacture, marketing, sale and delivery of
its Pulse, X2 and X26P model CEWs nationally and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles A. Jones, Esq.
     Kelly McInerney, Esq.
     JONES LAW FIRM LLC
     9589 Prototype Court, Suite B
     Reno, NV 89521
     Phone: 775-853-6440
     Facsimile: 775-853-6445
     Email: caj@cjoneslawfirm.com
            kelly@cjoneslawfirm.com

          - and -

     James M. Terrell, Esq.
     J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
     METHVIN, TERRELL, TANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
     2201 Arlington Avenue South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: (205) 939-0199
     Facsimile: 7(205) 939-0399
     Email: jterrell@mmlaw.net
            mstephens@mmlaw.net


BHARTI CORP: Douze Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
JEAN DOUZE, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b) Plaintiff, v. BHARTI CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation,
d/b/a 7-ELEVEN RUCHNAKS CORPORATION, a Florida Profit Corporation,
d/b/a 7-ELEVEN and BHARTIBEN SHAH, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 9:19-cv-80493-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2019) is an action
seeking unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and damages stemming from Defendants' retaliatory
discharge pursuant to the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision.

During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff frequently worked
over 40 hours a week. Initially, Plaintiff was told that he would
work 5 days a week and eight hours per day; however Defendants
regularly required Plaintiff to work 6 days and 50 hours or more
per week.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants had knowledge of
Plaintiff's overtime hours, but purposefully failed to provide him
complete and adequate overtime pay in violation of the FLSA. The
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff in
accordance with the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Defendants have failed to compensate similarly situated
employees in accordance with the FLSA by depriving them of the
FLSA's required overtime premium.

Plaintiff began working for Defendants in 2012. Plaintiff performed
work for Defendants as a Cashier for both 7-Eleven store
locations.

Defendants operate as a gas station and convenience store under the
franchise name 7-Eleven.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
     Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     Waynice A. Green, Esq.
     PERERA BARNHART, P.A.
     12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor
     Davie, FL 33330
     Phone: 786-485-5232
     Email: freddy@pererabarnhart.com
            valerie@pererabarnhart.com
            brody@pererabarnhart.com
            waynice@pererabarnhart.com


BOEING COMPANY: Jeweltex Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeweltex Manufacturing Inc., Retirement Plan, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING
COMPANY, DENNIS A. MUILENBURG, ROBERT A. BRADWAY, DAVID L. CALHOUN,
ARTHUR D. COLLINS, JR., KENNETH M. DUBERSTEIN, ADMIRAL EDMUND P.
GIAMBASTIANI, JR., LYNN J. GOOD, NIKKI R. HALEY, LAWRENCE W.
KELLNER, CAROLINE B. KENNEDY, EDWARD M. LIDDY, SUSAN C. SCHWAB,
RONALD A. WILLIAMS, and MIKE S. ZAFIROVSKI, Defendants, (E.D. N.Y.,
April 8, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of all holders
of Boeing stock at the close of business on February 28, 2019 that
are eligible to vote for, among other things, the annual election
of directors scheduled for April 29, 2019 (the "Annual Meeting"),
to address the proxy and other securities law violations by the
Company, its Board of Directors, and its executive officers, which,
as a result of such conduct, disseminated a materially false and
misleading Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on March 15, 2019
(the "Proxy Statement").

On October 29, 2018, the first airline crash involving the Boeing
737 MAX 8 occurred when Lion Air Flight 610 ("Flight 610") crashed
into the Java Sea eleven minutes after takeoff, killing all 189
people on board (the "First Crash"). Less than five months later on
March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET302 ("Flight ET302"),
also a Boeing 737 MAX 8, crashed minutes after takeoff, killing all
157 people on board (the "Second Crash"). On March 15, 2019, five
days after the Second Crash and after being grounded by numerous
countries, Boeing filed its 2019 proxy statement. The Proxy
Statement seeks: (i) the election of all 13 director nominees
constituting the entire Boeing board of directors (the "Board");
(ii) approval, on an advisory basis, of named executive officer
compensation; (iii) ratification of the appointment of the
Company's independent auditor; and (iv) certain shareholder
proposals that the Board has recommended shareholders vote against,
including the appointment of an independent Chairman.

The Complaint noted that the Second Crash, the grounding of its 737
MAX fleet and any other material information regarding the 737 MAX
and any mention of the two crashes are nowhere to be found in the
Proxy Statement. The only mention of the First Crash is in a
shareholder proposal in the text provided by the shareholder. After
March 15, 2019, the fallout continued. Yet Defendants failed to
update the Proxy Statement as required.

The Complaint asserted that Boeing's Proxy Statement is materially
false and misleading because it fails to disclose the recent
crippling events and circumstances that have shaken the Company to
its core, subjected the Company to virtually unlimited civil and
criminal prosecution and investigation, grounded its most
innovative and profitable fleet of 737 MAX jets, and, among other
things, left the Company scrambling to fix its most advanced
automated flight systems and controls that both paralyzed its fleet
and unveiled an air of secrecy and disinformation surrounding the
introduction of this fleet without the necessary warnings to and
training of pilots before introduction of the new automated systems
incorporated into the design and engineering of this fleet and the
method for stabilizing a plane experiencing a malfunction of these
automated systems.

Plaintiff at all times relevant to the allegations was the owner of
shares of Boeing common stock.

Boeing is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware. Boeing designs, manufactures, and sells
airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets, satellites, and missiles worldwide.
The company also provides leasing and product support services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
     Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
     David C. Katz, Esq.
     Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010

          - and -

     Stuart J. Guber, Esq.
     Alex B. Heller, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1550
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 277-5770
     Fax: (215) 277-5771


BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Rodarte Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL RODARTE, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees v. BOJANGLES'
RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and BOJANGLES', INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00121 (E.D. Tenn., April 12,
2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation for Assistant Unit Directors
due to their misclassification as salaried, exempt employees.

Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal executive office located in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., is a subsidiary of Defendant
Bojangles', Inc.  Bojangles', Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with
its principal executive office located in Charlotte.  Bojangles',
Inc., is a restaurant operator and franchisor.

The Defendants own, operate, and franchise Bojangles' restaurants
with their core menu centered on "chicken 'n biscuits."  The
Defendants operated company owned Bojangles' restaurants in several
states across primarily the Southeastern United States, including
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert. E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com


BP EXPLORATION: Denial of $1.3MM Claimant Award Review Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Requesting Parties-Appellants, v.
CLAIMANT ID 100317640, Objecting Party-Appellee, Case No. 18-30337
(5th Cir.), Judge Carl E. Stewart of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to grant
discretionary review to consider arguments regarding the
calculations of loss from operations at two restaurants in
Florida.

In response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico, an Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement
Agreement was negotiated between BP and class action
representatives.  The Settlement Agreement permits individuals and
entities that experienced spill-related economic and property
damage to recover from BP through a Court Supervised Settlement
Program.  Business Economic Loss claims are calculated under the
Settlement Agreement by comparing the actual profit of a business
during a defined post-spill period in 2010 to the profit that the
claimant might have expected to earn in the comparable post-spill
period of 2010.

Compensation for Business Economic Loss claims is calculated in two
steps.  The first step in the calculation is to determine the
difference in Variable Profit between the 2010 Compensation Period
selected by the claimant and the Variable Profit over the
comparable months of the Benchmark Period.  The second step of the
calculation is intended to compensate claimants for incremental
profits the claimant might have been expected to generate in 2010
in the absence of the spill, based on the claimant's growth in
revenue in January 2010 to April 2010 relative to the
claimant-selected Benchmark Period.  Once the compensation under
each step is determined, the two figures are added together, then
multiplied by a risk transfer premium to determine a total award.

The first-level determination on a claim under the Settlement
Program is by the Claims Administrator.  The claimant in the case
was awarded $1,309,392.11 for losses at two Florida restaurants.
BP disputed the award and sought review by an Appeal Panel.  BP
argued that the Claims Administrator failed to investigate certain
expense line items and misclassified repair costs as entirely
variable instead of as 50% fixed, which had the effect here of
increasing the claimant's award.  It also argued that the Claims
Administrator failed to reconcile differences between the
claimant's profit and loss statements ("P&Ls") and its tax returns
with respect to the claimant's "supplies' expenses."  BP claimed
that the difference between the P&Ls and the tax returns may have
inflated the award to the claimant by more than $100,000.

The Appeal Panel effectively affirmed the Claims Administrator's
award, concluding there was no error in the reconciliation of the
P&Ls and tax returns.  As to BP's claim that the Claims
Administrator incorrectly found expense line items to be 100%
variable, rather than 50% fixed, the Appeal Panel found that "BP
may have a valid point," but the number submitted by the claimant
(which was the number calculated by the Claims Administrator) was
closer to the proper result than BP's submission, and adopted the
claimant's proposed award.  The importance of the finding that one
party's estimate is closer than the other's is that an Appeal Panel
is to choose the party's Final Proposal that is closest to the best
result, even if incorrect, instead of remanding the case.

BP then sought discretionary review in the district court, which
refused to take the appeal.  BP then appealed in the Fifth Circuit.
It argues that the district court should have reviewed the award
for two reasons: (1) certain of the claimant's costs were
classified as entirely variable when the Settlement Agreement
requires those accounts to be classified as 50% fixed and 50%
variable; and (2) discrepancies should have been resolved between
certain of the claimant's supplies costs in its P&Ls and tax
returns.

Judge Stewart rejects BP's effort to analogize Texas Gulf Seafood
to the instant case.  He finds that the Appeal Panel did not find
that the Claims Administrator correctly applied the Settlement
Agreement when it failed to apply the rules governing fixed and
variable costs.  Instead, it found that even though the Claims
Administrator may have failed to apply the proper rule, the Final
Proposal submitted by the claimant was closer to the correct result
than BP's.  Applying the "baseball process," which is part of the
settlement, the Appeal Panel picked the claimant's Final Proposal
despite the error.

In addition, the Judge finds that the Appeal Panel found that on
the facts of the claim before it, there was no error in the Claims
Administrator's reconciliation of P&Ls and tax returns, and
therefore declined to remand the claim.  Thus, BP's argument is
simply about the accuracy of the decision as to the claimant's
case, rather than an argument about the systematic application of
the Settlement Agreement.  

The Court's conclusion on that point also dispenses with the
argument that there is a relevant split in Appeal Panel authority.
The case lacks the factual predicate that the Appeal Panel
decisions cited by BP include, which is that there was some error
by the Claims Administrator.  Therefore, any discrepancy in BP's
cited Appeal Panel decisions can be explained by the individual
facts and circumstances of the claims, where a decision to remand
is discretionary.  The Appeal Panel specifically found that on the
record before it, there was no reconciliation error.  The Judge
therefore does not find that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to review this claim.

For these reasons, Judge Stewart affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5UxZup from Leagle.com.

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

James Andrew Langan -- andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

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

Daniel A. Cantor -- cantoroffice@aol.com -- for Requesting
Party-Appellant.

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

R. Stanton Jones -- stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com -- for
Requesting Party-Appellant.

Shyam Dixit -- shyamiedixit@gmail.com -- for Objecting
Party-Appellee.

Cristian Robert Kelly, for Requesting Party-Appellant.


CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Jones Seeks Damages Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shonga Jones and Joes Rios, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capstone Logistics, LLC (a/k/a
Capstone Logistics of GA, LLC), Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01483-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 18, 2019) seeks all damages
available under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), including
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and
post-judgment interest.

Plaintiffs and the putative collective action members regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as employees of Defendant
but were not paid all overtime premium compensation owed to them
under the federal FLSA by Defendant, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as unloaders at its
worksite.

Defendant is in the warehouse logistics business with warehouse
worksites throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     Nilges Draher LLC
     34 N. High St., Ste. 502
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 824-5770
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: 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
     Phone: (330) 470-4428
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


CARRIAGE CEMETERY: Barajas Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yoshira Barajas, Henry Grant, Nachae Williams, and Buriel Denise
Williams Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Carriage Cemetery Services of California,
Inc. a California corporation: Carriage Funeral Services of
California, Inc. a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02035-EDL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., April 16, 2019) claims civil waiting time penalties
and interest for the Defendants' unlawful acts by failing to pay
minimum wage and overtime as required under California law.

The Defendants violate the labor code by requiring its employees
and Plaintiffs to work in excess of 8 hours per day and/or in
excess of 40 hours per week without any compensation. The
Defendants knew that Plaintiffs worked overtime without
compensation. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and its
Employees as required by California law, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants from 2016 through
mid-2018.

Carriage Funeral Services Of California Inc. owns and operates
funeral homes and cemeteries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Na'il Benjamin, Esq.
     Allyssa Villanueva, Esq.
     BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1290 B Street, Suite 314
     Hayward, CA 94541
     Phone: (510) 897-9967
     Facsimile: (510) 439-2632
     Email: nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com
            allyssa@benjaminlawgroup.com


CATHAY EXPRESS: Kim Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
David Kim on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Cathay Express Transportation Inc., Max Davydov and
Esya Davydov, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02007 (E.D. N.Y., April
8, 2019) is an action brought to recover unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid spread-of-hours pay, and other damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated at the statutorily overtime wage,
spread-of-hours pay, failed to furnish accurate wage notices and
failed to give employees wage statements as required by law, the
Complaint states.

Mr. Kim was employed as a handicap taxi driver by the Defendants
from June 6, 2014 through February 1, 2019.

The Defendants own and operate Cathay Express, handicap
transportation company that provides wheelchair accessible taxi
service to disabled people in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
     Ryan Kim Law
     163-10 Northern Blvd. Suite 205
     Flushing, NY 11358
     Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com


CEDAR SHAKE: Bradow Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix CSS Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
LLOYD EVAN BRADOW D/B/A PENINSULA CONTRACTING AND ROOFING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU, a Washington non-profit
corporation; WALDUN FOREST PRODUCTS, LTD., a British Columbia
corporation; ANBROOK INDUSTRIES LTD, a British Columbia
corporation; and G&R CEDAR LTD., a British Columbia corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00577 (W.D. Wash., April 17, 2019) is
a class action lawsuit involving an antitrust conspiracy to fix the
prices of cedar shakes and shingles (CSS) between and among
Defendant Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau (CSSB or Bureau)--the
industry's only trade association--and its manufacturer members,
including Defendant Anbrook Industries Ltd. (Anbrook), Defendant
Waldun Forest Products Ltd. (Waldun), and Defendant G&R Cedar Ltd.
(G&R).

CSS are made from Western Red Cedar or Alaskan Yellow Cedar, and
these species are only commercially harvested in the Pacific
Northwest, especially British Columbia and the State of Washington.
CSS is overwhelmingly manufactured in the Pacific Northwest for
sale in the United States. The United States is the largest market
for CSS in the world, and more than 90% of the CSS exported from
Canada is imported into the United States. Between 2011 and 2018,
Canadian manufacturers, including the Manufacturer Defendants and
their co-conspirators, exported more than $1 billion of CSS to the
United States, or more than $139 million of CSS per year.  Because
the raw material costs for CSS are set based on competitive
auctions, this price premium restricts the ability of non-CSSB
manufacturers to obtain raw materials on commercially viable
terms.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix,
increase, maintain, or stabilize the price of Certi-Label CSS and
reduce or eliminate price competition among CSS manufacturers in
violation of the Sherman Act. Defendants' conspiracy began at least
as early as January 1, 2011 and continues through the present.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators routinely discussed and agreed on the pricing
levels to charge for Certi-Label CSS, and when confronted with CSSB
members that were not adhering to their price-fixing arrangement,
agreed to take action to terminate those price discounters from the
CSSB, thereby eliminating their ability to utilize the Certi-Label
designation on their CSS product.

Due to the Manufacturer Defendants' success in consolidating their
power in the CSSB and eliminating price discounters from the trade
association (and thereby also eliminating their ability so secure
the necessary raw materials), the other manufacturer members of the
CSSB, which would normally compete with the Manufacturer Defendants
on the basis of price, agreed to join the price-fixing conspiracy.
These non-party conspiring manufacturers joined the conspiracy
because they feared they would face the same fate as other CSSB
price discounters before them: expulsion from the Bureau and the
significant loss of revenue that would entail, due to concerted
retaliation by the Defendants, the complaint says.

The Defendants' anticompetitive actions had the intended purpose
and effect of artificially fixing, inflating, maintaining, or
stabilizing the price of Certi-Label CSS sold to Plaintiff and
other members of the Class. Plaintiff and other members of the
Class paid these supra competitive prices, and accordingly,
suffered an antitrust injury as a result of the Defendants'
conduct, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Certi-Label CSS directly from one or more of
the co-conspirators.

CSSB is a Washington non-profit corporation that is the only trade
association serving the CSS industry in the United States and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
     TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
     1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 682-5600
     Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
     Email: kstephens@tousley.com
            kpowell@tousley.com

          - and -

     Paul Gallagher, Esq.
     James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
     Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K. St., NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: 202-540-7200
     Facsimile: 202-540-7201
     Email: pgallagher@hausfeld.com
            jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
            ngiddings@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Bonny Sweeney, Esq.
     Samantha Stein, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: 415-633-1908
     Facsimile: 415-217-6813
     Email: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
            sstein@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
     Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
     MITCHELL DeCLERCK
     202 West Broadway Avenue
     Enid, OK 73701
     Phone: 580-234-5144
     Fax: 580-234-8890
     Email: larry.lahman@sbcglobal.net
            rle@mdpllc.com


CHARTER COMMS: Court Confirms Final Award in Hart Infringement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH HART and LE'ROY ROBERSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00556-DOC-RAO (C.D. Cal.), Judge David
O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation and Motion to
Confirm Final Award and Enter Judgment.

On March 28, 2017, Hart filed an original class action complaint in
the Court against the Defendants, and on June 26, 2017 she filed a
First Amended Complaint.

On July 24, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Stay Claims, and Hart opposed the Defendants'
motion.  On Nov. 8, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion
to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Claims.  The Court stayed Hart's
claims filed in Court pending the completion of arbitration
proceedings.  

On Jan. 25, 2018, Hart filed a Demand for Arbitration against the
Defendants.

On March 22, 2018, she filed a First Amended Demand for Arbitration
and Request for Dismissal of Arbitration Based on (1) the Fact that
the Arbitration Clause is "Null and Void" by Its Own Terms, and,
Alternatively (2) the Inarbitrability of Claims for Injunctive
Orders and Similar Relief.  

On April 5, 2018, the Defendants filed an Answer to Hart's Amended
Demand for Arbitration and Counterclaims.  On April 19, 2018, Hart
filed an Answer to the Defendants' Counterclaims.

On June 18, 2018, the AAA administratively appointed William J.
Tucker as the Arbitrator.

On Dec. 10, 2018, following motions and briefing, the Arbitrator
issued the Interim Award and held that none of Hart's six claims
asserted in her Amended Arbitration Demand are arbitrable, because
none of them seek money damages.  The Arbitrator further stated
that Hart has chosen to use in the six claims asserted in her
Amended Arbitration Demand the very same wording of the arbitration
provision in the 2014 RSSA, that it is clear that whatever 'money
damages' encompass within the meaning of the arbitration provision,
they are not 'injunctive orders or similar relief.'  

On Jan. 8, 2019, the Arbitrator granted the Defendants leave to
file a Fourth Counterclaim and for Hart to file an anti-SLAPP
special motion to strike the Defendants' Second and Third
Counterclaims.  On Jan. 15, 2019, the Defendants filed a Fourth
Counterclaim, requesting that the Arbitrator enter an award
declaring that any relief sought by the Claimant in connection with
her six proposed judicial claims in her Amended Demand that would
result in the payment of money, whether styled as restitution,
disgorgement, or otherwise, is relief that, pursuant to the
parties' agreement, the entitlement to which must be arbitrated and
cannot be litigated in court.

On Jan. 29, 2019, Hart filed an Answer to the Defendants' Fourth
Counterclaim and requested that the Arbitrator rule that the 2014
RSSA's arbitration clause does not cover any claims that arose in
or after 2016, that the Fourth Counterclaim was "not yet ripe,"
and/or that equitable remedies such as restitution can only be
determined and awarded by a court.  On the same date, Hart also
filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike Defendants' Second and
Third Counterclaims.

On March 29, 2019, following briefing of the anti-SLAPP motion, the
Arbitrator issued a Final Award in which he confirmed, adopted, and
incorporated the Interim Award and further held that anti-SLAPP
motions are impermissible in private nonjudicial arbitrations; the
attorneys' fees Spectrum requests in its Third Counterclaim are not
'damages' proximately resulting from Hart's alleged breach of
contract; the attorney's fees Spectrum requests in its Second
Counterclaim are not 'damages' proximately resulting from Hart's
alleged breach of contract; and Spectrum's Fourth Counterclaim is
meritless.

The Arbitrator declined to decide what specific forms of relief
(e.g. restitution, disgorgement, etc.) constitute arbitrable "money
damages" or non-arbitrable "injunctive orders or similar relief,"
and stated that should the District Court consider and rule
substantively on Hart's causes of action, ruling that the relief
she seeks does not constitute 'damages,' his ruling dismissing
Spectrum's Fourth Counterclaim will have been shown to be correct,"
but, if, on the other hand, the Court rules that 'restitution' and
'restitutionary disgorgement' are in fact 'damages,' Hart will be
precluded from seeking such damages in this arbitration, because
this Final Award will end the arbitration," and that result would
be eminently fair to Hart, since she has taken the position that
all the relief she has sought in the arbitration is 'injunctive'
and all similar relief which she further contends may be awarded
only in court, and he is simply taking Hart at her word.

The Final Award issued by the Arbitrator held as follows: (1)
Hart's anti-SLAPP motion to strike is denied; (2) all of Hart's
causes of action asserted in this arbitration are dismissed; (3)
all of Spectrum's counterclaims filed in this arbitration are
dismissed; (4) there is no prevailing party in this arbitration;
(5) neither party is entitled to an award of attorney's fees
against the other.

The administrative fees of the American Arbitration Association
totaling $2,250, and the compensation and expenses of the
arbitrator totaling $4,125 will be borne as incurred by the
parties.  The Award is in full settlement of all claims submitted
to the Arbitration.  All claims not expressly granted are denied.
Id. at 10.

The Parties stipulated and jointly moved the Court to (1) issue an
order pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, Confirming the Final
Award; (2) file such order with the clerk for the entry of judgment
thereon, and (3) file certain papers with the clerk in accordance
with 9 U.S.C. section 13.

Having reviewed the 2014 RSSA's arbitration clause and delegation
provision, the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2017 that granted the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, the appointment of the
Arbitrator, the Interim Award of Arbitrator dated Dec. 10, 2018,
and the Final Award of Arbitrator dated March 29, 2019, and finding
no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the Final Award of
Arbitrator pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
sections 9 through 11 (the Parties having raised none), and
pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, Judge Carter granted the
Parties' joint motion to confirm the Final Award of Arbitrator in
full.

Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, he attached the following
papers and instructs the clerk to file them with the Order: (i) the
2014 RSSA, attached as Exhibit 1; (ii) the Court order dated Nov.
8, 2017, attached as Exhibit 2; (iii) the AAA's appointment of the
Arbitrator, attached as Exhibit 3; (iv) the Interim Award of
Arbitrator dated Dec. 10, 2018, incorporated into the Final Award,
attached as Exhibit 4; and (v) the Final Award of Arbitrator dated
March 29, 2018, attached as Exhibit 5.

The Judge granted the Parties' joint motion, and confirmed in full
the the Final Award of Arbitrator.

Pursuant to the order of the Arbitrator, both sides will bear their
own costs, neither side is entitled to an award of attorney's fees
against the other, and the administrative fees of arbitration
totaling $2,250 and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrator
totaling $4,125 will be borne as incurred by the parties.

The clerk will docket the judgment pursuant to Federal Arbitration
Act, and it will have the same force and effect, in all respects,
as, and be subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a
judgment in an action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/AfrYyZ from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Hart, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & LeRoy Roberson, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas L.
Mahaffey -- dougm@mahaffeylaw.com -- Mahaffey Law Group PC & Jamin
Samuel Soderstrom -- jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com -- Soderstrom Law
PC.

Charter Communications, Inc. & Spectrum Management Holding Company
LLC, Defendants, represented by Alexander L. Stout --
alexander.stout@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice,
Andrew D. Prins -- andrew.prins@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice, Matthew A. Brill -- matthew.brill@lw.com -- Latham
and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Daniel Scott Schecter --
daniel.schecter@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid to Certify Hispanic Employees Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, ADRIANA GUZMAN, JUAN PABLO ALDANA
LIRA, JONATHON POOT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL,
INC., CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-02606-HSG (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2017), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court on June 6, 2019, for an order:

   1. certifying class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and
      (b) for claims of discrimination, harassment, in violation
      of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act:

      "all current and former hourly employees of Chipotle, who
are
      Hispanic and/or of Mexican national origin, and worked at
      Chipotle restaurant locations in California during the period

      November 14, 2011 until the resolution of this action";

   2. appointing Adriana Guzman, Juan Pablo Aldana Lira, and
      Jonathon Poot as representatives of the Class;

   3. appointing the law firms of Schneider Wallace Cottrell
      Konecky Wotkyns LLP and Villegas Carrera, Inc. as Class
      Counsel; and

   4. directing that the Class be given best practical notice under

      the circumstances.

The lawsuit alleges that Chipotle, a Mexican food restaurant,
discriminates and harasses its Hispanic, Latino, and Mexican
employees through two uniform and common policies. First, Chipotle
follows an English-only policy that prohibits Spanish-speaking
employees from speaking in Spanish in the workplace. Second, while
Chipotle is happy to employ Hispanic employees in low-level crew
member positions, Chipotle's companywide policies prevent those
same Hispanic employees from moving into management positions by
imposing a subjective English proficiency requirement. This
language requirement is applied only to Chipotle's Hispanic
employees.

The Plaintiffs allege claims on behalf of the Class under
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government
Code.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, 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
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Karen C. Carrera, Esq.
          Virginia Villegas, Esq.
          VILLEGAS CARRERA, INC.
          3330 Geary Blvd. 2nd Floor West
          San Francisco, CA 94118
          Telephone: (415) 989-8000
          Facsimile: (415) 989-8028
          E-mail: karen@e-licenciados.com
                  virginia@e-licenciados.com

CLIENT SERVICES: Campagna Seeks to Certify Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Teresa Campagna, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Client
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.: 2:18-cv-03039 (SJF)(ARL)
(E.D.N.Y.), Teresa Campagna will move the Court pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action;

   2. appointing herself as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Barshay Sanders, PLLC, as class counsel, and for
      such other, further and different relief that the Court deems

      just and proper.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Paul Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY PAUL, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 0:19-cv-60960 (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by
dispatching thousands of unlawful collection letters to United
States consumers.

Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., is a Pennsylvania
corporation, with its principal place of business located in
Dickson City, Pennsylvania.

The Defendant engages in interstate commerce by regularly using
telephone and mail in a business whose principal purpose is the
collection of debts.  The Defendant was acting as a debt collector
in respect to the collection of the Plaintiff's debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Sues Over Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------
The class action styled Sergii Bratusov, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. COMSCORE, INC.,
BRYAN WIENER, and GREGORY A. FINK, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03210 (S.D. N.Y., April 10, 2019) was filed on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired comScore
securities between November 8, 2018 and March 29, 2019.  It seeks
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

On March 31, 2019, the Company announced the resignations of its
Chief Executive Officer, Bryan Wiener, and President, Sarah
Hofstetter, both of whom had been appointed to their positions less
than one year ago. The Company also stated that it expects first
quarter 2019 revenue to be between $100 million and $104 million,
falling short of analysts' estimates of approximately $106 million
in revenue. On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.01 per
share, or nearly 30%, to close at $14.24 per share on April 1,
2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The action alleged that throughout the Class Period, 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 was
experiencing difficulties implementing its business strategy; (2)
that, as a result, the Company's financial results would be
materially impacted; and (3) 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.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Mr. Bratusov purchased comScore securities during the Class
Period.

ComScore purports to be an information and analytics company that
measures consumer audiences and advertising across media
platforms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Ave., Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212)682-5340
     Facsimile: (212)884-0988
     Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, 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


CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Fastrich Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN FASTRICH and UNIVERSAL INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC.
and REGINALD J. GOOD D/B/A REGINALD J. GOOD AGENCY, Plaintiffs, v.
CONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL
RESOURCE, INC., AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and AMERICAN RETIREMENT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00615-SJD (S.D. Ohio), Judge Susan J.
Dlott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Ohio
granted the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The litigation involves allegations that the Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiffs certain commissions, renewals, and/or overrides
on various insurance policies sold by the Plaintiffs on the
Defendants' behalf.  The Defendants deny any wrongdoing or
liability relating to any of the allegations made by the
Plaintiffs.  The parties agree that the Settlement Agreement will
not be construed or deemed to be evidence or admission of any
fault, wrongdoing, or liability by any Defendant.

Judge Dlott finds that preliminary approval is appropriate.  She
granted preliminary approval of the Settlement subject to final
determination following notice and hearing.

For settlement purposes only and contingent upon Final Approval of
the Settlement Agreement, the Judge finds that the Complaint
properly seeks class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), and that the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are met.

She provisionally certified the Settlement Class defined as all
persons or entities that, from Oct. 25, 2011 through the Effective
Date of the Settlement Agreement, lost or otherwise were not paid
commissions that were or would have been payable on, or
attributable to, insurance policies or products issued or sold by
the Defendants or Releasees as a result of the Defendants or their
affiliates': (1) failing to pay Commissions on premiums paid by
policyholders due to premium rate increases on long-term care
insurance policies; (2) failing to properly calculate and/or pay
Commissions in accordance with the vesting provisions of any
agreement(s) with any Defendants; or (3) replacing any person or
entity as the agent of record in connection with a sale of any
insurance policy.

She appointed John Fastrich, Universal Investment Services, Inc.,
and Reginald J. Good, doing business as Reginald J. Good Agency as
the Settlement Class Representatives; and J. Barton Goplerud and
Brian O. Marty of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., Alan
Rosca of RoscaLaw LLC, and Lydia Floyd and James Booker of Peiffer
Wolf Carr & Kane, APLC as the Settlement Class Counsel.

At this time, the Judge makes no determination regarding the
manageability of this litigation as a class action, if it were to
go to trial.

Within 10 days after filing with the Court the motion papers
seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement, the Defendants will
provide notice of the Settlement to the appropriate state and
federal officials as provided in the Class Action Fairness Act.

Within 20 calendar days from the date of the Order of Preliminary
Approval, Strategic Claims Services will also establish the
Settlement Website, which will contain the Long Form Notice in both
downloadable PDF format and HTML format, in a form and content
substantially similar to Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement.

The Judge also preliminarily approved the administration of the
proposed Settlement as described in the Settlement Agreement and
the Allocation Plan for those Class Members who timely submit Claim
forms.  The Claim forms must be submitted to Strategic Claims
Services 45 calendar days after notice has been sent in order to be
considered, which deadline will be stated in the Notice.

The passage of title and ownership of the Settlement Fund to the
Settlement Administration Account Agent in accordance with the
terms and obligations of the Settlement Agreement is approved.

A Settlement Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on July
23, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/l0GCN0 from Leagle.com.

John Fastrich & Universal Investment Services, Inc., Plaintiffs,
represented by James Paul Booker -- jbooker@pwcklegal.com
-- Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane, Lydia M. Floyd --
lfloyd@pwcklegal.com -- Brandon M. Bohlman , Shindler, Anderson,
Goplerud & Weese, PC, pro hac vice, Brian O. Marty --
marty@sagwlaw.com --  Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, PC, pro
hac vice, J. Barton Goplerud -- goplerud@sagwlaw.com -- Shindler,
Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, PC, pro hac vice & Alan L. Rosca --
arosca@roscalaw.com -- RoscaLaw LLC.

Reginald J. Good, doing business as Reginald J. Good Agency,
Plaintiff, represented by James Paul Booker, Peiffer Rosca Wolf
Abdullah Carr & Kane, Brian O. Marty, Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud
& Weese, PC, pro hac vice, J. Barton Goplerud, Shindler, Anderson,
Goplerud & Weese, PC, pro hac vice & Alan L. Rosca, RoscaLaw LLC.

Great American Financial Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Brian P. Muething -- bmuething@kmklaw.com -- Keating Muething &
Klekamp, Jacob DeNiro Rhode -- jrhode@kmklaw.com -- Keating
Muething & Klekamp PLL & James R. Matthews -- jmatthews@kmklaw.com
-- One E Fourth Street.

Continental General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Susanne M. Cetrulo -- susanne@cetrulolaw.com -- Cetrulo, Mowery &
Hicks, PSC, Sheldon E. Eisenberg -- sheldon.eisenberg@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice & Steven H. Brogan --
steven.brogan@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice.

Loyal American Life Insurance Company & American Retirement Life
Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Carolyn Ann Taggart,
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP, Chelsea N. Mutual, DLA Piper
LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Hamill, Jr., DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice
& Joseph A. Roselius, DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice.


CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Initial Settlement Agreement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JOHN FASTRICH, UNIVERSAL INVESTMENT
SERVICES, INC., and REGINALD J. GOOD, the Plaintiffs, vs.
CONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL
RESOURCE, INC., AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and AMERICAN RETIREMENT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00615-SJD (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an entry of an Order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of a proposed Settlement
      Agreement;

   2. preliminarily certifying the state law claims as a Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23 class on behalf of the national Settlement Class;

   3. preliminarily appointing the Plaintiffs John Fastrich,
      Universal Investment Services, Inc., and Reginald J. Good
      D/B/A Reginald J. Good Agency as Class Representatives of the

      Settlement Class;

   4. preliminarily appointing J. Barton Goplerud and Brian O.
      Marty of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., Alan
      Rosca of RoscaLaw LLC, Lydia Floyd and James Booker of
      Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane, and Thomas Reavely of Whitfield &
      Eddy P.L.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and

   5. approving the plan of notice to the Settlement Class Members,

      including approving the Notice attached to the Settlement
      Agreement; and

   6. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider entry of a
      final order approving the settlement and the request for
      attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and Plaintiff's
      incentive awards.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          James P. Booker, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 589-9280
          Facsimile: (216) 916-9220
          E-Mail: jbooker@pwcklegal.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD, & WEESE, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Alan Rosca, Esq.
          ROSCALAW LLC
          23250 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 100
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 570-0097
          Facsimile: (888) 411-0038
          E-mail: rosca@lawgsp.com

CYGNUS MEDICAL: Himrod Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Himrod, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CYGNUS MEDICAL, LLC, MADISON POLYMERIC
ENGINEERING, INC., SHAUN SWEENEY and WALTER L. MAGUIRE, JR.,
Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03417 (S.D.
N.Y., April 17, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay
owed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees of
Defendants pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
New York Labor Law.

Despite the fact that Plaintiff was required to work well in excess
of 40 hours per week, he was paid either a flat salary that did not
vary with the number of hours that he worked, or a uniform hourly
rate for all hours for which he received compensation, such that he
did not receive overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40
in a week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a former surgical instrument specialist at Defendants'
medical products manufacturing and Repair Company headquartered in
Branford, Connecticut.

Defendants have been in the medical products manufacturing and
repair business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
     Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
     Kristen E. Boysen, Esq.
     PELTON GRAHAM LLC
     111 Broadway, Suite 1503
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 385-9700
     Email: www.PeltonGraham.com


DNC PARKS: Perez Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled DAVID PEREZ, an individual, and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT
ASILOMAR, INC., a California Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT
SEQUOIA, a California Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT KING'S CANYON, INC., a
California Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT TENAYA INC., a
Delaware Corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES PARKS & RESORTS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 277600, was removed on April 12, 2019, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Tulare to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00270 to the
proceeding.

On February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California.  The Plaintiff asserts 10
causes of action in his Complaint against the Defendants, including
failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide
required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure
to pay minimum wages.[BN]

Defendants DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR, INC.; DNC PARKS &
RESORTS AT SEQUOIA, INC., INC.; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE,
INC.; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; DNC PARKS & RESORTS
AT KINGS CANYON, INC.; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT TENAYA INC.; and
DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES PARKS & RESORTS, INC., are represented
by:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
          Lauren R. Leibovitch, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  jbrophy@seyfarth.com
                  bpelliconi@seyfarth.com
                  lleibovitch@seyfarth.com


ECO SHIELD: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Fanslau Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on April 16, 2019, in the case
captioned Matthew Fanslau, et al. v. Eco Shield Pest Control
Chicago, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18−cv−07181 (N.D. Ill.),
relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Manish S. Shah.

The minute entry states that:

   -- For the reasons stated in open court, the motion to certify
      class is denied, without prejudice;

   -- All fact discovery must be noticed in time to be completed
      by October 18, 2019;

   -- Continued status hearing is set for September 10, 2019, at
      9:30 a.m.;

   -- The parties may e-mail susan_mcclintic@ilnd.uscourts.gov
      for a settlement referral; and

   -- An agreed proposed confidentiality order may be submitted
      to proposed_order_shah@ilnd.uscourts.gov.[CC]


EHEALTH INC: Edwards Sues Over Illicit Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EHEALTH INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02071 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2019) seeks
to stop Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by making unsolicited, prerecorded calls and other illicit
telemarketing calls to consumers, and to otherwise obtain
injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by
eHealth’s conduct.

To solicit business, eHealth relies on telemarketing that is done
either by eHealth directly, or through lead generators that eHealth
pays to generate leads. This telemarketing includes the making of
prerecorded calls by or on behalf of eHealth to consumers without
their express written consent. In addition, eHealth has failed to
implement sufficient policies and procedures to maintain an
internal do not call list and to ensure that consumers that
specifically request that eHealth stop calling do not receive any
more calls.

Plaintiff Edwards received over 100 unsolicited, prerecorded calls
to his cellular phone by or on behalf of eHealth, despite at least
3 separate instances when Edwards specifically asked an agent for
the calls to stop. In response to these calls, Plaintiff files this
lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to stop
making prerecorded voice sales calls to consumers without their
consent and to implement adequate policies and procedures for
maintain an internal do not call list and preventing calls to
consumers that have requested that calls stop, as well as an award
of statutory damages to the members of the Classes and costs.

Plaintiff Edwards is a Nashville, Tennessee resident.

eHealth operates an online insurance marketplace from which
consumers can purchase health insurance, life insurance, and other
insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David S. Ratner, Esq.
     David Ratner Law Firm, LLP
     33 Julianne Court
     Walnut Creek, CA 94595
     Phone: (917) 900-2868
     Fax: (925) 891-3818
     Email: david@davidratnerlawfirm.com

          - and -

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


FISHER-PRICE: Mundys Blame Sleeper for their Baby's Death
----------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA DROVER-MUNDY and ZACHARY MUNDY, each individually and as
representatives of THE ESTATE OF L.M., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; and REBECCA DROVER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FISHER-PRICE, INC.; MATTEL, INC.; and AMAZON.COM, INC.; Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (W.D. N.Y., April 18, 2019) seeks relief in
the form that legal proceedings can offer and does so on behalf of
children who were injured or died as a result of the Rock 'n Play's
defective design, the parents of these children, and consumers who
purchased this dangerous product.

For nearly a decade, Fisher-Price marketed the Rock 'n Play Sleeper
(the "Rock 'n Play") as a safe and convenient baby product.
Millions purchased the product expecting that it would be
appropriate for their infant children, yet the Rock 'n Play was
defective and dangerous from the beginning, frequently causing
injury and death to children who sat or slept in it. Fisher-Price
and its parent company, Mattel, knew about this risk, and about
actual deaths and injuries which had occurred, but continued to
sell millions of units of the product and insist that it was safe
until they were finally forced to recall it on April 12, 2019.

That recall came too late to prevent the tragic September 2018
death of L.M., the nearly three-month-old daughter of named
Plaintiffs Samantha Drover-Mundy and Zachary Mundy. L.M. died just
a few minutes after being placed in a Rock 'n Play. L.M.'s death
was a shattering event which would not have occurred if the Rock 'n
Play's design was safe. Nor did the recall come soon enough for
dozens of other children who have died in the Rock 'n Play. Many
more have been seriously injured.

Even from the introduction of the Rock 'n Play, Fisher-Price and
Mattel knew or should have known that it was not a safe environment
for infants. At the time that the Rock 'n' Play went to market in
2009, Fisher-Price and Mattel had already disregarded
recommendations from the American Association of Pediatrics ("AAP")
as to appropriate infant sleep position. Over time, Fisher-Price
and Mattel would lobby the Consumer Product Safety Commission
("CPSC") to let the companies avoid regulations that would have
kept the product off the market, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased a Rock 'n Play with an understanding that the
Rock 'n Play was a safe product.

Fisher-Price is a corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Delaware and a manufacturer of Rock 'n Play.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew J. Lorin, Esq.
     Jonathan A. Sorkowitz, Esq.
     Kristin Darr, Esq.
     Melody McGowin, Esq.
     PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
     277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor
     New York, NY 10172
     Phone: (212) 484-9866


FORD MOTOR: Flanery Seeks Damages for Defective Truck Doors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Flanery, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00277-MRB (S.D. Ohio, April 16, 2019) seeks monetary
damages, including statutory damages on behalf of the entire class,
and other equitable relief on grounds generally applicable to the
entire class, to enjoin and prevent Defendant from engaging in its
deceptive practices.

According to the complaint, Ford achieves its superior sales, in
part, by failing to disclose critical information about its
vehicles, leaving the misimpression that they are able to stand up
to the harshest conditions. Sadly, this purportedly rugged and
tough vehicle possesses an elemental defect: its doors won't lock
and latch properly when the temperature drops below freezing. This
is a condition Ford created and has known about for years, but
which it has failed to inform consumers.

On its website, Ford is pleased to make extravagant claims about
vehicle construction to the consumer. "We design by the principle
that the best truck for today is the one engineered to meet the
challenge of performance, efficiency and dependability, long into
the future. So we subjected F-150 to over 10 million miles of
cumulative torture testing to earn its Built Ford Tough badge. And
it more than delivered." Yet, while Ford was at the trademark
office, registering its self-aggrandizing "Built Ford Tough" mark,
it neglected one significant fact. The doors on the truck won't
stay closed in the cold. Ford knew that this problem existed and
yet it continued to mislead the consumer with marketing claims
about quality, durability and dependability.

Ford quietly issued not one, but two, technical service bulletins
to address the problem. Technical service bulletins (TSB's) are
notices sent to dealership service departments, alerting them as to
a problem with a vehicle, yet without notifying the public or going
through the expense of a recall. Despite two technical service
bulletins on this precise defect, Ford was unable to correct the
problem. Plaintiff went to the dealer multiple times to fix the
defective latch, all to no avail.

As a result, consumers have been injured by overpaying for a
product that has diminished value due to its defective nature. If
Plaintiff had known what prospective subsequent purchasers now
know, he would never have purchased his vehicle. And those
prospective subsequent purchasers, now knowing of the defect, will
either not purchase the vehicle or will offer a steeply discounted
price, all of which constitutes a diminution of value and damage to
Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Mr. Flanery purchased a brand new 2016 Ford F-150 Platinum
SuperCrew vehicle from Kings Ford in Cincinnati, Ohio on April 18,
2016.

Ford is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and
distributing motor vehicles, including its F-150 vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
     HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
     301 N. Broadway, Suite 400
     Milwaukee, WI 53202-2660
     Phone: (414) 273-8474
     Facsimile: (414)273-8476
     Email: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
     Robert J. Berg, Esq.
     Myles K. Bartley, Esq.
     DENLEA & CARTON LLP
     2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
     White Plains, NY 10604
     Phone: (914) 331-0100
     Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
     Email: jcarton@denleacarton.com
            rberg@denleacarton.com
            mbartley@denleacarton.com


G & M MATTRESS: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELINO LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G & M MATTRESS AND FOAM
CORPORATION, a corporation; UNIQUE HR CALIFORNIA, LLC., a limited
liability company; RICARDO J. VILLANUEVA, an individual; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12174 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2019) is a representative
action brought on behalf of aggrieved employees seeking to hold
Defendants accountable for their wage theft and violations of the
California Labor Code.

In order to minimize labor costs, Defendants have implemented
unlawful policies with respect to meal and rest breaks. For
example, Defendants require their non-exempt employees to work
through meal and rest breaks, and to remain on call during such
breaks. As a result, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees have
been denied the ability to take the meal and rest breaks that they
were and are legally entitled to take.

Moreover, Defendants have uniformly failed to pay Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees proper overtime and minimum wages due
the fact that they willfully turn a blind eye to off-the-clock work
that Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees perform as a direct
consequence of Defendants' understaffing and imposition of an
unreasonable workload, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants as a driver for
Defendants located in La Verne, California.

G & M Mattress operates a mattress manufacturing and retail
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT E. WHEELER
     250 West First Street, Suite 216
     Claremont, CA 91711
     Phone: (909) 621-4988
     Facsimile: (909) 621-4622
     Email: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com



G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS: Faces Shoults Labor Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Arizona wage laws. The case is captioned Chad
Shoults, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02408-CDB (D. Ariz., April 15, 2019). Plaintiff Shoults
alleges that Defendant G4S failed to accurately record work time
and pay its employees for all hours worked, including overtime.
Defendant G4S requires the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated hourly, nonexempt security officers to work overtime but
fails to pay them for all hours worked, including overtime
resulting from pre-shift and post-shift work. Accordingly, among
others things, Shoults demands judgment against Defendant and asks
the court to award his lost wages and non-economic damages flowing
from Defendant's unlawful retaliation, plus an equal amount in
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. is a Florida corporation with its
headquarters and principle place of business located at 1395
University Boulevard, Jupiter, Florida. On its website, G4S
describes itself as the leading global security solutions company
with a very large operation in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


     Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Telephone: (602) 274-1100
     Facsimile: (602) 798-5860
     E-mail: tfrankel@bffb.com

         - and -

     Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 756-7748
     E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com


HARLEY DAVIDSON: Faces Garcia Suit Over Defective Wiring Harness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Harley Davidson Motor Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00189 (N.D. Cal., April 16, 2019) is an
action arising from Harley-Davidson's sale of tens of thousands of
motorcycles with a hidden and dangerous defect in their antilock
braking systems ("ABS"). These motorcycles all have a defective
wiring harness that, under normal operation, is prone to fail,
causing the ABS to cease functioning without warning or any obvious
sign to the rider.

Harley-Davidson instructs its riders to use different, nearly
opposite braking techniques in emergency situations, depending on
whether they have ABS-equipped motorcycles or not. The braking
technique Harley- Davidson recommends for an ABS-equipped
motorcycle, when used on a non-ABS motorcycle, could, in
Harley-Davidson's own words, cause a locked wheel that "can cause
loss of vehicle control resulting in death or serious injury."

Despite having known of the wire-breakage problem since at least
2008; despite knowing that the operator of a motorcycle with a
defective ABS wiring harness would not have any immediate signal
that his motorcycle lacked ABS; and despite knowing that a rider
following ABS braking instructions on a motorcycle lacking it could
apply the brakes in such a way as to cause serious injury or death,
Harley-Davidson has taken no action to notify owners and operators
of these motorcycles about this defect, or to repair, replace,
repurchase, or upgrade affected motorcycles, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ronald Garcia purchased a 2008 Harley-Davidson Street
Glide motorcycle from a Harley-Davidson dealer in Oakland,
California.

Harley-Davidson manufactures motorcycles for sale to the
public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
     PRICE ARMSTRONG LLC
     2226 1st Ave S Suite 105
     Birmingham, AL 35233
     Phone: 205.706.7517
     Fax: 205.209.9588
     Email: nick@pricearmstrong.com

        - and -

     Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
     LEXINGTON LAW GROUP LLP
     503 Divisadero St
     San Francisco, CA 94117
     Phone: 415.913.7800
     Fax: 415.759.4112
     Email: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com


HEADLY MANUFACTURING: Cortez Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CORTEZ, TOBIAS GONZAGA, and ALEJANDRO PEREZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEADLY
MANUFACTURING CO., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04935 (Circuit Ct.,
Cook Cty., Ill., April 17, 2019) seeks to put a stop to Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs' and the
proposed Class's sensitive biometric data.

This is an action under the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
("BIPA") brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of
similarly-situated individuals, namely, all Illinois citizens who
performed work for Headly in Illinois who had their fingerprints
improperly collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained or
disclosed by Headly.

Plaintiffs worked for Headly from 1998 until in or around March
2019.

Headly is an lllinois manufacturing company registered to do
business in the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
     Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
     Caffarelli & Associates Ltd.
     224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 763-6880


HIGHER POWER: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Williams Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Williams, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HIGHER POWER ELECTRICAL, LLC, a
Texas Limited Liability Company, COBRA ACQUISITIONS LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, and COBRA ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01366 (D.
P.R., April 16, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of all
similarly situated who worked for Defendants anywhere within Puerto
Rico, at any time during the last three years through the final
disposition of this matter, to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Labor Transformation and
Flexibility Act.

Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have routinely
worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per workweek,
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have not been paid
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per
workweek. The Defendants have knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members the proper
amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis in the last three
years, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Christopher Williams was employed by Higher Power in
Puerto Rico during the relevant time period as a "Experienced
Groundman".

Higher Power Electric, LLC is a Texas limited liability company,
authorized to do business and doing business in Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq.
     PO Box 9023914
     San Juan, PR 00902-3914
     Phone: (787) 945-2406
     Email: jbw@beckervissepo.com
            janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com

          - and -

     Jean Paul Vissepó Garriga, Esq.
     BECKER & VISSEPO, PSC
     PO Box 367116
     San Juan, PR 00936-7116
     Phone: (787) 633-9601
     Email: jpv@beckerviseppo.com
            jp@vissepolaw.com

          - and -

     Paul M. Botros, Esq.
     Andrew Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 327-5352
     Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
     Email: pbotros@forthepeople.com


HONEST & QUALITY: Bid for Intervention Filed in Li Wage Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on April 12, 2019, in
the lawsuit entitled XIAO YUAN LI and YEON SOO KANG, individually
and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. HONEST &
QUALITY, CORP., and KINAM HAN, Case No. 719448/2018 (N.Y. Sup.,
Queens Cty., December 19, 2018).

The action brought by the Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on
behalf of a putative class of individuals, who worked in
construction-related trades for Honest & Quality, Corp., to recover
wages and benefits, which the Plaintiffs and the members of the
putative class were statutorily and contractually entitled to
receive for work they performed on various public works ("Public
Works Projects") contracted with such government entities, such as
New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA").

Honest & Quality is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
the state of New York, with its principal place of business located
in Flushing, New York, and is engaged in the construction business.
Kinam Han is an officer, director, president, and/or owner of
Honest & Quality.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ken H. Maenq, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: kmaeng@hanglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          KIM, CHOI & KIM
          460 Bergen Blvd., #206
          Palidades Park, NJ 07650
          Telephone: (201) 363-0010


HOTWORX COLLEGE: Davis Seeks Redress for Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hotworx College Ave. LLC d/b/a Hotworx
Tallahassee,, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00172-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., April 18, 2019) seeks to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages
on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Leon County,
Florida.

Defendant is a specialized 24-hour fitness studio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


IDT TELECOM: Samara Seeks to Stop Sending of Unauthorized Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCARLETH SAMARA, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated v. IDT TELECOM, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-09330 (E.D. La.,
April 12, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of
sending unauthorized and unwanted text message to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

IDT is a New Jersey-based for-profit corporation.  IDT is the
company behind the popular, international telecommunications
service Boss Revolution.

Consumers use Boss Revolution's mobile phone application and
pre-paid, rechargeable phone cards to make international
calls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com
                  jmk@beaumontcostales.com


ISLE OF CAPRI BLACK: Simmons Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
CHAZ SIMMONS, the Plaintiff, v. ISLE OF CAPRI BLACK HAWK, L.L.C., a
Colorado corporation, CCSC/BLACKHAWK, INC., a Colorado corporation,
and ELDORADO RESORTS, INC., a Nevada corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00967 (D. Colo., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, costs, attorneys fees,
and other appropriate relief resulting from the Defendants' policy
and practice of paying rounded hours rather than actual hours
worked, including overtime wages, in violation of Colorado law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants' policy and practice of paying non-exempt, hourly
employees rounded hours, as opposed to actual hours worked,
deprives such employees of regular and overtime pay they have
earned, the lawsuit says.

Chaz Simmons is a former employee of Defendants that worked at the
Isle and Lady Luck casinos in Colorado.[BN]

Attorneys for Chaz Simmons and the Proposed Class and Collective
Action Member:

          Shelby Woods, Esq.
          Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
          Shelby Woods, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          730 17th Street, Suite 750
          Denver, CO 80202
          E-mail: chunter@hkm.com
                  swoods@hkm.com

J.C.'S LANDSCAPING: Tonkinson Seeks OT Pay for Landscapers
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
J.C.'s Landscaping & Snow Service, LLC and James Copeland for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
overtime compensation statute. The case is captioned TIMOTHY
TONKINSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. J.C.'S LANDSCAPING & SNOW SERVICE, LLC, and JAMES
COPELAND, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00827-BYP (N.D. Ohio, April
15, 2019). Plaintiff Timothy Tonkinson accuses the Defendants of
unlawful practice of failing to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 in one workweek.

J.C.'s Landscaping and Snow Service, LLC is based in Campbell,
Ohio. The company offers lawn care and snow removal services. It is
led by CEO James Copeland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
     Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
     Cleveland, OH 44113-2300
     Telephone: (216) 230-2955
     E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com
             jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com


JANSSEN BIOTECH: Louisiana Health Sues Over Monopoly on Zytiga
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, d/b/a Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology,
Inc., Janssen Research & Development LLC and BTG International
Limited, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00474-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va.,
April 18, 2019) seeks to recover damages, including treble damages,
under the state antitrust and consumer protection laws or in the
alternative, damages under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

Patents protect innovation and encourage new discoveries.
Sometimes, a party can obtain multiple patents relating to the same
product. But each patent must protect a novel invention or
discovery. If an invention claimed in a patent application is
obvious in light of existing technology, it is generally not
patentable. However, an invention that is obvious may still be
patentable if the patent applicant can prove that "secondary
considerations" overcome the obviousness. One such way to do so is
to prove "commercial success" of the newly-claimed invention; if
the newly-claimed invention was commercially successful, and the
newly-claimed invention was the reason for that success, then the
newly-claimed invention may be worthy of patent protection.

Janssen got a patent on the compound abiraterone acetate in 1997.
That patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,604,213 (the '213 patent), lasted
nearly twenty years and expired in December 2016. During the life
of the '213 patent was in place, only Janssen could sell an
abiraterone acetate product; no other company could. On April 28,
2011, Janssen got approval from the FDA for Zytiga, abiraterone
acetate tablets, for the treatment of prostate cancer in
combination with prednisone. For the next five and a half years,
because of the '213 patent, Janssen had a legitimate monopoly on
sales of Zytiga.

But the '213 patent would not last forever, and Janssen (and its
partner BTG) wanted to extend that monopoly. So beginning in 2007
and continuing through 2014, Janssen sought a second patent: on a
method of using abiraterone acetate in combination with prednisone
to treat prostate cancer. Not surprisingly, the United States
Patent & Trademark Office (the PTO) repeatedly rejected this second
patent application, correctly finding that it was obvious to
combine abiraterone acetate and prednisone together to treat
prostate cancer, and the claimed invention was therefore not
patentable. On five separate occasions, the PTO rejected Janssen's
application. (Years later the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
and district court, under broad and narrow claim constructions
respectively, would both reach the same conclusion.)

To protect Janssen's monopoly, Janssen and BTG then asserted the
'438 patent in infringement litigation that they both knew they
could never ultimately win in the courts. Their goal was not to win
a litigation victory, though; it was simply to delay generic
competition. In that sense, Janssen and BTG did win. Their wrongful
conduct delayed generic competition by more than one year, and
during that time, Zytiga was among the most profitable drugs sold
by Janssen's parent company, Johnson & Johnson. Absent the
defendants' unlawful conduct, generic competition for Zytiga would
have entered as early as December 2016 and no later than October
2017. Instead, the defendants' unlawful conduct prevented generic
manufacturers from entering the market with competing abiraterone
acetate products for more than year, delayed the entry of
additional generic competitors, and has cost purchasers hundreds of
millions of dollars in overcharge damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service &Indemnity Company, d/b/a Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana is not for profit health
insurance companies organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Louisiana.

Defendant Janssen Biotech is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
     Marc C. Greco , Esq.
     Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
     Michael A. Glasser, Esq.
     William D. Moore, III, Esq.
     Anders T. Sleight, Esq.
     GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
     Crown Center, Suite 600
     580 East Main Street
     Norfolk, VA 23510
     Phone: (757) 625-6787
     Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
     Email: bill@glasserlaw.com
            marcg@glasserlaw.com
            kip@glasserlaw.com
            michael@glasserlaw.com
            wmoore@glasserlaw.com
            asleight@glasserlaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
     Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
     Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Phone: (617) 482-3700
     Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
     Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
            lauren@hbsslaw.com
            grega@hbsslaw.com
            bradleyv@hbsslaw.com


JEAN LAFITTEL Hughes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
AARON HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEAN LAFITTE HARBOR, L.L.C., Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-09532 (E.D. La., April 17, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

JLH is one of those companies that claims it doesn't have any
employees. It puts the "independent contractor" label on all its
workers. JLH pays them by the hour, but with no overtime pay, even
though they regularly work 80 or more hours per week. Instead, JLH
pays the same hourly rate for regular and overtime hours. This
practice results in non-payment of overtime wages to Aaron Hughes
and other similarly situated workers, says the complaint.

Hughes worked for JLH as handyman and crane operator.

Jean Lafitte Harbor, L.L.C. (JLH) is a marina offering boat
rentals, charter fishing, boat storage, camping, dining, and
shopping.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     PARMET PC
     PO Box 540907
     800 Sawyer St. (77007)
     Houston, TX 77254
     Phone: 713 999 5228
     Fax: 713 999 1187
     Email: matt@parmet.law

          - and -

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


JONATHAN NEIL: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Brown FDCA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERI BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California ordered the parties to show
cause why sanctions should not be entered for failure to comply
with Court order.

On Feb. 14, 2019, an order issued granting final approval of the
class action settlement in the matter.  The parties were ordered to
file a stipulated final judgment by March 1, 2019.  On Feb. 25,
2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the award
of attorney fees.  On March 12, 2019, the motion for
reconsideration was denied, and the parties were directed to file
dispositive documents within 14 days.  More than 14 days have
passed and the parties have not filed dispositive documents in
compliance with the March 12, 2019 order.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Boone ordered the parties to show
cause within 10 days of the date of entry of the Order why
dispositive documents have not yet been filed.  The parties are
forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the
imposition of sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DFh71L from Leagle.com.

Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice,
Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman,
LLC, pro hac vice & Tammy L. Hussin -- Tammy@HussinLaw.com --
Hussin Law.

Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Michael Egan -- cegan@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott,
APC, Derek Joseph Haynes -- dhaynes@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott, PC & Lynette Mary Komar, Porter Scott.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Failed to Record Reconveyance Deed, Osella Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Osella, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan
Chase Custody Services, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13525 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., April 18, 2019) is a class action arising out of the
Defendants' failure to comply with their obligations to timely
record deeds of reconveyance on residential properties after
discharging the underlying mortgage debts.

For their own benefit, Defendants discharged Plaintiffs and the
other Class members' residential purchase money, home equity line
of credit loans, and refinance mortgage loans. They then
acknowledged the discharges by filing 1099-C "Cancellation of Debt"
forms with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").

California Civil Code section 2941, requires that within 51 days of
discharge, the lender or the assignee of the lender must request a
full reconveyance from the trustee, and the trustee must record a
full reconveyance of a discharged mortgage and related deed of
trust. Although Defendants were required to do so within 51 days of
discharge here, they have failed to do so. As a result, the
Mortgage Loans and the related deeds of trust continue to
wrongfully cloud title to Plaintiff's and the other Class members'
homes, notes the complaint.

Consequently, while Ms. Osella, like the other Class members, may
have to report the discharged debt as taxable income, Defendants
maintain an improper encumbrance on Plaintiff and the other Class
members' homes and unlawfully reserve the ability to recover the
discharged debt if Plaintiff and the other Class members sell their
homes or refinance any mortgages on the property. While Defendants
have no right to recover the discharged debt, they could still
improperly and deceptively request or receive payment, hold up a
sale, or prevent Plaintiff and the other Class members from seeking
more favorable financing of their debts. Additionally, by failing
to reconvey their discharged Mortgage Loans, Defendants have
negatively impacted the creditworthiness of Plaintiff and Class
members, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Osella owned and occupied a single-family residence that
was encumbered by the First Mortgage and Second Mortgage.

Chase Bank originates and owns the mortgage loans on residential
properties that are the subject of this litigation and is the
beneficiary of the Mortgage Loans administered by Chase Custody
Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     TIMOTHY G. BLOOD, ESQ.
     THOMAS J. O'REARDON II, ESQ.
     ALEKSANDR J. YARMOLINETS, ESQ.
     BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
     501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619/338-1100
     Fax: 619/338-1101
     Email: tblood@bholaw.com
            toreardon@bholaw.com
            ayamiolmets@bholaw.com

          - and -

     DANIEL R. FORDE, ESQ.
     AARON F. HUGHES, ESQ.
     HOFFMAN & FORDE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 225
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: 619/546-7880
     Fax: 619/546-7881
     Email: dforde@hofftnanforde.com
            ahughes@hofftnanforde.com


KSF ACQUISITION: Fusaro Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
LISA FUSARO, Plaintiff, v. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION d/b/a
SLIMFAST, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80520 (S.D. Fla., April 16,
2019) seeks overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

When Plaintiff was originally hired by Defendant, she was
appropriately paid 1 1/2 times her normal hourly rate of pay for
all hours in excess of 40 within a single work week. In
approximately 2017, Defendant forced Plaintiff to change her Excel
spread sheet to make it appear that she worked for forty hours in a
week, when in reality she worked overtime hours that were not paid
at the proper rate. In approximately 2018, Defendant converted to
ADP time keeping, and Defendant would manually reduce the hours
that Plaintiff worked. Defendant would deduct Plaintiff's hours to
make it appear that she only worked 40 hours per week, when in
reality she worked overtime and was not made at the appropriate
rate.

Plaintiff routinely worked between 1 and 3 hours of overtime each
workweek, but was not paid in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Plaintiff was not paid at an overtime rate, nor were
her co-employees who performed substantially similar job duties as
those performed by Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff was not paid
for any of the hours that she worked for Defendant in her last
workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, LISA FUSARO, was hired by Defendant in approximately May
2015 and was continuously employed by Defendant until April 8,
2019.

Defendant, owns and/or operates a nationwide corporation that
produces food products for weight management and health
improvement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
     Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
     721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
     North Palm Beach, FL 33408
     Phone: (561) 822-3446
     Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
     Email: dennis@cloorg.com
            darren@cloorg.com
     Secondary: karen@cloorg.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Kawa Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
KAWA ORTHODONTICS LLP, a Florida limited liability partnership,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA HOLDINGS and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Delaware
corporations, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80521-DMM (M.D. Fla.,
April 16, 2019) is a case challenging the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").

On February 6, 2019, Defendants sent Plaintiff an unsolicited fax
advertisement in violation of the TCPA ("the Fax"). The Fax
describes the commercial availability or quality of Defendants'
property, goods or services, namely, Defendants' laboratory
services, which the Fax states that "Effective march 1, 2019,
LabCorp is the exclusive laboratory provider for WellCare Health
Plans, Inc. in Florida," and that "Using an in network laboratory
helps patients maximize their lab benefits and minimize their
out-of-pocket expenses."

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have sent, and continue to send,
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation
of the TCPA, including but not limited to the advertisement sent to
Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, KAWA ORTHODONTICS LLP, is a Florida limited liability
partnership.

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS and LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, are Delaware corporations with their
principal place of business in Burlington, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOS ANGELES CTY, CA: Echeverria Suit Asserts Mishandling of Remains
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN ECHEVERRIA, an individual, And ALL THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, and DOES 1-5,
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 19STCV13085 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., April 16, 2019) is an action based on the intentional
misrepresentation, through a false testimony at trial on August 29,
2018, that LA County identified the remains of decedent through a
fingerprinting process and then cremated those remains.

Frederick Hector Echeverria, decedent, died on April 13, 2013, at
Citrus Valley Hospital (Citrus Valley). Since the death, plaintiffs
have been unable to locate his remains and provide a funeral
service due to the actions of defendant.

Plaintiffs filed a previous action, BC569594 against the LA County
Morgue and Coroner (LA County) involving the mishandling of the
remains of decedent. That action was dismissed on a motion for
summary judgment based in part on the fact that LA County in fact
had handled the remains of Frederick Hector Echeverria as a John
Doe and owed no duty of care to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs next
filed an action, BC619627 against Citrus Valley for the mishandling
or the remains of decedent. A jury found that Citrus Valley was not
liable to plaintiffs based in part on evidence that LA County had
identified the remains of decedent through fingerprinting.

On August 29, 2018, Daniel Machian, as coroner investigator for the
Los Angeles County, appeared as a witness at trial and testified
that the remains were identified through a fingerprinting process
administered by LA County. When plaintiff's counsel asked for the
fingerprint cards, Machian stated he did not have them. The only
reasonable conclusion for Machian's conduct on August 29, 2018 of
not complying with the subpoena is that he had acted with the
intent to suppress that evidence, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiffs allege that instead of allowing the family access to
identify the remains before cremation, LA County provided cremated
remains of an unknown unidentified person knowing that no DNA test
could be performed on the cremated remains. LA County then falsely
asserted at trial that they had in fact identified the remains
through fingerprints, says the complaint.

The plaintiffs include all those similarly situated as identified
by the coroner as the families of those 52 other sets of remains
that were falsely identified and cremated by LA County in the
similar means and time as Frederick Hector Echeverria.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dermot D. Givens, Esq.
     468 N. Camden Dr., ste. 305
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (310) 854-8823


LOWE’S HOME: Employees Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Kidd, Rhonda Peden, and Laurie Kesler, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, A North Carolina Limited Liability Company, LOWE'S
COMPANIES, INC., A North Carolina Corporation, and LOWE'S HIW,
INC., a Washington Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00245-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., April 17, 2019) seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants classified Plaintiffs as salary exempt employees and
based their salary on a 40 hour work week even though they were
required to work well over 40 hours per week. A review of their job
duties show that these employees should have been classified as
non-exempt employees under federal law and paid overtime, says the
complaint.

Named Plaintiffs all worked for the Defendants during the relevant
statutory period.

Defendants operate Lowe's Home Improvement Stores throughout the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James K. Wetzel, Esq.
     Garner J. Wetzel, Esq.
     WETZEL LAW FIRM
     Post Office Box I
     Gulfport, MS 39502
     Phone: (228)864-6400
     Fax: (228)863-1793
     Email: jkwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com
            gjwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com

          - and -

     Robert E. Turner, Esq.
     Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 759-1745
     Email: rturner@jsyc.com
            rmorelli@jsyc.com


LPE INC: Lopez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Lopez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LPE Inc., Gerardo Montalvo, and Mario
Dominguez, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00111 (S.D. Tex.,
April 18, 2019) seeks to recover all unpaid wages and other damages
owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and to recover all
unpaid overtime and other damages owed under the New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act.

Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked
(and work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid
overtime of at least one and one half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The decision by
Defendants not to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members was neither reasonable nor in good faith,
asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Hector Lopez worked for Defendants from April 18, 2016.

LPE, Inc. is an oilfield service company servicing the oil and gas
industry in the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARC CAMPBELL: Boone Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Boone, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Marc Campbell Enterprises, Inc., and Marc
Campbell, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00271-KGB (E.D. Ark., April
17, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiff Jennifer Boone,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, against
Defendants for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act,
("AMWA").

Plaintiff and other Assistant Managers regularly worked more than
forty hours per week. Despite working more than forty hours per
week on a regular basis, they were not paid for those hours worked.
The Defendant did not pay them an overtime premium of one
and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over forty per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Assistant Manager from
approximately November of 2018 through January of 2019.

Marc Campbell Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic for-profit
corporation registered to do business in the State of
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 1877: Goyak Suit Remanded to Eastern District of Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CLASSICSTAR MARE LEASE LITIGATION, MDL No.
1877, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order remanding the action
styled GOYAK, ET AL. v. CLASSICSTAR RACING STABLE, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 5:08-00053 (E.D. Mich., C.A. No. 1:07-15260) from the
Eastern District of Kentucky to the Eastern District of Michigan.

Plaintiffs and defendant David Lieberman move under Panel Rule 10.2
to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally remanded the Goyak
action to the Eastern District of Michigan.  The Panel placed these
actions on a conditional remand order after receiving the
transferee judge's suggestion of remand.  No party opposes the
motions.

After considering the argument of counsel, the Panel finds that
remand of this action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 is warranted.
In considering the question of remand, the Panel consistently gives
great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of
a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the
transferee judge, after all, supervises the litigation's pretrial
proceedings.  The transferee judge's suggestion of remand obviously
indicates that "'he perceives his role under Section 1407 to have
ended.'" Here, the transferee judge explained why Section 1407
remand is appropriate, noting that consolidated pretrial
proceedings, including facilitation of discovery from Track I
cases, have concluded.  His determination was based on the totality
of circumstances involved in the docket.

Plaintiffs and defendant Lieberrman oppose remand until certain
pending pretrial motions, such as motions to dismiss and for
summary judgment, are decided.  But the pendency of dispositive
motions is not an obstacle to remand under Section 1407.  Indeed,
plaintiffs themselves requested Section 1407 remand in January
2012.  The suggestion of remand thus is well-taken.

Because of the lengthy and complicated procedural history of Goyak
and its interrelation with the heavily litigated MDL proceedings,
the transferor court may wish to deny all pending motions without
prejudice and allow the parties that remain in this action to
refile any motions they intend to pursue.  Ultimately though, how
to best proceed is best dedicated to the transferor court's
discretion.  As the transferor judge becomes familiar with the
precise contours of Goyak, he may find it useful to consult with
the transferee judge, who has extensive knowledge of the parties
and issues in this litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Remand Order is
available at https://is.gd/EYchPG


MDL 2244: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for Massey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS,INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2244, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered
an order vacating the Panel's conditional transfer order designated
as "CTO-308" as it related to the action styled MASSEY v. CECIL, ET
AL., C.A. No. 1:19-49 (N.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff in a Northern District of New York action (Massey) and
defendants Russell N.A. Cecil, M.D.; Mohawk Valley Orthopedics,
P.C.; St. Mary's Healthcare; St. Mary's Hospital at Amsterdam; and
The Ortho Store, Inc., move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's order conditionally transferring the action to the Northern
District of Texas for inclusion in MDL No. 2244.  DePuy defendants
oppose the motion.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Vance grants the
motion.  This MDL was created in May 2011.  Following several
rounds of bellwether trials, the MDL is significantly advanced.

Plaintiff suffered a dislocation of his hip implant -- which
consisted of a Pinnacle Gription Acetabular Shell, a Pinnacle ALTRX
Polyethylene Acetabular Liner, a Biolox Delta Ceramic Femoral Head,
an S-ROM Total Hip System Femoral Stem and an S-ROM Modular Hip
System ZTT Proximal Sleeve -- due to mismated parts, according to
statements by plaintiff's doctor and correspondence from DePuy
Synthes to the Risk Manager of defendant St.  Mary's Hospital.
While plaintiff did receive a Pinnacle hip implant and does bring
product liability and breach of warranty claims against the DePuy
defendants, the disassociation injury here is different from those
in the MDL and amenable to proceeding independently, particularly
in light of the advanced nature of the MDL.

Defendants point to the Panel's October 2015 decision to transfer
an action (Mugnolo) that involved a plaintiff with "a Pinnacle hip
implant in a ceramic-on-polyethylene configuration [who] suffered a
dislocation of her hip implant when a ring locking device broke."
Plaintiff made two arguments against transfer: the MDL did not
involve non-metal-on-metal devices and the manner of plaintiff's
injury (hip dislocation due to locking ring failure) was unique.
In transferring Mugnolo, the Panel noted that, as stated in the
initial transfer order, the MDL was not limited to metal-on-metal
configurations of Pinnacle hip implants and that "[e]ven if the
mechanism of failure of plaintiff's Pinnacle hip implant is
somewhat different, transfer is appropriate to prevent any overlap
in discovery in the MDL. . . ."

The Panel's decision to transfer Mugnolo does not weigh heavily in
favor of transfer of Massey, given the current state of the MDL and
the unique circumstances Massey presents.  Over three years have
passed since the Panel transferred Mugnolo, and the MDL has
progressed to the point of a potential settlement that promises to
resolve a substantial number (if not all) of the MDL cases.  Unlike
the Mugnolo plaintiff, the parties opposing transfer here submitted
very specific information concerning the nature of and
circumstances concerning plaintiff's injury, which do not appear to
concern the failure of a constituent part of a Pinnacle hip implant
like the Mugnolo plaintiff's locking ring that broke.  Instead,
Massey involves the inappropriate mating of certain hip implant
components: plaintiff states that he was told by his doctor that
his hip implant was mismatched like "Chevy parts in a Ford kit." If
Massey remains in federal court, the parties can coordinate any
overlap in discovery with the transferee judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Bii4nY


MDL 2244: Patton Suit Transferred to Northern District of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2244, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered
an order transferring the action styled PATTON v. DEPUY
ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-81 from the Central
District of California to the Northern District of Texas and, with
the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable James E.
Kinkeade for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Central District of California action (Patton)
moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 2244.  DePuy
defendants oppose the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2244, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer also is warranted for the reasons set out in
the Panel's order directing centralization.  In that order, the
Judge held that the Northern District of Texas was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from alleged injuries from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System
hip implants.  Patton involves injuries related to plaintiff's
DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implant and thus falls
within the MDL's ambit.

Plaintiff argues against transfer based on his assertion that
federal jurisdiction is lacking over Patton.  Plaintiff can present
his motion for remand, if he chooses to refile one following the
transferor court's denial of his motion without prejudice, to the
transferee judge.

While this MDL has substantially progressed to a point where
potential settlements may resolve a large number of cases, there
remain significant benefits to pretrial transfer of this
unquestionably related action to the MDL.  If the transferee judge
determines that Section 1407 remand of this or any other action is
appropriate, he can suggest remand with a minimum of delay.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/jPnoN7


MDL 2492: Glaud Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTHONY GLAUD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-807 (Filed Feb. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02090 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of of
Bowling Green State University student-athletes.

The Glaud case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Graham Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and LIVINGSTONE COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-778 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02081 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Livingstone student-athletes.

The Graham case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Johnson Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-810 (Filed Feb. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02092 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
University of West Georgia student-athletes.

The Johnson case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Jones Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JASON JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-782 (Filed Feb. 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02084 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Elizabeth City State University student-athletes..

The Jones case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Jones Suit v. NCAA over Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPH JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-783 (Filed Feb. 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02085 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
student-athletes.

The Jones case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Murray Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, VICTOR DUSTIN THOMAS VON HOPKINS MURRAY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-731 (Filed Feb. 18, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02077 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Oregon State University student-athletes.

The Murray case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Niemi Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GEOFF NIEMI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-820 (Filed Feb. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 1, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02100 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of St.
Cloud State University student-athletes.

The Niemi case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Porcelli Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PETER PORCELLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-732 (Filed Feb. 18, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02078 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of LIU
Post student-athletes.

The Porcelli case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Talley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LAQUANE TALLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and CATAWBA COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-784 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
April 1, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02086 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Catawba student-athletes.

The Talley case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2543: Court Denies Bid to Remand Hancock, et al. v. GM Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLCIGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2543, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand their action to the transferor court.

The action is styled HANCOCK, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC D/B/A
GENERAL MOTORSCOMPANY D/B/A GENERAL MOTORS, C.A. No. 3:17-00309
(S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs in the Hancock action, which the Panel previously
transferred from the Southern District of Ohio to MDL No. 2543,
move under Panel Rule 10.3 for an order remanding their action to
the transferor court.  Responding defendant General Motors LLC
opposes the motion to remand.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance concludes
that remand is not appropriate at this time, and therefore denies
plaintiffs' motion.  In considering the question of Section 1407
remand, she accords great weight to the transferee judge's
determination that remand of a particular action at a particular
time is appropriate because the transferee judge supervises the
day-to-day pretrial proceedings in the MDL.  A transferee judge's
suggestion of remand to the Panel, see Panel Rule 10.1(b),
obviously indicates that "he perceives his role under Section 1407
to have ended." Here, plaintiffs have not requested, and the
transferee judge has not issued, a suggestion of Section 1407
remand.  Without a suggestion of remand, a party advocating Section
1407 remand "bears a strong burden of persuasion."

In requesting remand, plaintiffs reiterate arguments opposing
transfer of their action to MDL No. 2543 that the Panel previously
rejected.  They also argue that plaintiff's health condition has
deteriorated, and remaining in MDL No. 2543 will cause prejudice
and delay.  Plaintiffs' counsel complains in an affidavit that they
have found it difficult to keep up with proceedings in MDL No.
2543, and that it is nearly impossible to respond to defendants'
discovery requests.  The Judge finds plaintiffs' arguments
unpersuasive.  Just before filing their motion for Section 1407
remand, General Motors moved to dismiss Hancock in the transferee
court for failure to comply with plaintiffs' discovery obligations.
It is likely that plaintiffs will be required to produce relevant
discovery information whether their claims are pending in the
transferee court or the transferor court.  The Panel's remand
procedures cannot be used to avoid discovery obligations.
Moreover, the Judge has held that, while it might inconvenience
some parties, transfer of a particular action often is necessary to
further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a
whole.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LRjn1b


MDL 2599: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order in Jeannis Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2599, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order vacating the Panel's
conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-83" for the action
styled JEANNIS v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG, ET AL., C.A. No.
6:18-02216 in the Middle District of Florida.

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) in the Middle District of
Florida Jeannis personal injury action moves under Panel Rule 7.1
to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the action
to the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No.2599.
The Jeannis plaintiff did not file a response, but, through
counsel, stated that he supports BMW's motion.

After considering the arguments of counsel, the Judge grants the
motion.  This MDL was created in February 2015 and is significantly
advanced.  The record indicates that no personal injury actions
remain pending in the transferee district.  BMW represents, without
contradiction, that no common discovery as to BMW remains to be
taken in the MDL, and that any discovery in Jeannis will be
case-specific.  Given these circumstances, as well as the parties'
uniform opposition to transfer, the Judge concludes that vacatur is
warranted.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DcFRpE


MDL 2657: Brown v. GlaxoSmithKline Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZOFRAN (ONDANSETRON)PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2657, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
the action captioned BROWN, ET AL. v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:18-02052 from the District of Oregon to the District of
Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to
the Honorable F. Dennis Saylor, IV, for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in "Brown" move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's order that conditionally transferred the action to the
District of Massachusetts for inclusion in MDL No. 2657.  Defendant
GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (GSK), opposes the motion to vacate.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
Brown involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2657, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  No party disputes that, like many of the
already-centralized actions, Brown involves factual questions
arising out of allegations that Zofran causes birth defects in
children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant.

In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over their action is lacking, and that
plaintiffs' pending motion for remand to state court should be
decided by the transferor court.  Brown previously was removed,
transferred to MDL No. 2657 over plaintiffs' objections, and
remanded to state court.  GSK has removed the action again, and
plaintiffs argue that re-removal and transfer will cause them
prejudice and delay.  Specifically, they argue re-removal and
transfer will prejudice their ability to appeal the Oregon state
court's ruling granting the non-diverse defendant's motion for
summary judgment.  The Panel has held that jurisdictional issues
generally do not present an impediment to transfer.  That Brown has
been removed more than once does not suggest a different result
here.  Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the
transferee judge.  Moreover, the Panel has held that, while it
might inconvenience some parties, transfer of a particular action
often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the
litigation taken as a whole.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/JlUMxS


MDL 2666: O'Haver v. 3M Company Transferred to Dist. of Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR WARMING DEVICES PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2666, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the action styled O'HAVER v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:19-00037 from the Western District of Missouri to the
District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to the Honorable Joan N. Ericksen for inclusion in the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Western District of Missouri action (O'Haver)
moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring the action to the District of Minnesota
for inclusion in MDL No. 2666.  Defendants 3M Company and Arizant
Healthcare Inc. oppose the motion.

In support of her motion to vacate, the O'Haver plaintiff argues
that her action was improperly removed, and her motion for remand
to state court is pending.  The Panel often has held that
jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to transfer, as
plaintiffs can present their arguments regarding those issues to
the transferee judge.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
the O'Haver action involves common questions of fact with actions
transferred to MDL No. 2666, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions in the MDL share
factual questions arising from allegations that post-surgery use of
a Bair Hugger forced air warming system causes serious infections
due to the introduction of contaminants into open wounds.  The
O'Haver plaintiff does not dispute that her action implicates those
same questions.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/V9azhs


MDL 2738: McConnell Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled MCCONNELL, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A.
No. 4:18-02083 from the Eastern District of Missouri to the
District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the McConnell action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred McConnell
to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
Imerys Talc America, Inc., PTI Union, LLC, and PTI Royston, LLC,
oppose the motion.

In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over McConnell is lacking, and that
plaintiffs' motion for remand to state court is pending.  The Panel
has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present
an impediment to transfer.  Plaintiffs can present their remand
arguments to the transferee judge.

Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance
finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed
ovarian or other uterine cancer following perineal application of
Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby
Powder and Shower to Shower body powder).  McConnell shares
multiple factual issues with the actions already in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/Iit7xe


MDL 2741: Aden v. Monsanto Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
2741, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled ADEN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:18-00377 from
the Southern District of Mississippi to the Northern District of
California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Vince Chhabria for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Aden action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Aden to the
Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2741.
Defendant Monsanto Company opposes the motion.

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, argues in support of his
motion that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking over his
claims, and that his anticipated remand motion should be decided by
the transferor court.  Such jurisdictional issues, though,
generally do not present an impediment to transfer.  Plaintiff can
present his jurisdictional arguments to the transferee judge.

Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance
finds that the Aden action involves common questions of fact with
the actions transferred to MDL No. 2741, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the Northern District of California was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.  Plaintiff does not dispute that Aden
shares multiple factual issues with the cases already in the MDL.
Like plaintiffs in the MDL, plaintiff alleges that he developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after exposure to Roundup.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/vYjlmV


MDL 2742: SESL Recovery vs. Deutsche Bank Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SUNEDISON, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, MDL No.
2742, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the case
styled SESL Recovery, LLC v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., C.A.
No. 3:19-96 from the Northern District of California to the
Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable P. Kevin Castel for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff SESL Recovery, Inc., in the Northern District of
California action (SESL Recovery) moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring its action to
MDL No. 2742.  Sole defendant Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
(DBSI), opposes the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds this
action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2742, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in the
Panel's order directing centralization.  In that order, the Panel
held that the Southern District of New York was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegedly inaccurate statements concerning SunEdison's
operational and financial condition (e.g., its liquidity,
classification of debt, and internal financial control), as well as
the propriety of its public filings.  The centralized actions
involved various transactions, offerings and statements made in the
roughly ten-month period before SunEdison filed for bankruptcy
relief.  SESL Recovery concerns a US$725 million loan, the Second
Lien Facility, made to SunEdison and facilitated by DBSI about
three months before SunEdison declared bankruptcy.  DBSI allegedly
failed to disclose its knowledge of SunEdison's deteriorating
financial condition.  SESL Recovery thus implicates "factual issues
arising from allegedly inaccurate statements concerning SunEdison's
operational and financial condition."

Plaintiff argues primarily that its action focuses only on
representations about the Second Lien Facility, which is not part
of the MDL, and consequently there is no significant factual
overlap with the remaining MDL cases.  Plaintiff also argues that
transfer will burden it.  The Panel disagrees. DBSI is a defendant
in several MDL actions, which is unsurprising given its alleged
role as SunEdison's "longtime, go-to investment bank." While the
Second Lien Facility has not been the focus of the MDL actions to
date, it was mentioned as background in the now-dismissed Omega
Capital Investors, L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc., et al., S.D. New
York, Case No. 16-7428, as well as in two other individual
securities actions, Canyon and Kearny.  The Panel has long held
that "Section 1407 does not require a complete identity or even
majority of common factual and legal issues." Here, there is
sufficient factual overlap with the MDL actions.  The Second Lien
Facility at issue in SESL Recovery represents one of the
"transactions. . . .  made in the roughly ten-month period before
SunEdison filed for bankruptcy relief." Judge Castel, who is deeply
familiar with all aspects of litigation surrounding SunEdison, can
accommodate any unique aspects of SESL Recovery, should such a need
arise.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/fbPdlk


MDL 2775: Fondren v. Smith & Nephew Moved to District of Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SMITH & NEPHEW BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR)
HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2775, Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled
FONDREN v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00256 from
the Northern District of Mississippi to the District of Maryland
and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable
Catherine C. Blake for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiff Charles M. Fondren and Defendant Greenwood Leflore
Hospital move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that
conditionally transferred the Fondren action to the District of
Maryland for inclusion in MDL No. 2775.  Defendant Smith& Nephew,
Inc., opposes both motions.

In opposition to transfer, movants argue that Fondren should not be
transferred until the transferor court has decided the pending
motion to remand Fondren to state court.  As a general matter,
however, the pendency of jurisdictional objections is not
sufficient reason to delay or deny transfer.  Plaintiff can present
his remand motion to the transferee court.

Movants also argue that they will suffer delay and prejudice if
Fondren is transferred to the MDL.  Transfer of an action is
appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the
litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action
might experience inconvenience or delay.

Accordingly, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance
finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2775, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of Maryland was an appropriate Section
1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions concerning the
design, manufacture, marketing or performance of Smith & Nephew's
BHR system.  The actions in this MDL focus on complications arising
from the use of a cobalt-chromium alloy in the manufacture of the
BHR components.  Plaintiff in Fondren alleges that he suffered
complications arising from the metal-on-metal nature of the BHR
component (the R3 metal liner) used in his hip replacement
procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/cdvI5G


MDL 2804: 28 Suits Transferred to Northern District of Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 28
actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in 28 actions and Southern District of Ohio defendant
Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., move under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the orders conditionally transferring the actions listed on
Schedule A to MDL No. 2804.  Various defendants oppose the
motions.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds these
actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
out in the Panel's order directing centralization.  In that order,
the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
cities, states and towns across the country.

Despite some variances among the actions before us, they all share
a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturing and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of such drugs.  The
actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit.

The parties opposing transfer in 28 actions argue principally that
federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases.  But opposition
to transfer challenging the propriety of federal jurisdiction is
insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer orders
covering otherwise factually related cases.  Several parties argue
that including their actions in this large MDL will cause them
inconvenience.  Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL
proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the
efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.

Plaintiff in the Western District of Missouri Tudhope action
asserts that her action is unique because it is an individual
personal injury action arising from her use of the fentanyl spray
Subsys.  But there are several personal injury actions pending in
the MDL.  The maker of Subsys is a defendant in over 600 cases, and
the distributor defendant named in Tudhope, AmeriSourceBergen, is a
defendant in over 1,150 cases.  Substantial efficiencies can be
gained by including this factually related action in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 3, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/f6gFKM


MDL 2817: Paramount v. Reynolds & Reynolds Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DEALER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2817, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled PARAMOUNT COMPANY 2, LLC, ET AL. v. REYNOLDS &
REYNOLDS COMPANY,C.A. No. 2:18-01132 from the Western District of
Louisiana to the Northern District of Illinois, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Robert M. Dow,
Jr., for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the Western District of Louisiana action (Paramount)
move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring the action to the Northern District of Illinois for
inclusion in MDL No. 2817.  Defendant The Reynolds and Reynolds
Company opposes the motion.

In support of their motions to vacate, the Paramount plaintiffs,
which are four automobile dealerships, argue that their action
involves certain unique claims concerning marketing agreements that
plaintiffs entered into with "Naked Lime," which they allege is a
division of Reynolds.  But, as the Panel frequently have noted,
Section 1407 transfer does not require a complete identity or even
a majority of common factual or legal issues.  Plaintiffs also
argue that they intend to opt out of a settlement reached in the
MDL between Reynolds and plaintiffs in a dealership class action.
Plaintiffs assert that if Paramount is transferred, they may be the
only dealership plaintiffs in the MDL with antitrust claims against
Reynolds.  Be that as it may, that settlement has not removed
Reynolds as a defendant in the MDL, much less resolved issues
concerning its alleged anticompetitive conduct.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
the Paramount action involves common questions of fact with actions
transferred to MDL No. 2817, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions in the MDL share
factual issues stemming from allegations that the Reynolds and CDK
defendants illegally (1) used their purported dominance in the
Dealer Management System (DMS) marketplace to force motor vehicle
dealerships to enter into long-term DMS contracts at artificially
inflated prices, (2) blocked data integrators from access to dealer
data, (3) tied the provision of data integration services to the
supply of DMS, and (4) used their control of data integration
services to impose exclusive dealing restrictions on vendors (e.g.,
prohibiting vendors from using other data integration providers and
charging vendors inflated prices for data integration).  The
Paramount plaintiffs do not dispute that their action "asserts
certain claims against Reynolds that arise from the same
anticompetitive and unfair conduct that forms the basis for
Reynolds' inclusion in [the MDL]."

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZMP5x0


MDL 2873: 2 Suits vs. 3M Co. Moved to District of South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
two actions against 3M Company, et al., to the District of South
Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the
Honorable Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

These actions are (1) in the Northern District of New York, STATE
OF NEW YORK v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-01317; and (2) in
the Northern District of Ohio, STATE OF OHIO v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:19-00120.

The State plaintiffs move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to the
District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No.2873.
Defendants 3MCompany, Tyco Fire Products, LP, Chemguard, Inc.,
Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, National Foam, Inc., oppose both
motions, while defendant Kidde-Fenwal, Inc, opposes the State of
Ohio's motion.

The States assert substantially similar arguments in opposition to
transfer.  First, the States argue that their actions involve
multiple sites at which groundwater allegedly has been contaminated
with perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) that were contained in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs)
used at nearby airports, military bases, or firefighting
facilities.  The States contend that their actions likely will
expand to encompass more such sites in their respective
jurisdictions, and that the site-specific issues in these cases
will overwhelm the common factual issues in the MDL.

From the outset, this MDL has involved multiple contamination sites
located in multiple states across the country.  Indeed, this
numerosity of locations and actions, and the lack of practicable
alternatives to centralization to address the common factual and
legal questions, was one of the reasons the Panel centralized this
litigation.  That these two actions will add more contamination
sites thus is not a persuasive reason to exclude them from the MDL.
Furthermore, at least three contamination sites identified in
these complaints (Stewart International Airport and Air National
Guard Base, and Francis S. Gabreski Airport, both at issue in State
of New York, as well as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, at issue
in State of Ohio) already are at issue in actions brought by
non-state entities pending in the MDL.  Transfer of these actions
thus will reduce the potential for duplicative discovery and
pretrial practice.

The States also argue that, if transferred, issues unique to their
cases would predominate over the common issues in the MDL.  These
actions share a common factual core with the actions in the MDL —
that AFFFs used at airports and firefighting facilities
contaminated nearby drinking water supplies with PFOS and/or PFOA.
That the States bring their claims as parens patriae or on behalf
of a public trust does not significantly diminish the factual
overlap with the claims pending in the MDL.  While they bring some
unique claims, the States also assert claims sounding in strict
products liability and negligence claims already raised in MDL No.
2873 against the same AFFF manufacturer defendants that are
litigating actions in the MDL.  Given the significant overlap
between the States' actions and those in the MDL , exclusion from
the MDL likely would result in duplicative pretrial proceedings.

Likewise, that defendants' potential government contractor defense
may not be applicable to some sites identified by the States does
not weigh against centralization.  Multiple contamination sites
already at issue in the MDL involve non-military firefighting or
industrial facilities, and thus also will not involve this defense.
Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity
of factual and legal issues when the actions, as they do here,
arise from a common factual core.

The States further contend they will suffer undue delay and
prejudice if transferred to the MDL.  This argument is not
persuasive.  The Panel often have transferred claims brought by a
State so long as the action involves facts common to the MDL
proceeding.  Here, as discussed, the States' complaints arise from
the same factual core as the actions in the MDL and will involve
many of the same factual questions and discovery of the AFFF
manufacturers.  In fact, the State of New York already is a party
in the MDL, as it is a named defendant in City of Newburgh v.
United States, C.A. No. 2:18-03358 (D.S.C.).In any event, transfer
of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties
to the action might experience inconvenience or delay.

Ultimately, many of the States' objections to transfer stem from
issues best addressed by the transferee court in the first
instance.  Revealingly, the States alternatively request that,
should the Panel transfer these actions to the MDL, Judge Vance
directs the transferee court to prioritize discovery and
consideration of their objections to federal jurisdiction and the
government contractor defense.  The Judge denies this alternative
request because the transferee court can best address these case
management decisions.  As the Panel stated in its initial
centralization order: "To the extent the actions entail unique
factual or legal issues, the transferee court has the discretion to
address those issues through the use of appropriate pretrial
devices, such as separate tracks for discovery and motion practice.
And, should the transferee court determine that continued
inclusion of certain actions or categories of actions in the MDL no
longer is appropriate, the transferee court may recommend
Section1407 remand of those actions in advance of other actions."

The States should raise their proposals for prioritizing certain
issues with the transferee court.

Accordingly, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance
finds find that the actions involve common questions of fact with
the actions transferred to MDL No. 2873, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF
products used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial
locations caused the release of PFOS and/or PFOA into local
groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies.  The actions
in the MDL share factual questions concerning the toxicity of PFOA
and PFOS and the effects of these substances on human health; these
substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in
groundwater supplies; the knowledge of the AFFF manufacturers
regarding the dangers of PFOA and PFOS; their warnings, if any,
regarding proper use and storage of AFFFs; and to what extent, if
any, defendants conspired or cooperated to conceal the dangers of
PFOA and PFOS in their products.  The State plaintiffs in the
actions listed on Schedule A likewise assert claims against AFFF
manufacturers relating to PFOA and PFOS contamination of
groundwater drinking supplies, and their actions will entail many
of the same factual questions presented in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/6NhfKJ


MDL 2879: Boyd Suit Consolidated in Security Breach Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled William Boyd, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marriott International
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00205, was transferred on April 15,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
(Greenbelt).

The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-01091-PWG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In Re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 8:19-md-02879-PWG.

The action arises from a four-year long data breach experienced by
the Defendants wherein the data of over 500 million customers of
Marriott's Starwood division was compromised (the "Marriott Data
Breach").  Due to the extraordinary quantity of data leaked over
this four-year time span, the Marriott Data Breach is being
heralded as not only the largest data breach of 2018, but also as
the second largest data breach of all time.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott announced that on September 8, 2018,
it learned of an unauthorized access to its Starwood guest
reservation database.  Upon investigation thereof, Marriott learned
that the breach had allowed hackers to access its customer data
starting as early as 2014 and extending through September 10,
2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
          Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
          David Slade, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  toldham@cbplaw.com
                  dslade@cbplaw.com

Defendants Marriott International, Inc., and Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide LLC are represented by:

          Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
          Lisa M. Ghannoum, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-7145
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com
                  lghannoum@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gilbert S. Keteltas, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1530
          Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
          E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com


MDL 2883: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 2 NEI ERISA Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NEEDHAM EXCAVATING, INC., EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT
INCOME SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION, MDL No. 2883, Judge Sarah
S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
denied Needham Excavating, Inc.'s motion to centralize pretrial
proceedings in two actions in the Southern District of Iowa.

Needham Excavating, Inc. (NEI) moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the
Southern District of Iowa.  The litigation consists of these two
actions:

     -- In the Northern District of Illinois: INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 150,AFL-CIO, ET AL. v. NEEDHAM
EXCAVATING, INC., C.A. No. 1:18-08045

     -- In the Southern District of Iowa: NEEDHAM EXCAVATING, INC.
v. TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNIONOF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL
150, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00116

The plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois action support
centralization but in the Northern District of Illinois.  

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance
concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience
of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation.  These actions share factual issues
arising from a dispute concerning a 2018 fringe benefit audit of
NEI.  The audit allegedly found, inter alia, that NEI failed to
properly report and remit approximately US$400,000 in contributions
to certain employee benefit funds.  But there are only two actions,
and the factual issues do not appear to be especially complex.  In
the Iowa action, NEI seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not
obligated to pay the amount in question.  In the Illinois action,
the plaintiffs sue NEI for payment of that amount.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/YuQX2B


MEADOW GREENS: Chrismon Seeks Proper Wages, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
Dean Chrismon, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Meadow Greens Pizza, LLC, John P. O'Leary, Ryke G.
Citty, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00155-BO (E.D. N.C., April 17,
2019) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief
based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked. The Defendants
maintain a policy and practice of underpaying their delivery
drivers, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff was an employee of all Defendants.

Defendants operate Domino's Pizza franchises in North Carolina (the
"Meadow Greens" Domino's stores).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mary-Ann Leon, Esq.
     The Leon Law Firm, P.C.
     704 Cromwell Dr., Ste E
     Greenville, NC 27858
     Phone: (252) 830-5366
     Email: maleon@leonlaw.org
            www.leonlaw.org

          - and -

     Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
     Biller & Kimble, LLC
     Of Counsel to Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Phone: (614) 604-8759
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: abiller@billerkimble.com

          - and -

     Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
     Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
     Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
     Biller & Kimble, LLC
     Of Counsel to Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Phone: (513) 715-8711
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
            pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
            lroselle@billerkimble.com
            www.billerkimble.com


METROPOLITAN REALTY: Lindow Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Prince Lindow, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Realty
Group, LLC and Union Street Houses Owners, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02021 (E.D. N.Y., April 8, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants and liquidated damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiff seeks to represent himself and current and former
non-supervisory building employees who worked for Defendants.

Mr. Lindow complained that even as he was compensated for his
overtime work, the paystubs often significantly under-estimated the
hours he worked. Mr. Lindow frequently complained to MRG managers
about errors on his pay. Similarly, other building maintenance
staff employed by Defendants told Mr. Lindow that they consistently
worked in excess of 40 hours weekly and were not paid time and a
half wages for their overtime hours. Additionally, Mr. Lindow was
promised by Defendants that he would be provided with an apartment
as part of his compensation. However, the apartment provided by
Defendants was not a valid, legally-rentable apartment under
applicable City and/or State law.

The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other building
maintenance staff overtime wages for their services and labor in
violation of the FLSA and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and
other building maintenance staff overtime wages in violation of the
New York State Labor Law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lindow was employed as a building superintendent by the
Defendants from approximately November 2016 until October 2018.

MRG is a property management company and real estate developer that
owns and operates dozens of buildings throughout the New York City
metropolitan area and other parts of the East Coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq.
     Amy E. Robinson, Esq.
     GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
     217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
     New York NY 10013
     Phone: (212) 847-8315


MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Harris Sues Over Oreos' False, Misleading Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Harris individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mondelez Global LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02249 (E.D. N.Y., April 17, 2019) seeks class-wide
injunctive relief due to Defendant's deceptive practices.

Mondelez Global LLC manufactures, processes, distributes, markets,
labels and sells chocolate sandwich cookies with creme filling
known as Oreos (the "Products").

The Defendant promoted the Products as "always made with real
cocoa." The Products' representations are misleading because
despite the front-label claims of "real cocoa," they do not contain
this component in the amount, type and/or form which a reasonable
consumer would expect based on the claims, asserts the complaint.

Moreover, the "Always Made with Real Cocoa" representation is
false, misleading and deceptive because the ingredient list
discloses they contain "Cocoa (Processed with Alkali)." It is
false, deceptive and misleading to conspicuously promote "real
cocoa" without any reference to the presence and use of alkalis
either preceding or following because "real cocoa" without any
modifying terms implies the absence of artificial ingredients in
the cocoa. The Products' use of the optional alkali ingredients
significantly distinguishes its cocoa component from cocoa powder
which does not contain alkali, adds the complaint.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, defendant sold
the Products at a premium price--no less than $4.99 per 14.1 oz,
excluding tax--compared to other similar products which are
represented in a non-misleading way,.

Plaintiffs purchased one or more Products for personal
consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

     Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Carter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA Y. CARTER, individually and on behalf of DARYUS DE SHAWN
BREZIAL, (deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00804 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 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. de Shawn
Brezial'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: Frickson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Frickson, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00800 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Harper Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Harper, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00799 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Kennedy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANN KENNEDY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00796 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: McGary Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard McGary, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00803 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Smetana Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE A. SMETANA, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00792 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
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 Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Treadway Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER L. TREADWAY and JEAN C. TREADWAY, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00794 (E.D. Mo.,
April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Mr. Walter L.
Treadway, 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. Walter L.
Treadway'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
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MRS BPO: Drake Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------
Brenda Drake, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01543-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., April 18, 2019) is a class action
against Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an automatic
telephone dialing system to place, or cause to be placed,
non-emergency calls to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular
telephone service, without prior express consent. Moreover, it
sends, or causes to be sent, autodialed debt collection text
messages--which constitute "calls" under the TCPA--to wrong or
reassigned cellular telephone numbers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in
Fishers, Indiana.

MRS BPO is a limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Phone: 312.283.3814
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
     7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
     Boca Raton, FL 33487
     Phone: 561.826.5477
     Fax: 561.961.5684
     Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


NATIONAL CREDIT: Nash Sues Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
The case Shenise Nash, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC, a
Kansas limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01438-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 9, 2019) seeks a finding
that Defendant's form debt collection letter violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").   

Ms. Nash fell behind on paying her bills, including a debt she
allegedly owed for a MobiLoans internet/payday loan. Sometime after
that debt went into default, Defendant tried to collect it by
sending Ms. Nash an initial form collection letter, dated August
21, 2018. The collection letter stated that the "Original Creditor"
was MobiLoans, but then stated the "Current Owner" was Level
Financial, and then further stated the debt was "Serviced By"
National Credit Adjusters.

The letter failed to explain what the difference was between the
creditor, the owner, and/or the servicer. Thus, Defendant's letter
failed to state effectively the name of the creditor to whom the
debt was then owed. In fact, Plaintiff is informed and believes,
through counsel, that Level Financial obtained the debt after
default and was the creditor to whom the debt was then owed.

A statement that NCA was the current creditor to whom the debt was
then owed, would have sufficed to identify effectively the name of
the creditor to whom the debt was then owed. Violations of the
FDCPA which would lead a consumer to alter his or her course of
action as to whether to pay a debt, or which would be a factor in
the consumer's decision making process. Moreover, the
identification of the creditor is such a factor because, amongst
other things, it is a factor for a consumer in determining whether
an attempt to collect a debt is fraudulent. Plaintiff was, in fact,
confused as to whom she owed this debt, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Shenise Nash is a citizen of the State of Indiana,
residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom Defendant
attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt.

Defendant NCA operates a nationwide defaulted debt collection
business and attempts to collect defaulted debts from consumers in
many states, including the State of Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Philipps, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
     Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
     9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Phone: (708) 974-2900
     Fax: (708) 974-2907
     Email: davephilipps@aol.com
            mephilipps@aol.com
            angie@philippslegal.com

          - and -

     John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
     Sawin, Shea & Steinkamp, LLC
     5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
     Indianapolis, IN 46227
     Phone: (317) 255-2600
     Fax: (317) 255-2905
     Email: john@sawinlaw.com


NATIONAL LABOR: Salazar Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled JUSTIN SALAZAR, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NATIONAL LABOR CONTRACTORS, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
WORKFORCE, an Indiana corporation; KONISTO COMPANIES, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case
No. CIVDS1905225, was removed on April 12, 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-00664 to the
proceeding.

On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff Justin Salazar commenced this
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Bernardino.

NCW is a domestic for-profit corporation established and organized
under the laws of the state of Indiana.  Its principal place of
business is located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCW provides
employment services.  The Company provides staffing services in
construction, engineering, warehouse personnel, architectural,
manufacturing and distribution, and facilities management.

KONISTO is a limited liability company established and organized
under the laws of the state of Colorado. Its principal place of
business is located in Durango, Colorado.  KONISTO is a solar
contractor.[BN]

Defendants NATIONAL LABOR CONTRACTORS, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE, and KONISTO COMPANIES, LLC, are represented
by:

          John K. Rubiner, Esq.
          Terry L. Higham, Esq.
          BARTON, KLUGMAN & OETTING LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3454
          Telephone: (213) 621-4000
          Facsimile: (213) 625-1832
          E-mail: jrubiner@bkolaw.com
                  t.higham@bkolaw.com


OWLET BABY: Sells Faulty Smart Sock Baby Monitors, Ruiz Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA RUIZ and MARISELA ARREOLA, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. OWLET BABY CARE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00252-DAK (D. Utah, April
12, 2019), arises out of the alleged unlawful, false, misleading,
and deceptive marketing and advertising practices used by Owlet in
selling, directly and indirectly, Smart Sock baby monitors to
consumers.

According to the complaint, the Smart Sock gives false alarms and
causes parents to rush their babies to the hospital, believing them
to be grievously ill.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the Smart
Sock regularly fails to detect abnormal oxygen levels and heart
rates, the exact purpose for which it was designed and advertised.
The Plaintiffs add that Owlet failed to disclose that the Smart
Sock is prone to cause burns to babies' feet, even when the product
is being used as instructed.

Owlet Baby Care, Inc., is a corporation organized and in existence
under the laws of the state of Delaware and conducts business in
the state of California.  Owlet's corporate headquarters and
principal place of business are located in Lehi, Utah.  Owlet
designs, produces, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells
Smart Socks nationwide and throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elaina M. Maragakis, Esq.
          RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER, P.C.
          36 South State Street, Suite 1400
          P.O. Box 45385
          Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0385
          Telephone: (801) 532-1500
          Facsimile: (801) 532-7543
          E-mail: emaragakis@rqn.com

               - and -

          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
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


PHARMACY ASSOCIATES: LifeBack Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
LifeBack Recovery Center, PLLC, on behalf of plaintiff and the
class members, Plaintiff, v. Pharmacy Associates, Inc., doing
business as CompreCare Pharmacy, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00295-RGJ (W.D. Ky., April 18, 2019) seeks to
secure redress for the actions of Defendants in sending or causing
the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and the common law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant as the entity, whose
products or services were advertised in the faxes, derived economic
benefit from the sending of the faxes. The Defendant either
negligently or willfully violated the rights of plaintiff and other
recipients in sending the faxes.

The complaint relates that the Plaintiff had no prior relationship
with Defendant and had not authorized the sending of fax
advertisements to Plaintiff. On information and belief, says the
complaint, the Defendant has transmitted similar unsolicited fax
advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Kentucky. There is
no reasonable means for Plaintiff or other recipients of
Defendant's unsolicited advertising faxes to avoid receiving
illegal faxes. Fax machines must be left on and ready to receive
the urgent communications authorized by their owners, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff LifeBack is a limited liability company chartered under
Kentucky law.

Pharmacy Associates, Inc., doing business as CompreCare Pharmacy,
is an West Virginia corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zachary L. Taylor, Esq.
     TAYLOR COUCH, PLLC
     130 Saint Matthews Avenue, Suite 301
     Louisville, KY 40207
     Phone: (502) 625-5000
     Email: ztaylor@taylorcouchlaw.com

          - and -

     Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
     Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
     Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, Esq.
     EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
     20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 739-4200
     Fax: (312) 419-0379
     Email: dedelman@edcombs.com
            jclark@edcombs.com


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Bay Area Sues Over Reduced Insurance Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Area Injury Rehab Specialists Holdings, Inc. ("Health Care
Provider"), as assignee, individually, and on behalf of all
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive American Insurance
Company ("Insurance Company"), Defendant, Case No. 88035050 (13th
Circuit Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Fla., April 16, 2019) is an action
asserting class action claims and/or individual claims for
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.

This case involves provisions generally found in all of
Progressive's insurance policy forms used in the State of Florida
since 2013. This case involves a dispute concerning the amount of
insurance benefits which must be paid by Progressive pursuant to
the terms of an Insurance Policy, when Progressive erroneously
reduces the insured patient's coinsurance portion of a medical
bill.

On November 23, 2018, A.G. (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,
consistent with the exemplar of the Insurance Policy which was in
full force and effect, and provided personal injury protection
("PIP") coverage as required by law to comply with the Florida
Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.  As a result of the injuries sustained
by the Insured Patient at that accident, Bay Area subsequently
rendered health care services to the Insured Patient on or about
January 4, 2019.

Bay Area contends that a certain "Fee Schedule Method" can only be
applied to the 80% portion of the medical bill covered by a
"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
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.

Progressive's business practices described herein are routine,
ongoing, and continuing in nature, asserts the complaint. Bay Area
regularly provides health care services to Progressive's PIP
insureds, and reasonably anticipates that this will continue into
the foreseeable future, says the complaint.

Bay Area is a Florida professional association that provides health
care services to Florida residents who have sustained personal
injuries in motor vehicle accidents, and who have assigned to Bay
Area their insurance benefits under automobile insurance policies
issued by Progressive.

Progressive American Insurance Company is a corporation doing
business under the laws of the State of Florida, and at all
material times, sold automobile insurance, including PIP coverage,
in the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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 Ia PARTE & GILBERT, P.A.
     Post Office Box 2350
     Tampa, FL 33601-2350
     Phone: (813) 229-2775
     Primary Email: dcaldeviIIadgfirm.com
     Secondary Email: serviceclerk@dgfirm.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Dees Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
David Dees, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP and LVNV Funding, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02480-JZB (D. Ariz., April 17, 2019)
is a class action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction in which
the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of
the transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes—namely, a personal credit card account (the
Debt). Resurgent uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce or
the mails in a business the principal purpose of which is the
collection of debts. In connection with the collection of the Debt,
Resurgent, itself and on behalf of LVNV, sent Plaintiff written
correspondence dated January 15, 2019.

The January 15, 2019 letter was Resurgent's initial communication
with respect to the Debt. Resurgent's January 15, 2019 letter
sought payment for the Debt in the amount of $656.46.  Resurgent's
January 15, 2019 letter therefore constituted an attempt to collect
a debt and triggered a duty in Resurgent to comply.  The January
15, 2019 letter does not contain the notices required. Resurgent
did not provide Plaintiff with the notices required in writing
within five days of its initial communication with Plaintiff, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in
the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, and City of Phoenix.

Resurgent is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged, by
use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to
collect a “debt”.[BN]


The Plaintiff is reprensted by:

     Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
     Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
     5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
     Mesa, AZ 85206
     Phone: (602) 388-8898
     Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
     Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Keating Suit Asserts Breach of Duties
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark and Victoria Keating, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00852-CAB (N.D. Ohio,
April 16, 2019) asserts claims for relief against SPS for breach of
the duties.

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") permits a
borrower, or an agent of a borrower, to submit a "qualified written
request" for information relative to a "federally related mortgage
loan" to any servicer of such a loan. RESPA provides that "not
later than 30 days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and
Sundays) after the receipt from any borrower of any qualified
written request . . . the servicer shall . . . provide the borrower
with a written explanation or clarification that includes" the
"information requested by the borrower or an explanation of why the
information requested is unavailable or cannot be obtained by the
servicer; and the name and telephone number of an individual
employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can
provide assistance to the borrower."

SPS is the current servicer of Plaintiffs' and Class members'
notes, and mortgages on real property that secure those notes
(collectively referred to hereinafter as the "loans"). Plaintiffs'
and Class members' loans are each a "federally related mortgage
loan" as said term is defined by RESPA and Regulation X. SPS is
subject to the requirements of RESPA and Regulation X, and does not
qualify for the exception for "small servicers" nor for the
exemption for a "qualified lender". Plaintiffs and Class members
submitted RFIs and/or NOEs (collectively, the "RESPA Request
Letters") to SPS, each of which were "qualified written requests".

In response to Plaintiffs' and Class members' RESPA Request
Letters, SPS replied with form letters claiming an "active
litigation" exception to its obligations, and otherwise refused to
provide a substantive response to such correspondence.
Specifically, SPS has not provided any of the requested information
or performed a reasonable investigation into or correction of any
alleged errors concerning Plaintiffs' and Class members' loans.

Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed because they incurred the
expenses associated with sending the RESPA Request Letters--such as
their time, postage, etc.--but they did not receive the information
or the reasonable investigation into or correction of asserted
errors to which they were legally entitled, pursuant to RESPA and
Regulation X, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are each a natural person residing in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.

Defendant is an incorporated business under the laws of the State
of Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marc E. Dann, Esq.
     Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
     Brian D. Flick, Esq.
     DANNLAW
     P.O. Box. 6031040
     Cleveland, OH 44103
     Office: (216) 373-0539
     Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
     Email: notices@dannlaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Office: (312) 440-0020
     Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
     Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
            matt@attorneyzim.com
            www.attorneyzim.com


SNAP SHOT ROOFING: White Seeks OT Premium Pay, Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Snap Shot Roofing and Gutters, LLC and Jimmy Lee Twiss for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
applicable Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The case is captioned DAVID
WHITE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SNAP SHOT ROOFING AND GUTTERS, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, and JIMMY LEE TWISS, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01094 (D. Colo., April 15, 2019).
Plaintiff David White alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA and
the state's wage order by failing to pay roofers the applicable
minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime compensation at the
proper regular rates of pay.

Snap Shot is a Colorado limited liability company having a
principal office address of P.O. Box 15919, Colorado Springs,
Colorado. Jimmy Lee Twiss is responsible for Snap Shot's pay
practices and exercises substantial control over its finances and
operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
     Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
     Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
     LEWIS | KUHN | SWAN PC
     620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
     Colorado Springs, CO 80903
     Telephone: (719) 694-3000
     Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
     E-mail: plewis@lks.law
             mkuhn@lks.law
             aswan@lks.law


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE: Nurse Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA RENEE STEWART on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.
a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13364 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., April 18, 2019) is brought pursuant to California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, and any other applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, seeking unpaid lawful wages, unpaid
rest and meal period compensation, penalties and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants enforced shift schedules, employment policies and
practices, and workload requirements wherein Plaintiff and all
other Non-Exempt Employees: (1) were not paid proper wages they
earned for all hours they worked including minimum wage and/or
proper overtime compensation; (2) were not permitted to take their
full statutorily authorized rest and meal periods, or had their
rest and meal periods shortened and/or provided to them late due to
the scheduling and work load and time requirements placed upon them
by Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay these employees one
hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each
workday that the meal period and/or rest period that was not
properly provided; (3) were not properly reimbursed for
out-of-pocket expenses, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a licensed vocational nurse
in or about March 2013.

Defendant is a California corporation which is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California and engaged in providing health care services
throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 387-7200
     Fax: (949) 387-6676


SOUTHERN OHIO PIZZA: Howard Seeks to Notify Class of Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Howard moves the Court for an order allowing him to send
notice of the action titled Nathan Howard, et al., On Behalf Of
Himself And Those Similarly Situated v. Southern Ohio Pizza, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00222-TSB (S.D. Ohio), to these similarly
situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

     All similarly situated current and former delivery drivers
     employed at the Domino's Pizza stores owned, operated, and
     controlled by Defendants, during the three years prior to
     the filing of this action and the date of final judgment in
     this matter who elect to opt-in to the action and who have
     not previously released all of their FLSA claims.

The case seeks unpaid minimum wages and associated damages on
behalf of Domino's delivery drivers, who work for approximately 20
franchise stores in the Cincinnati area (the "Southern Ohio
Domino's" stores).  The drivers make three basic claims: (1) they
have not been properly reimbursed for their delivery expenses, and
therefore have "kicked back" a portion of their wages to
Defendants, (2) they were paid a tipped wage for non-tipped work
inside the store until approximately spring 2017, and (3) they did
not receive proper notice of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA
until approximately spring 2017.

Mr. Howard also asks the Court to (1) conditionally certify this
case as a collective action, (2) approve his proposed notices and
methods of disseminating notice, (3) order the Defendants to
provide name and contact information for all potential class
members within 15 days of the court's order, (4) authorize him to
send the notices via regular U.S. mail and e-mail, and (5)
authorize a 90-day opt-in period.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          OF COUNSEL TO MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          OF COUNSEL TO MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


STEVE MADDEN: Kang Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
JACK KANG, individually and on behalf of all other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Steve Madden Handbags Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02237 (E.D. N.Y., April 16, 2019) is a
civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Because Defendant's website, https://www.stevemadden.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.

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

Defendant operates retail clothing, shoe and accessory locations in
this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stamatios Stamoulis, Esq.
     Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
     800 N. West Street, Third Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 999-1540
     Email: stamoulis@swdelaw.com

        - and -

     Evan S. Kagan, Esq.
     Legal Justice Advocates, LLP
     1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 290-6671
     Email: ek@legaljusticeadvocates.com



TEXAS DE BRAZIL: Faces Chavez Labor Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
WENDY CHAVEZ, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. TEXAS DE BRAZIL (FRESNO) CORPORATION, a
California corporation; TEXAS DE BRAZIL (CARLSBAD) CORPORATION, a
California corporation; TEXAS DE BRAZIL (CONCORD) CORPORATION, a
California corporation; TEXAS DE BRAZIL (IRVINE) CORPORATION, a
California corporation; TEXAS DE BRAZIL (OXNARD) CORPORATION, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendant(s), Case No. 1:19-at-00274 (E.D. Cal., April 16, 2019) is
a class action against Defendants for alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No.
5-2001 ("the Wage Order"), the Business and Professions Code and
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other
similarly situated current and former employees in California for
unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on
Defendants' alleged failures to (1) provide all meal periods and
rest breaks, (2) pay all wages earned for all hours worked, (3)
provide accurate written wage statements, (4) timely pay final
wages upon termination of employment, and (5) fairly compete.
Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks to recover unpaid wages and
related relief through this class action.

Plaintiff continuously worked for Defendants until approximately
March 3, 2019, when she voluntarily ended her employment.

TEXAS DE BRAZIL (FRESNO) CORPORATION is a corporation organized
under and also a citizen of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    DAVID G. SPIVAK, ESQ.
    STEPHANIE GREENBERG, ESQ.
    THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
    16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203
    Encino, CA 91436
    Phone (818) 582-3086
    Facsimile (818) 582-2561
    Email: david@spivaklaw.com
          stephanie@spivaklaw.com

        - and -

    WALTER HAINES, ESQ.
    UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
    5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
    Huntington Beach, CA 92649
    Phone (562) 256-1047
    Facsimile (562) 256-1006
    Email: whaines@uelglaw.com


THREE DIAMOND: Hispanic Staff Asserts Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------
Julissa Morales, Aidee Geronimo-Romero, and Ady Garcia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as
Class Representatives, Plaintiffs v. Three Diamond Diner Corp.
d/b/a Mount Kisco Diner, Photios Georgiou a/k/a Frank Georgiou,
Harry Georgiou, and Yiota Georgiou, Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-03460 (S.D. N.Y., April 18, 2019) brought is a Collective
and Class Action on behalf of Plaintiffs and the scores of other
individuals who currently work and/or previously worked in
Defendants' restaurant business and were not paid their lawfully
owed wages and were subjected to illegal discrimination based on
their gender, race, ethnicity and/or national origin.

During the course of Plaintiffs' employment, Defendants engaged in
a veritable smorgasbord of legal violations. Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiffs their regular wages for all hours worked, failed to
pay Plaintiffs an overtime premium on the frequent occasions when
they worked more than 40 hours in a week, cheated Plaintiffs out of
tips, and "cooked the books" by falsifying records of how many
hours employees worked and how much money they received, asserts
the complaint.

The Defendants created a hostile work environment for their
predominantly Hispanic staff, routinely using racially derogatory
language, the complaint further relates. Defendants also
perpetrated and condoned rampant sexual harassment against female
employees including Plaintiffs Julissa Morales and Aidee
Geronimo-Romero, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were Hispanic adults and were employees of Defendants.

Defendants own and operate Mount Kisco Diner, which advertises
itself as "an upscale casual restaurant".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert McCreanor, Esq.
     Maureen Hussain, Esq.
     Laura Revercomb, Esq.
     Worker Justice Center of New York
     9 Main Street
     Kingston, NY 12401
     Phone: (845) 331-6615
     Email: mhussain@wjcny.org
            rmccreanor@wjcny.org
            lrevercomn@wjcny.org


US ALLIANCE: Leverone Sues Over MCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Maggie Leverone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. US Alliance Federal Credit Union,
Defendant, Case No. (Sup. Ct. Mass., Middlesex Cty., April 8, 2019)
is an action arising out of Defendant US Alliance's repeated
violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"),
and Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations ("MDCR"), in its
illegal efforts to collect consumer debts.

Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation (the "Debt") to
US Alliance. The Debt arose from services which were primarily for
family, personal or household purposes. Within the last four years,
US Alliance called Plaintiffs cellular telephone in an attempt to
collect the Debt. US Alliance called Plaintiff at an excessive and
harassing rate, repeatedly placing more than two calls to Plaintiff
regarding the Debt within a seven-day period.

Plaintiff asserted that he suffered actual damages as a result of
US Alliance's unlawful conduct. Specifically, as a direct
consequence of US Alliance's repeated daily calls to Plaintiffs
cellular telephone regarding the Debt, Plaintiff suffered anger,
anxiety, emotional distress, fear and frustration. US Alliance's
repealed calls were also distracting and an inconvenience to
Plaintiff, and an invasion of her personal privacy. In addition, US
Alliance's repeated calls wasted Plaintiffs time and energy spent
tending to US Alliance's calls, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Maggie Leverone is an adult individual residing in
Lexington, Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Defendant US Alliance Federal Credit Union is a credit union that
has over 100,000 members and multiple branches within the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sergejf Lemberg, Esq.
     LEMBERG LAW, LLC
     43 Danbury Road
     Wilton, CT 06897
     Phone: (203)653-2250
     Fax: (203) 653-3424
     Email: slcmberg@lcmberglaw.com


VANS INC: Haggar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------
Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. VANS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02970-GW-JEM (C.D. Cal., April 17,
2019) seeks to secure redress against Defendant VANS, INC., a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1-10, for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and
equally accessible  to and independently usable by Plaintiffs and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiffs' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiffs are visually-impaired and legally blind people who
require screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant's website provides consumers with access to store
locations, an assortment of clothing, footwear, sporting gear,
hats, beanies, backpacks, bags, sunglasses, accessories,
merchandise customization, gift cards, special offers and
promotions and other products and services which are available
online and in retail stores for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


VERDE ENERGY: Davis Files Suit Over Exorbitant Electricity Rates  
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10741-MLW (D. Mass., April 17, 2019) arises out of Verde's
improper practices with regard to billing for "supplying"
electricity to residential consumers.

Verde entices residential customers to sign up for its service by
offering seemingly low initial rates for electricity. When the
"teaser rate" period expires, however, customers are rolled over
into a month to-month variable rate plan with exorbitant rates.
Verde's "Variable Rate" electricity plan to residential consumers
is tied to the market rate in the wholesale power market. However,
contrary to Verde's representations and obligations, Verde
consistently and improperly charges an extraordinarily high premium
rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the underlying
market price.

Verde routinely charges its consumers up to almost three times the
underlying market rate, notwithstanding Verde's representations
that its variable rates "fluctuate" monthly with wholesale electric
prices, asserts the complaint. Specifically, even when the market
price goes down, Verde's rate remains at an inflated level several
times higher than the market rate. Thus, Verde's Variable Rate is
not based on market conditions, as promised. Verde makes additional
representations that it offers "low-cost," "competitive" electric
rates, and "cost effective" power. But what Verde does not inform
customers is that its Variable Rate is virtually always
substantially higher than, and not competitive with, other rates
available in the market and is significantly higher than Verde's
own Fixed Rates.

Verde's improper scheme of charging inflated electric prices that
match increases in the underlying market price while failing to
pass along corresponding decreases is intentionally designed to
maximize revenue for Verde. Consumers, such as Plaintiff and the
Class, were deceived into believing that Verde will provide
market-based rates when, in reality, Verde sets its prices at
significantly above-market rates and Verde's competitors' rates,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Melissa Davis is a resident and citizen of Lowell,
Massachusetts.

Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
     Nathaniel Silver, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: 617-398-5600
     Fax: 617-5076020
     Email: jeff@blockesq.com
            Jason@blockesq.com
            Nate@blockesq.com

          - and -

     Jonathan Shub, Esq.
     Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225
     Phone: 215-238-1700
     Fax: 215-238-1968
     Email: jshub@kohnswift.com
            klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

          - and -

     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: 919-600-5000
     Email: dan@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW, P.C.
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street. Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865) 247-0090
     Fax: (865) 522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcoleman.law

          - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
     155 2nd Street, Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Phone: (201) 630-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


VERTICAL REALITY: Altare Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Walter Altare, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
VERTICAL REALITY MFG, INC., a Florida Limited Liability Company,
KENNETH A. SHARKEY, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-21496 (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2019) is an action by Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees for damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA") of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime
and/or minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

Throughout his employment with Vertical, Plaintiff routinely worked
approximately 70 hours per week comprised of 40 hours of regular
time and an average 30 hours of overtime per week. Notwithstanding,
Vertical and Sharkey willfully and intentionally failed/refused to
pay to Plaintiff the federally required minimum and overtime rates
for all hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately January
2004 through the fall of 2018.

Vertical operated as an organization which purchased equipment and
products manufactured outside the state of Florida; provided
services to or sold, marketed, or handled goods and materials to
customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Henry Hernandez, Esq.
     Law Office of Henry Hernandez, P.A.
     2655 S Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 771-3374
     Email: henry@hhlawflorida.com
     Secondary: legal@hhlawflorida.com

          - and -

     Monica Espino, Esq.
     ESPINO LAW
     2655 S Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
     Miami, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 704-3172
     Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
     Email: me@espino-law.com
     Secondary: legal@espino-law.com


VXI GLOBAL: Failed to Pay Workers Overtime Wages, Ellis Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrice Ellis and Gladys Sifuentes, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VXI Global Solutions,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (N.D. Ohio, April 18, 2019)
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), and Texas common law.

Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not been paid
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. VXI has knowingly
and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper
amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis in the last three
years. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members did not (and
currently do not) perform work that meets the definition of exempt
work under the FLSA or relevant state law, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by VXI from approximately October 2016
until May 2018.

VXI employs non-exempt workers in its call centers to provide
assistance to VXI's clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
            jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com


WEINSTEIN COMPANY: Faces Class Action for Sexual Abuse
------------------------------------------------------
JILL DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY HOLDINGS, LLC, HARVEY
WEINSTEIN, ROBERT WEINSTEIN, DIRK ZIFF, TIM SARNOFF, MARC LASRY,
TARAK BEN AMMAR, LANCE MAEROV, RICHARD KOENIGSBERG, PAUL TUDOR
JONES, JAMES DOLAN, DAVID GLASSER, FRANK GIL, BARBARA SCHNEEWEISS
and JOHN DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03430
(S.D. N.Y., April 17, 2019) seeks certification of a Rule 23(c)(4)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure class for liability for:
sex trafficking, negligent retention and supervision, civil
battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional and negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and ratification. Defendants'
conduct has caused widespread damage, including personal injury,
emotional distress, and damage to the careers of Plaintiff and the
Class, for which Defendants must be held responsible.

Harvey Weinstein used the proverbial "casting couch" as his office
of choice, luring Plaintiff and Class members to meetings under the
guise he would help with their careers when, in fact, his primary
goal was to sexually abuse them. Weinstein's use of his power to
abuse women was known, ratified and condoned by TWC and its
officers and directors. While the TWC Directors have publicly
disclaimed knowledge, knowledge of Harvey Weinstein's "odious" and
"rotten" sexual misconduct--his "voracious rapacity; like a
gluttonous ogre out of the Brothers Grimm"--ran deep. The
Defendants knew Weinstein was targeting and abusing Class members
with the promise of movie, writing and production roles. Moreover,
with two major events in 2015, the TWC Directors could no longer
claim ignorance of Weinstein's sexual abuse of women. First, the
TWC Directors became aware of a New York Police Department sting
operation, in which Weinstein was secretly recorded admitting to an
assault of a model.

Plaintiff, and hundreds of other females like her, found themselves
with Weinstein on the casting couch at offices, in hotel rooms, in
his homes, or in rooms at industry functions. Under the guise of
meetings ostensibly to help further Plaintiff's and Class members'
careers, or to hire them, or to make a business deal with them, or
to network at industry events, Weinstein isolated Plaintiff and
Class members in an attempt to engage in unwanted sexual conduct
that took many forms: flashing, groping, fondling, harassing,
battering, false imprisonment, sexual assault, attempted rape,
and/or completed rape.

Plaintiff and the Class operated under duress and the credible and
objective threat of being threatened, deceived, or blacklisted by
Weinstein and major film producers such as TWC if they refused
Weinstein's unwanted sexual advances or complained about his
behavior. To the extent a woman was "lucky" enough to escape
physically unscathed, Weinstein's behavior (and the fact it was
facilitated by Defendants) nonetheless caused injury to her
business prospects, career, and reputation, and caused severe
emotional and physical distress, says the complaint.

Jill Doe is a citizen of the United States and a resident of New
York, New York.

Defendant The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company whose principal place of business is in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason Zweig, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
     New York, NY 10017
     Email: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: (708) 628-4949
     Fax: (708) 628-4950
     Email: beth@hbsslaw.com
            whitneys@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Shelby Smith, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
            shelby@hbsslaw.com

WHITESTONE REIT: Clark Hits Share Price Drop Over False Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Clark, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WHITESTONE REIT, JAMES C. MASTANDREA and
DAVID K. HOLEMAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01379 (S.D. Cal.,
April 16, 2019) is a federa1 securities class action on behalf of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Whitestone
securities from May 9, 2018 through February 27, 2019, inclusive,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, the Defendants' reports filed with the
SEC for the quarters ended March 31, 2018,  June 30, 2018, and
September 30, 2018--signed and certified under the Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002 by the Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy
of the financial statements, effectiveness of internal controls,
and that all fraud was disclosed--were materially false and/or
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting; (2) Whitestone
was incorrectly recognizing assets and liabilities associated with
its contribution to Pillarstone Capital REIT Operating Partnership
LP; (3) the Company's financial statements for the fiscal year 2018
were overstating revenues; (4) the Company's financial statements
for the fiscal year 2018 could no longer be relied upon; and (5) as
a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times, saya the
complaint.

Plaintiff Brian Clark purchased Whitestone securities within the
Class Period and, as a result, was damaged thereby.

Whitestone owns and operates 57 commercial properties totaling 4.8
million square feet of gross leasable area in Texas, Arizona and
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: ek@zlk.com


WORLD FINANCIAL: Adam Hage Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Hage Insurance Agency, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. World Financial Group,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Transamerica Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH04962 (Circuit
Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 17, 2019) seeks to stop Defendants'
practice of making unauthorized and unsolicited text message calls,
and to obtain redress for all persons and entities injured by their
conduct.

The Defendants operate a scheme to aggressively market and sell
life insurance products. The Defendants make this process simple by
selling the insurance agents leads collected from publicly
available databases and then sending those leads unauthorized and
unsolicited text messages that contain contact information for each
prospective agent. The messages are sent by and through WFG, the
marketing wing of Transamerica, and the agents simply wait for
inbound responses.

The Defendants have sent these unauthorized and unsolicited text
messages to thousands of cellular telephones-without prior consent,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Adam Hage Insurance Agency, Inc. is a corporation with
its principal place of business located in the State of Illinois.

Defendant WFG is a multi-level marketing company that primarily
markets and sells financial products and services. Defendant WFG is
owned and operated by Defendant Transamerica, a major insurance and
investment firm that offers life and supplemental health insurance,
investments, and retirements services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: brichman@edeIson.com
            cdore@edelson.com


YOUNG LIVING: Sued by O'Shaughnessy Over Illegal Pyramid Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG
LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, THE YOUNG LIVING FOUNDATION, INC., MARY
YOUNG, JARED TURNER, BENJAMIN RILEY, and CO-CONSPIRATORS, Case No.
1:19-cv-00412-LY (W.D. Tex., April 12, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act by operating an illegal pyramid scheme created
under the guise of selling essential oils for quasi-medicinal
purposes.

Young Living Essential Oils, LC, is a Utah limited liability
company with its principal offices and headquarters located in
Lehi, Utah.  The Young Living Foundation is a Utah non-profit
corporation, and an affiliated entity created by founder Gary
Young.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
Young Living.

Young Living purports to sell "essential oils" via a complicated
multi-level marketing ("MLM") operation.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the complex and intentionally hard-to-understand multi-layer
compensation/participation structure of Young Living is a hallmark
of illegal MLM pyramid schemes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          3600 N Capital of Texas Highway, Suite B350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Linkin, Esq.
          DUGGINS WREN MANN & ROMERO, LLP
          600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900
          P. O. Box 1149
          Austin, TX 78767-1149
          Telephone: (512) 744-9300
          E-mail: rlinkin@dwmrlaw.com

               - and -

          J. David Rowe, Esq.
          DuBOIS, BRYANT & CAMPBELL, LLP
          303 Colorado Street, Suite 2300
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-8000
          E-mail: drowe@dbcllp.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 ***