CAR_Public/190503.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 3, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 89

                            Headlines

AETNA INC: HIV Privacy Class Action Transferred to California
AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Funds Distributed in NY Class Suit
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Data Breach Suit Still Pending
ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Individual Merchants' Antitrust Suits Dismissed

ANTHEM INC: Still Defends Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit Pending
AT&T INC: May 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ATBCOIN LLC: Must Face Securities Class Action Over ICO
BANK OF AMERICA: Padua Appeals Ruling in Degamo Suit to 9th Cir.

BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams TCPA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Cook Hits Unremitted Insurance Premiums
BOSE CORP: Judge Rejects Wiretapping Law Violation Claims
BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT: Court Issues Reply to Writ of Mandamus Bid
CALLFIRE INC: Faces Wigod Suit over Unsolicited Text Messages

CARIBBEAN SUPERCENTER: Cespedes Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit Still Pending
CENTENE CORP: Class Certification Discovery Ongoing
CJS SOLUTIONS: Gray FLSA Suit Transferred to Minnesota Dist. Ct.
CONDUENT INC: Employees' Fund Hits Share Drop Over Vendor Lapse

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Brunett Seeks to Certify Class
CREDIT CONTROL: Jones Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
DAVITA INC: Judge Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed
DBI SERVICES: Dozier Seeks to Certify Collective Action
DIRECTV INC: Appeal from Arbitration Rulings in Imburgia Dismissed

DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Brown Suit Class Cert. Ruling to 9th Cir.
ENVIROPLUS INC: Court Okays Notice to Class
EQUIFAX INC: Investor Seeks Data Breach Class Action Status
ESKOM: De Beer Attorneys Prepare to File Class Action
EXXONMOBIL CORP.: Court Denies Certification of 4 Subclasses

FASHION NOVA: Garcia Brings Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
FEDEX GROUND: Corley Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Converters
FLINT, MI: Rick Snyder Reinstated as Water Class Action Defendant
FLOWERS BAKING: Button Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses

G6 HOSPITALITY: Court Grants Bid to Remand Cummings Labor Suit
G6 HOSPITALITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Cummings Suit
GANNETT CO: Hall Sues to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
GENERAL CREDIT: Preliminary Writ of Prohibition Made Permanent
GOOGLE INC: Cy Pres Class Settlement Favors Class Action Lawyers

GOOGLE INC: Dechert Attorneys Discuss Cy Pres Settlement Ruling
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Class Suit Underway
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Gordon Class Action Stayed
H&M SNOW PROS: Williams Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
INGRAM DISTRIBUTION: Perryman Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

JAND INC: Denied Full Amount of Regular and OT Wages, Clark Says
JET MOUNTAIN: Huanca Action to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Panther Partners' Class Action Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Over Benacol Spread Labels Okayed
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Choi Files Action Over Defective Tampon Products

KIND LLC: Proskauer Rose Discusses Lift Stay in "All Natural" Suit
LEGACY LAND: Cozort Sues Over Unremitted Insurance Premiums
LEGACY MEASUREMENT: Florence Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
LSB INDUSTRIES: June 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LYFT: Faces Class Action in California Over ADA Violation

MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
MDL 2492: Ashley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Atkins Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Carney Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Garay Suit Consolidated with Concussion Suit

MDL 2492: Jefferson Suit Consolidated with Concussion Suit
MDL 2492: Kloes Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Phipps Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Rodgers Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Schultz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Solomom-Jett Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2672: 15 Cases in Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court
MDL 2672: Bid to Remand 10 Cases to State Court Granted
MDL 2741: Bruinsma Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
MDL 2886: Smith Suit Consolidated in Allura Fiber Litigation

MERCK & CO: Kaye Appeals Conn. Dist. Ct. Decision to 2nd Circuit
MERCK & CO: Sued by Taff Over Injuries From ZOSTAVAX Vaccine
MIDLAND CREDIT: Demarco FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
MILLER & STARK: Holmes Seeks to Certify Class
MILLERCOORS LLC: Cardiel Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

MONSANTO COMPANY: Webb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Wheelers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MPA GRANADA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Schonton Suit
MUELLER WATER: Faces Chapman Suit Over Undisclosed Warranty Costs
MYLAN: Must Face Class Action Over EpiPen, Judge Rules

NCAA: Banks Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NEA-ALASKA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Crockett Class Suit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Final Settlement Hearing in Knurr Suit on June 7
NUTANIX INC: May 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NXIVM: Class Action Plaintiffs' Lawyer Provides Update

OHIO MULCH: Wolfe, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
ONONDAGA COUNTY: Class Action Certification Sought
OXNARD SCHOOL: M.B. Seeks to Certify Class of Students
PENGUIN NATURAL: Gallardo Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
PROGRESSIVE MAINTENANCE: Superintendents Seek Overtime Pay

RAY AND FRANK: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Battistini Action Alleges TCPA Violation
RED HAT: Class Suits Related to IBM Merger Dismissed
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
SANTEE COOPER: Failed to Disclose Project Status, Turka Says

SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Initial Public Offering
SOUTH CAROLINA: Child Welfare System Struggles to Meet Goals
SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Court Denies Bids to Exclude Expert Testimonies
STEINHOFF INTERNATIONAL: VEB Temporarily Suspends Class Action
STORED VALUE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Humphrey EFTA Suit

SUNOCO: 3 Chester County Residents Settle Class Action
T ROWE PRICE: 401(k) Plan Related Suit Still Ongoing
TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES: Faces Vannucci et al. Labor Suit
TRIGREEN EQUIPMENT: Doherty Files Class Action Under FACTA
TULSA INSPECTION: Flynn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Damages

UNION LOCAL 237: Wynn Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
VIP KITCHEN: Zhang Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay
WESTPAC: Court Rebukes Hasty Commencement of Class Action
XPO LOGISTICS: Robbins Geller to Lead in Labul Suit
ZAPPOS: Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Data Breach Case Nixed

ZESTFINANCE INC: Sued Over Excessive Pay Day Loan Interest Rate

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Williams Industrial Unit Defends PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fox Rothschild Discusses DeVries Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genesis Has $9MM Asset Retirement Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 29 PI Suits at Jan. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Says Suits Don't Have Material Impact
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma Lost 7 Relatives to Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.5-Bil. Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $897MM NARCO Liabilities at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Tosses Claims Citing Del. Contractor Law
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Mum-of-Four Dies of Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Faces PL Suits at Dec. 31, 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $188.3MM Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 62,522 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Asbestos Claim Reform Bill Moving Forward
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 86 Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 460 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has At Most 500 Cases in US, 50 in Europe

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.2-Bil. Net Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Trustee Objects to FCR Appointment


                            *********

AETNA INC: HIV Privacy Class Action Transferred to California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the
lawsuit Aetna brought against a law firm and a pro-consumer
interest group over a privacy gaffe that resulted in a $17 million
payout by the insurance giant has been transferred from
Philadelphia to Los Angeles federal court.

Last year Aetna sued plaintiffs firm Whatley Kallas and the
nonprofit Consumer Watchdog in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania over their alleged role in a
blunder that resulted in thousands of HIV patients having their
names and conditions visible through clear windows in envelopes
that had been sent through the mail.

However, on March 29, U.S. District Judge Juan Sanchez determined
that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did not have jurisdiction
over the claims, and ordered that the case, Aetna v. Whatley
Kallas, be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District Of California.

As part of its effort to establish specific jurisdiction in the
Keystone State, the insurance giant had noted that the defendants
previously filed a nationwide class action suit and sought the
participation of Pennsylvania citizens in that action. But Sanchez
said adopting that argument would go against the due process
clause.

“Aetna’s theory of jurisdiction would effectively establish per
se specific jurisdiction over putative class counsel in all 50
states once a putative class action is filed," Sanchez said in the
16-page ruling. “Such a holding runs contrary to the notion of
personal jurisdiction as a limit pursuant to the due process
clause, and would wholly subvert the purposeful availment prong of
the specific jurisdiction analysis."

Moving the federal litigation to Los Angeles now brings the case
geographically closer to similar claims that Aetna brought in
California state court last year. That litigation is currently
pending in the California Court of Appeal after it was dismissed in
August.

The federal dispute stems from an underlying lawsuit in which the
insurance giant was sued in federal court in Philadelphia after it
mailed notifications to patients about how to fill their HIV drug
prescriptions. The notifications, however, clearly identified the
HIV patients in the envelope windows. After that matter settled,
Aetna was hit with another suit for exposing patients’
confidential information a second time when settlement
notifications were again sent out to potential class members in
envelopes with transparent windows.

After Aetna agreed in January 2018 to settle those claims for more
than $17 million, the carrier sued Whatley Kallas and Consumer
Watchdog, which had represented the class members, alleging they
were responsible for sending out the mailings that led to the
second breach.

Aetna’s complaint consists of four counts: implied indemnity,
equitable indemnity/comparative negligence, the right of
contribution, and declaratory relief.

The parties conceded that Pennsylvania did not have general
jurisdiction, since Aetna is based in Connecticut, Whatley Kallas
is based in Colorado and Consumer Watchdog is based in California,
so Sanchez looked to the conduct that led to Aetna’s current
lawsuit to determine whether specific jurisdiction applied.
According to Sanchez, all of those activities, including reviewing,
revising and discussing the notices, all occurred in California.

“None of these activities brought Whatley or Watchdog into
direct, purposeful contact with Pennsylvania," Sanchez said. “On
the contrary, Whatley and Watchdog’s conduct was directed towards
overseeing the settlement administration process occurring in
California."

Margolis Edelstein attorney James Kahn, who is representing
Watchdog, said the organization was pleased with the ruling.

“[We] believe it was the correct one," he said. “California is
where these events occurred, as Judge Sanchez recognized."

Neither Thompson Coburn attorney David Duffy --
dduffy@thompsoncoburn.com -- who represented Whatley, nor Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips attorney Brandon Reilly -- breilly@manatt.com --
who represented Aetna, returned a call for comment on April 1.
[GN]


AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Funds Distributed in NY Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akari Therapeutics, Plc said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has granted
plaintiffs' motion distribute settlement funds to the class in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: Akari Therapeutics,
PLC Securities Litigation (Case 1:17-cv-03577)

On May 12, 2017, a putative securities class action captioned Derek
Da Ponte v. Akari Therapeutics, PLC, Gur Roshwalb, and Dov Elefant
(Case 1:17-cv-03577) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company, a former Chief
Executive Officer and the company's Chief Financial Officer.

The plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange
Act, based primarily on the company's press releases or statements
issued between April 24, 2017 and May 11, 2017 concerning the Phase
II PNH trial of Nomacopan (Coversin) and the Edison Report about
the company and actions taken by it after the report was issued.

The purported class covers the period from March 30, 2017 to May
11, 2017. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and costs and
fees.

On May 19, 2017, an almost identical class action complaint
captioned Shamoon v. Akari Therapeutics, PLC, Gur Roshwalb, and Dov
Elefant (Case 1:17-cv-03783) was filed in the same court. On July
11-12, 2017, candidates to be lead plaintiff filed motions to
consolidate the cases and appoint a lead plaintiff.

On August 10, 2017, the court issued a stipulated order: (i)
consolidating the class actions under the caption In re: Akari
Therapeutics, PLC Securities Litigation (Case 1:17-cv-03577); and
(ii) setting out schedule for plaintiffs to file a consolidated
amended complaint and defendants to respond thereto.

By order dated September 7, 2017, the court appointed lead
plaintiffs for the class and lead plaintiffs' counsel. On November
6, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or
the CAC. While the CAC contains similar substantive allegations to
the initial complaints, it adds two additional defendants, Ray
Prudo and Edison Investment Research Ltd., and the purported class
period was changed to April 24, 2017 through May 30, 2017.

On January 10, 2018, at a hearing regarding the defendants'
impending motions to dismiss the CAC, the Court gave plaintiffs
permission to file a second consolidated amended complaint, or the
SCAC and established a briefing schedule for defendants' motions to
dismiss the SCAC.

Pursuant to that schedule, plaintiffs' SCAC was filed on January
31, 2018. All briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on
April 20, 2018. On June 8, 2018, the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims for a
total payment of $2.7 million in cash and on July 26, 2018,
plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court voluntarily dismissing
Edison from the action. On August 3, 2018, the remaining parties
executed and filed a stipulation and agreement of settlement (the
terms of which were consistent with the memorandum of
understanding).

On August 7, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and on November 28, 2018,
following a hearing with the parties, the court ordered final
approval of the settlement.

Plaintiffs subsequently moved to distribute the settlement funds to
the class, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion on February 4,
2019.

Akari Therapeutics said, "We recorded the $2.7 million SCAC
litigation settlement loss in the consolidated statement of
comprehensive loss in the year ended December 31, 2018, which is
the period in which the lawsuits were originally filed. The $2.7
million SCAC settlement liability was recorded as a loss
contingency in accrued expenses in our consolidated balance sheets
as of December 31, 2018. On August 24, 2018, we received a $2.7
million payment from our directors' and officers' liability
insurance provider, the sum of which was paid to an escrow account
for the benefit of the settlement class on August 27, 2018. This
was recorded as a gain in the consolidated statements of
comprehensive loss during the third quarter of 2018."

Akari Therapeutics, Plc, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on the development and commercialization of
treatments for a range of rare and orphan autoimmune and
inflammatory diseases. The company is based in New York, New York.
Akari Therapeutics, Plc is a subsidiary of RPC Pharma Limited.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Data Breach Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended February 23, 2019, that the appeal from the
court's dismissal of one of the lawsuits over data security breach
remains pending.

In 2014, the Company was the subject of criminal intrusions by the
installation of malware on a portion of its computer network that
processes payment card transactions for approximately 800 of its
stores through its then service provider SuperValu. The Company
believes these were attempts to collect payment card data.

The forensic investigation into the intrusions indicated that
although the Company was then compliant with the Payment Card
Industry (PCI) Data Security Standards issued by the PCI Council,
it was not compliant with all of these standards at the time of the
intrusions.

As a result, the Company was assessed by certain card companies for
incremental counterfeit fraud losses, non-ordinary course expenses
(such as card reissuance costs) and case management costs. The
Company has paid or recorded an estimated liability for all of such
assessments, and is seeking recovery from MasterCard of its
assessment.

As a result of the intrusion, two class action complaints were
filed against the Company by consumers. These complaints have been
dismissed, although the appeal of the dismissal of one case remains
pending.

In 2015, the Company also received a letter from the Office of the
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania stating that
the Illinois and Pennsylvania Attorneys General Offices were
leading a multi-state group requesting specified information
concerning the two data breach incidents.

The Company has cooperated with the investigation. The multi-state
group did not make a monetary demand, and the Company is unable to
estimate the possibility or range of loss, if any.

Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons
Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings
LLC.


ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RAFAEL CAJIGAS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ALLIANCE COLLECTION AGENCIES INC., the Defendant, Case No. e
2:19-cv-00485 (E.D. Wisc., Filed April 3, 2019), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff
as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Individual Merchants' Antitrust Suits Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the individual merchant
cases in In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust
Litigation (II), have been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a
joint stipulation between the parties.

Individual merchant cases and a putative merchant class action,
which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) in
the Eastern District of New York, alleged that provisions in our
merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from differentially
surcharging our cards or steering a customer to use another
network's card or another type of general-purpose card
("anti-steering" and "non-discrimination" contractual provisions)
violate U.S. antitrust laws.

Following the Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express
Co. in favor of American Express, plaintiffs in both the individual
merchant cases and the putative merchant class action filed amended
complaints.

On April 12, 2019, the individual merchant cases were dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation between the parties.


The company's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the class
action is pending.

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


ANTHEM INC: Still Defends Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Express
Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation.

The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express
Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express
Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or
beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from
December 1, 2009 to the present in which we provided prescription
drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a percentage
based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription
drug benefit.

The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either
under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to
adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM
Agreement and (ii) by placing the company's own pecuniary interest
above the best interests of its insureds by allegedly agreeing to
higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the
purchase price for its NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect
to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI
PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of
such non-ERISA members.

Plaintiffs seek to hold the company and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed
class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.

In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in
January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in
October 2018.

Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

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

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and
changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was
founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has yet
to issue an order on the motion to dismiss the complaint in the
case entitled, In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder
Litigation.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively
defined herein as the "Transactions."

All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board
of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional
defendants.

The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to
take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders;
ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed
to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps
to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage
by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or
alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to
other third-party bidders.

The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.


On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.

On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the
Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling.
To date, the Court has not issued an order on the Motion to
Dismiss.

ARMOUR Residential said, "Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the
Individual Defendants intends to defend the claims made in these
lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that any of
ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual Defendants will prevail in
its defense of any of these lawsuits to which it is a party. An
unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the
Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the
plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of JAVELIN
and the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved
favorably, could be substantial. Due to the preliminary nature all
of these suits, ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate their
outcome.

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

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by
ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The company was founded in 2008 and
is based in Vero Beach, Florida.


AT&T INC: May 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against AT&T, Inc. ("AT&T" or the "Company") (NYSE: T)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United
States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and
indexed under 19-cv-02892, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons other than Defendants (a) acquired AT&T common stock
pursuant or traceable to the SEC Form S-4 registration statement
and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with AT&T's June 2018 acquisition of and merger with
Time Warner (the "Acquisition");  and/or (b) purchased or otherwise
acquired AT&T securities between October 22, 2016 and October 24,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff asserts
claims against AT&T and certain of AT&T's officers and directors
(collectively, "Defendants") under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased AT&T securities during the
class period, you have until May 31, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

AT&T is a telecommunications and media company, incorporated under
the laws of Delaware, with principal executive offices located at
208 S. Akard St., Dallas, Texas, 75202.  
             
In June 2018, in connection with the Acquisition, AT&T issued
approximately 1.185 billion new shares of AT&T common stock
directly to former shareholders of Time Warner common stock as
follows: each former share of Time Warner common stock issued and
outstanding immediately before the Acquisition was converted into
the right to receive 1.437 shares of newly issued AT&T common
stock. In addition to newly issued AT&T common stock, former
shareholders of Time Warner common stock also received $53.75 per
share in cash. Each of these new shares of AT&T common stock was
issued pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AT&T's Registration Statement
touted false and misleading financial results, trends, and metrics
and omitted material facts rendering those financial results,
trends, and metrics materially misleading. Principally, the
Registration Statement touted yearly and quarterly growth trends in
AT&T's Entertainment Group segment, particularly Video
Entertainment, including quarterly subscriber gains in its DirecTV
Now service sufficient to offset any decrease in traditional
satellite DirecTV subscribers, such that AT&T was experiencing an
ongoing trend of total video subscriber "Net Additions."; (ii) The
Registration Statement also purported to warn of numerous risks
that "if" occurring "may" or "could" adversely affect the Company
while failing to disclose that these "risks" had already
materialized at the time of the Acquisition; (III) AT&T had
substantially increased prices, while at the same time
discontinuing promotional discounts for its DirecTV Now service. As
a result, DirecTV Now subscribers were leaving (i.e., not renewing)
as soon as their promotional discount periods expired, while at the
same time new potential DirecTV Now customers were unwilling to pay
the higher prices and therefore not subscribing at all. Thus, by
the time of the Acquisition, AT&T's reported "Net Additions" growth
trend was already reversing into a severe "Net Loss"; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
Bristow's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 24, 2018, Defendants announced AT&T's 3Q2018 results
(the first full quarter post-Acquisition) and revealed, inter alia,
a dramatic reversal of its reported total subscriber "Net
Additions" trends. Traditional DirecTV satellite subscriber losses
jumped over 25% from 286,000 to 359,000 quarterly. Meanwhile,
DirecTV Now subscribers plummeted over 85% from 342,000 down to
49,000 quarterly. These dramatically diminished DirecTV Now
subscriber gains were nowhere close to offsetting the dramatically
increased traditional satellite subscriber losses. As a result,
Defendant AT&T's 80,000 total video subscriber "Net Video
Additions" had reversed into a 297,000 total subscriber "Net
Loss."

On these revelations, AT&T's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or
nearly 12%, from a close of $33.02 per share on October 23, 2018,
to a close of $29.09 per share on October 26, 2018, on unusually
high trading volume.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. [GN]


ATBCOIN LLC: Must Face Securities Class Action Over ICO
-------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that cryptocurrency startup ATBCoin LLC and two of
its executives must face a proposed shareholder class action
accusing them of selling unregistered securities in an initial coin
offering.

The case is RAYMOND BALESTRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATBCOIN LLC, EDWARD NG,
and HERBERT W. HOOVER, Defendants, No. 17-CV-10001
(VSB)(S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4ctd75b from Leagle.com.

Raymond Balestra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Donald J.
Enright, Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Christopher James Kupka, Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP.

ATBCOIN LLC, Edward Ng & Herbert W. Hoover, Defendants, represented
by Brian D. Caplan, Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt, L.L.C., Brett Van
Benthysen, Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC & Edward Peter Grosz,
Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt, L.L.C. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Padua Appeals Ruling in Degamo Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs and Movants Grace Akana, Edward Nagata, Pearl Nagata,
Helen K. Padua, Mac Padua, Susan M. Propios, Bruce Yoakum and Irene
Yoakum filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled Milagros Degamo, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00141-JAO-KJM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii, Honolulu.

The lawsuit arises from foreclosure-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Milagros Degamo, et al. v. Bank
of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 19-15736, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 13, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 10, 2019;

   -- Appellants Grace Akana, Edward Nagata, Pearl Nagata, Helen
      K. Padua, Mac Padua, Susan M. Propios, Bruce Yoakum and
      Irene Yoakum's opening brief is due on July 22, 2019;

   -- Appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s answering brief is due on
      August 19, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants HELEN K. PADUA, MAC PADUA and SUSAN M.
PROPIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; and Movants-Appellants GRACE AKANA, EDWARD NAGATA, PEARL
NAGATA, BRUCE YOAKUM and IRENE YOAKUM are represented by:

          James J. Bickerton, Esq.
          BICKERTON DANG LLLP
          745 Fort Street, Suite 801
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 599-3811
          E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com

               - and -

          John Francis Perkin, Esq.
          PERKIN & FARIA LLLC
          841 Bishop Street
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 523-2300
          E-mail: perkin@perkinlaw.com

               - and -

          Van-Alan H. Shima, Esq.
          AFFINITY LAW GROUP LLLC
          1188 Bishop St.
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 545-4600
          E-mail: vshima@affinitylaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking
association, is represented by:

          Terence James O'Toole, Esq.
          Sharon Valentine Lovejoy, Esq.
          Stephanie E.W. Thompson, Esq.
          STARN O'TOOLE MARCUS & FISHER
          733 Bishop Street
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 537-6100
          E-mail: totoole@starnlaw.com
                  slovejoy@starnlaw.com
                  sthompson@starnlaw.com

               - and -

          David S. Reidy, Esq.
          Mark A. Lackner, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-1969
          E-mail: dreidy@mcguirewoods.com
                  mlackner@mcguirewoods.com


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams TCPA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WADDELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-1971-T-27AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge James D.
Whittemore of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

In the class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant
used an automatic dialing system ("ATDS") to place calls intended
for its customers to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers
of individuals who had not consented to being called, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").
Specifically, he alleges the Defendant called his cellular
telephone using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice in an
attempt to reach a third party in violation of the TCPA, and filed
the suit on behalf of himself and those who received similar
unintended calls from the Defendant.

On Sept. 28, 2018, the parties filed a Notice of Class Action
Settlement, subject to Court approval following notice to the class
members and hearing, and requested 30 days to memorialize the terms
of their settlement agreement, establish a class action notice and
administration plan and the filing of an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e),
Fed.R.Civ.P.  The case was stayed pending the filing of the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.  

In summary, the proposed settlement includes the creation of a
non-reversionary common fund of $1 million and a separate payment
of up to $269,500 to satisfy the cost of class notice and
administration, for a total of $1,269,500.  From the common fund,
an incentive payment of $5,000 will be sought by the Plaintiff, up
to $18,500 in costs incurred by counsel will be sought, and
attorneys' fees not to exceed 30% will be sought.  Approval of the
incentive award, attorneys' fees and costs is not a condition of
the settlement.

Having found, for purposes of preliminary approval, Judge
Whittemore finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable
and adequate and that the settlement class warrants conditional
certification.  Accordingly, he ordered that a third-party class
administrator acceptable to the parties will administer the
settlement and notification to class members.  All costs of the
notice and the administration will be paid by the Defendant.  Upon
the recommendation of the parties, the Judge appointed the
following class administrator: Angeion Group, 1650 Arch Street,
Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

The form and substance of the postcard notice, claim form, and
Question & Answer Notice are approved.  In accordance with the
Settlement Agreement, the class administrator will cause the
postcard notice to be mailed to the class members as expeditiously
as possible, but in no event later than 45 days after entry of the
Order, that is, no later than May 17, 2019.  The class
administrator will confirm, and if necessary, update the addresses
for the class members through a standard methodology that the class
administrator uses to update addresses.  The Question & Answer
Notice, and relevant pleadings, will be made available to class
members through a dedicated website.

The class member who desire to be excluded from the class must send
a written request for exclusion to the class administrator with a
postmark date no later than 60 days after the Notice Deadline (105
days after entry of the Order), that is, no later than July 16,
2019.  Any class member who intends to object to the fairness of
the settlement must file a written objection with the Court within
60 days after the Notice Deadline (105 days after the Court's entry
of the Order), i.e., no later than July 16, 2019. Any such class
member must, within the same time period, provide a copy of their
written objection to Class Counsel, Attention: Michael L.
Greenwald, Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, 5550 Glades Road, Suite
500, Boca Raton, FL 33431, and to Counsel for Defendant, Attention:
Erin Hoffman, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, 90
South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402.

The Claim Form attached as an exhibit to the Settlement Agreement
and the claims process described in the Settlement Agreement are
approved.  The class administrator will mail a settlement check to
each class member who submits a timely, valid claim form and does
not exclude himself or herself from the class.  The settlement
checks will be sent via U.S. mail no later than 45 days after
judgment becomes final.

The Plaintiff may petition to receive an amount not to exceed
$5,000 as acknowledgment of his role in prosecuting the case on
behalf of the class members.

The Final Fairness Hearing is set for Aug. 27, 2019 at 1:00 p.m.
Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be
approved, all proceedings except those related to effectuating the
Settlement are stayed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BWM5In from Leagle.com.

Waddell Williams, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse S. Johnson --
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil, PLLC &
Michael L. Greenwald -- mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald
Davidson Radbil, PLLC.

Bluestem Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ailen Cruz --
ACruz@wiandlaw.com -- Wiand Guerra King, PL, Erin L. Hoffman --
erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, pro hac
vice & Nathan A. Brennaman -- nate.brennaman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre
Baker Daniels, LLP, pro hac vice.


BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES: Cook Hits Unremitted Insurance Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher T. Cook, in his own right and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bluestone Industries, Inc.,
Jillean Justice, James C. Justice III and Jame T. Miller,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00163, (S.D. W.V., March 8, 2019), seeks
a refund of all deductions that were intended to pay for medical
insurance; statutory, compensatory and liquidated damages;
interest; attorneys' fees; costs; and all other legal and equitable
remedies under the Fair Labor Standards and Act and the West
Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Cook claims that he was deducted a medical insurance premium from
his pay but this was not remitted to the insurance provider. His
insurance was eventually cancelled due to non-payment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Anthony M. Salvatore, Esq.
      Greg A. Hewitt, Esq.
      HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC
      204 North Court Street
      Fayetteville, WV 25840
      Phone: (304) 574-0272
      Fax: (304) 574-0273


BOSE CORP: Judge Rejects Wiretapping Law Violation Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that an Illinois federal judge has rejected claims
that Bose broke federal wiretapping law by secretly collecting and
sharing the listening histories of its Bluetooth headphone users.

The case is KYLE ZAK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOSE CORP., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, No. 17-cv-02928 (N.D. Ill.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yxcfqgrh from Leagle.com.

Kyle Zak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson
PC, Eve Lynn J. Rapp, Edelson P.C., J. Eli Wade Scott, Edelson PC,
Jay Edelson, Edelson PC & Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Edelson P.C.

Bose Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Marc J. Zwillinger, ZwillGen PLLC, Robert F. Huff, Jr., ZwillGen
PLLC, Jeffrey G. Landis, ZwillGen PLLC, pro hac vice & Nicholas A.
Jackson, ZwillGen PLLC, pro hac vice. [GN]


BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT: Court Issues Reply to Writ of Mandamus Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the District of
California has issued a response to Bridgestone's petition for a
writ of mandamus, challenging the Court's decision to appoint Glen
Littleton as the Lead Plaintiff in the case, IN RE BRIDGESTONE
INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, KALMAN
ISAACS; et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. 19-70031, D.C.
No. 18-cv-04865-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

In response to Bridgestone's petition for a writ of mandamus, the
Ninth Circuit issued an order providing that the Court may address
the petition if it so desires.  According to Bridgestone, the Court
chose Mr. Littleton over Bridgestone as the Lead Plaintiff because
he had greater diversity in investment in Tesla securities (e.g.,
both long and short positions), and ignored the fact that
Bridgestone had a greater financial interest (a loss of
approximately $3.87 million compared to Mr. Littleton's loss of
approximately $3.52 million) in contravention of the PSLRA.

Judge Chen holds that it is not an accurate characterization of the
Court's rulings.  The Court did not ignore the financial interests
of the competing parties.  Because Bridgestone's total loss was
uncertain and could not be readily ascertained, it did not
determine that Bridgestone had the largest financial interest.  No
doubt $1.64 million of Bridgestone's $3.87 million in claimed loss
would be vigorously contested by the Defendants

The Judge further holds that the Court also considered whether
Bridgestone, who held only long positions, could under the
circumstances adequately represent all members of the class which
included not only those who took long positions but also those who
took short positions.  It acknowledges that those who hold long
positions and those who hold short positions are not in conflict in
all respects.  Also, the injury sustained by both comes from buying
securities at an artificially inflated price, though typically at
different points in the respective transactions.  In addition,
short positions may be subject to unique defenses.  The question of
adequacy and typicality arose not only from differences in the
breadth of investments held respectively by Bridgestone and Mr.
Littleton, but also from the particular facts of the case,
including the unique defense affecting over 40% of Bridgestone's
damages claim.

In sum, Judge Chen concluded that the Court complied with, and did
not ignore, the directives of the PSLRA.

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

Kalman Isaacs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley Conrad Keller, Keller
Lenkner LLC, Eric Marc George -- egeorge@bgrfirm.com -- Browne
George Ross LLP, Carl Alan Roth -- croth@bgrfirm.com -- Browne
George Ross LLP & Uri Seth Ottensoser -- so@kellerlenkner.com --
Keller Lenkner LLC, pro hac vice.

FNY Investment Advisers, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew John
Entwistle, Entwistle and Cappucci LLP, pro hac vice, Arthur Vincent
Nealon, Entwistle and Cappucci LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Walter Stocker, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Reed R. Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Robert Nicholas Cappucci, Entwistle and Cappucci LLP, pro hac
vice.

Elon Musk & Tesla, Inc., Defendants, represented by Dean S. Kristy,
Fenwick & West LLP, Alison Clare Jordan -- ajordan@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan -- jbretan@fenwick.com
-- Fenwick & West LLP, Kevin Peter Muck -- kmuck@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP & Mara Rachelle Ludmer -- mludmer@fenwick.com --
Fenwick and West LLP.

Brad W. Buss, Ira Ehrenpreis, Antonio J. Gracias, James Murdoch,
Kimbal Musk & Linda Johnson Rice, Defendants, represented by Dean
S. Kristy, Fenwick & West LLP, Alison Clare Jordan, Fenwick & West
LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West LLP & Kevin Peter
Muck, Fenwick & West LLP.

Robyn Denholm, Defendant, represented by Alison Clare Jordan,
Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West LLP &
Kevin Peter Muck, Fenwick & West LLP.

Bridgestone Investment Corporation Limited, Movant, represented by
Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick Foti LLP.

Donald Freeland, Alvin Abrams, Christopher Lyman & Rajinder Gaur,
Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP.


CALLFIRE INC: Faces Wigod Suit over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against CallFire, Inc. for
alleged violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case
is captioned LEE WIGOD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALLFIRE, INC. a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02874 (C.D. Cal., April
15, 2019). Plaintiff Lee Wigod accuses CallFire, Inc. of sending
unsolicited text messages to cellular telephone users: even after
the users request for such messages to "Stop" and whose cellphone
numbers are registered on the National Do Not Call registry.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress, including injunctive relief,
for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct.

Defendant CallFire, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of
business located at 1410 2nd Street, Suite 200, Santa Monica,
California 90401. CallFire is a cloud telephony services provider
that provides mobile marketing services and text messaging
platforms to its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq.
     THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM
     1880 Century Park East, Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 550-5221
     Facsimile: (310) 496-2840
     E-mail: aaron@aftergoodesq.com

            - and –

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Telephone: (720) 213-0675
     Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
     E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


CARIBBEAN SUPERCENTER: Cespedes Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CESPEDES, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. CARIBBEAN SUPERCENTER, INC. a Florida Profit
Corporation, Case No. 6:19-cv-00690 (M.D. Fla., April 11, 2019),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages and damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Supercenter is a Florida Profit Corporation that conducts business
in Orange County, Florida.  Supercenter is a company classified as,
among other things, a grocery store.

Supercenter operates a supermarket located at 5111 W. Colonial
Drive, in Orlando, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com


CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in Sanchez v.
Centene Corp., et al., has yet to rule on the company's motion to
dismiss.

On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action,
Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting
and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the
acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July
2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September
2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending
itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject
to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this
litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an
adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially
adverse impact on our financial position and results of
operations.

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

Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to
under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States.
Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.


CENTENE CORP: Class Certification Discovery Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that class certification
discovery is occurring in the class action lawsuit related to
Ambetter policies.

On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and
state requirements for provider networks and directories with
regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to
pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances
adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs.

In March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each
defendant. In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First
Amended Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff,
dropped Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants,
abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington
State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant.

In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second
Amended Complaint. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2018, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to
dismiss.

Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a Third Amended Complaint, on
November 28, 2018, against Centene Management Company and
Coordinated Care Corporation ("Defendants"), both subsidiaries of
the Company. Defendants filed an answer on December 12, 2018. Class
certification discovery is occurring.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

Centene said, "Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many
uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this
litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an
adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially
adverse impact on our financial position and results of
operations."

Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to
under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States.
Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.


CJS SOLUTIONS: Gray FLSA Suit Transferred to Minnesota Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled SHANA GRAY, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE
HCI GROUP, Case No. 1:18-cv-07336, was transferred on April 11,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:19-cv-01008-PJS-TNL to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated
At-The-Elbow Support Consultants ("ATEs") were improperly
classified as independent contractors and were not paid proper
overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

HCI is a Florida limited liability company that recruits, hires,
and manages workers to assist and train healthcare staff with the
implementation and administration of healthcare-related software at
HCI's client organizations throughout New York and nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


CONDUENT INC: Employees' Fund Hits Share Drop Over Vendor Lapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Employees' Retirement System Of The Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Conduent Inc., Ashok Vemuri and Brian
Webb-Walsh, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-08237, (D. N.J., March 7,
2019), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses in this
litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees,
and other costs and disbursements and such other relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff purchased Conduent common shares on the open market
between February 21, 2018 and November 6, 2018.

Conduent's reduced third quarter results and projected fourth
quarter operating results caused by poor performance from an
inherited legacy technology vendor that failed to deliver on
service level agreements caused Conduent common stock to tumble
$5.60 per share to $13.62, or down 29.1% on very heavy volume.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
      Audra DePaolo, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      Park 80 West–Plaza One
      250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Tel: (201) 845-9600
      Fax: (201) 845-9423
      Email: jwh@njlawfirm.com
             ad@njlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
      Andrew E. Lencyk, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 759-4600
      Fax: (212) 486-2093
      Email: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
             alencyk@wolfpopper.com
             fqian@wolfpopper.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Brunett Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DARLENE BRUNETT, the Plaintiff, vs.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00168-LA (E.D. Wisc., Filed Jan. 30, 2018), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   a. certifying a proposed class consisting of:

      "residents Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois where the
      collection letters sent to these residents listed (a) an
      amount owed that was less than $600 or (b) listed a proposed

      discharge of indebtedness that was for less than $600. Under

      either scenario, as a matter of law, no IRS Form 1099-C could

      be issued. Despite knowing this fact, Defendant included the

      1099-C Disclosure language on letters sent to individuals
      owing less $600 or where a proposed discharge of indebtedness

      was for less than $600."

   b. appointing herself as Class Representative; and

   c. appointing James C. Vlahakis as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by Sections 1692(a)(3) of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff filed suit
based upon a collection issue sent to her by Defendant on February
17, 2018. This two Count proposed class action concerns the
legality
of all standard form collection letters used by Convergent.

The collection letter (and hundreds like it) contained the
following phrase:

   "Notice: The Internal Revenue Service may require financial
   institutions to file Form 1099-C (Cancellation of Debt) to
   report the discharge of indebtedness of $600 or more."

The Plaintiff contends that the 1099-C Disclosure language
constitutes a false, deceptive, and misleading representation in
violation of Section 1692e because under no set of circumstances
would the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") require Convergent or
the creditor at issue (Comenity Bank) to file a IRS Form 1099-C.
The 1099-C Disclosure language constitutes a false, deceptive, and
misleading representation because the proposed scenario -- the
issuance of a Form 1099-C cannot occur under in light of the amount
owed and the proposed discharge of indebtedness.[CC]

Attorney for Darlene Brunett and the proposed class members:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telepone: 630 581-5456
          Facsimile: 630-575-8188
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

CREDIT CONTROL: Jones Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, MARCUS JONES, pleading on his own
behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-03882-JFL (E.D. Pa., Filed Sept. 10, 2018), the Plaintiff
moves the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of:

   "all persons in the State of Pennsylvania, for whom Defendant
   sent a collection letter, on a debt that was beyond the statute

   of limitations, wherein the Defendant made a settlement offer on

   said debt without disclosing the debt is beyond the statute of
   limitations, which said letters violate the FDCPA, during a
   period beginning one year prior to the filing of this initial
   action and ending 21 days after the service of the initial
   complaint filed in this action."

The action arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its attempt to collect a debt
via a dunning letter sent to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed an
initial complaint, alleging that Defendant violated the provisions
of the FDCPA banning false, deceptive, or misleading collection
conduct.

The Defendant is a debt collector that regularly collects debts on
behalf of third party creditors. In doing so Defendant sent
collection letters to the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members
which violated the FDCPA, the lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Nicholas Linker, Esq.
          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com

DAVITA INC: Judge Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
DaVita Inc. (NYSE: DVA) may face damages caused by a pending
securities lawsuit action lawsuit. DaVita Inc. provides kidney
dialysis services.

Shareholder Class Action Alleging DaVita Made Materially False and
Misleading Statements Survives Motion to Dismiss

Investors filed a class action complaint against DaVita for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the
complaint, DaVita may have been illegally obtaining revenues and
profits by steering patients into unnecessary private insurance
plans and using the American Kidney Fund as a vehicle to facilitate
its scheme. On March 28, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge William J.
Martinez denied DaVita's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint,
paving the way for litigation to proceed.

DaVita Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its
clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and
the companies in which they have invested. [GN]


DBI SERVICES: Dozier Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit OSCAR DOZIER, individually, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff,
vs. DBI SERVICES, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00972-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      overtime wages:

      "all hourly-paid Technicians who work/worked for DBI
      Services, LLC companywide within the last three years who
      were/are required to complete DBI's "Daily Vehicle Inspection

      Report" inspection and/or related work before clocking-in
      and/or after clocking-out for their scheduled shifts in weeks

      where they worked over forty hours and were/are therefore not

      compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of
      pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one or
      more workweeks as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act";

   2. directing Defendant to produce a list of all members of the
      Putative Class by providing a list of their names, last known

      addresses, dates of employment, cell phone number, and e-mail

      addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g. a
      Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of an entry of an

      order;

   3. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send Court-approved notice

      of this action to the putative class members of the proposed

      collective action via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message;

   4. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send a reminder notice via

      mail, e-mail and text message to putative class members at
      the half-way point in the notice period;

   5. approving a 90-day opt-in period from the date the Court-
      approved notice is sent during which the putative class
      members may join by returning their consents; and

   6. allowing putative class members to electronically sign and
      return the Consent to Become an Opt-In Plaintiff.

The putative class is limited to DBI's Technicians, who are
similarly situated in regard to the method of their compensation
and subject to DBI's common scheme and policy that is uniformly
applied to all members of the defined putative class, where DBI
requires its Technicians to perform and complete DBI's Daily
Vehicle Inspection Report inspection and related work
off-the-clock.

DBI is third-party infrastructure contracting company that provides
maintenance and operations services. DBI owns and operates
worksites in 45 states, with multiple locations in most of the
states in which it operates.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
          Chanelle Ventura, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com
                  CVentura@forthepeople.com

DIRECTV INC: Appeal from Arbitration Rulings in Imburgia Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMY IMBURGIA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
DIRECTV, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B284473 (Cal.
App.), Judge Frances Rothschild of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Second District, Division One, dismissed the
Appellants' purported appeal from (1) the trial court's order
granting the Respondent's renewed motion to compel arbitration; and
(2) its subsequent order denying the Appellants' motion for new
trial on the issue of arbitrability.

In 2008, Appellants Imburgia and Kathy Greiner are the named
Plaintiffs in a class action suit against Respondent DirecTV,
alleging the early cancellation fees the company collected from the
Appellants and similarly-situated California consumers were
unlawful under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Civil Code section
1671, subdivision (d).  The Appellants sought money damages,
restitution, disgorgement, attorney fees, declaratory relief, and
injunctive relief.  The desired injunctive relief included that
that the Respondent be ordered to cease charging any consumers in
California early cancellation fees.

The Respondent's customer agreement requires that all disputes be
arbitrated, but does not allow for class-based or representative
claims in such arbitrations.  Because class action waivers were
unenforceable in California before AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
the parties litigated their dispute for over two years, and the
trial court certified a class.  After Concepcion, the Respondent
successfully moved to compel arbitration.

The Appellants seek review of: (1) the order granting the
Respondent's renewed motion to compel arbitration; and (2) a
subsequent order denying the Appellants' motion for new trial on
the issue of arbitrability.  They contend that both orders,
although not final judgments, are appealable under the "death knell
doctrine," because they effectively terminate all class claims.

Judge Rothschild disagrees.  She finds that the trial court did not
decertify the class or dismiss class claims, but rather stayed the
litigation pending the outcome of arbitration.  Moreover, the trial
court suggested that appellants might be able to pursue their
public injunction claims in court after the arbitration stay is
lifted, potentially as representatives of the still-certified
class.  Thus, the death knell has not sounded for all absent
plaintiffs' claims.

For these reasons, she dismissed the Appellants' purported appeal
from both orders in its entirety, and need not reach their
arguments on the merits.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/n9X71N from Leagle.com.

Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade, Mark A. Milstein --
mmilstein@mjfwlaw.com -- Mayo L. Makarczyk --
mmakarczyk@mjfwlaw.com; Consumer Watchdog, Harvey Rosenfield,
Pamela Pressley; Evans Law Firm, Inc., Ingrid Maria Evans; FEM Law
Group, and F. Edie Mermelstein, for Plaintiff and Appellants Amy
Imburgia and Kathy Greiner.

Kirkland & Ellis, Melissa D. Ingalls -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- and
Robyn E. Bladow -- rbladow@kirkland.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent DirecTV, Inc.


DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Brown Suit Class Cert. Ruling to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DIRECTV, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Jenny Brown, et al. v. DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:13-cv-01170-DMG-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2019, the
Hon. Dolly M. Gee granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. The Court revised the Class and Subclass definition
based on the parties' briefing, the September 21, 2018 hearing, and
the Court's analysis in the order.

The Court certified the Nationwide Class defined as:

     All persons residing within the United States who, within
     four years prior to and after the filing of this action,
     received a non-emergency telephone call(s) from DIRECTV
     and/or its third-party debt collectors regarding a debt
     allegedly owed to DIRECTV, to a cellular phone through the
     use of an artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not
     provide the cellular phone number called on an initial
     application for DIRECTV service;

The Court also certified this Nationwide Subclass:

     All persons residing within the United States who, within
     four years prior to and after the filing of this action,
     received a non-emergency telephone call(s) from DIRECTV
     and/or its third-party debt collectors regarding a debt
     allegedly owed to DIRECTV, to a cellular phone through the
     use of an artificial or prerecorded voice and who were
     never DIRECTV customers.

The appellate case is captioned as Jenny Brown, et al. v. DIRECTV,
LLC, et al., Case No. 19-80045, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JENNY BROWN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Daniel Morris Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

Defendant-Petitioner DIRECTV, LLC, is represented by:

          Hans Germann, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 701-8792
          E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Becca Wahlquist, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 929-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 929-2525
          E-mail: bwahlquist@swlaw.com


ENVIROPLUS INC: Court Okays Notice to Class
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Jose Chavez, the Plaintiff, vs.
Enviroplus, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07358
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an order
granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion to begin notice to members of
the Plaintiff class.[BN]

EQUIFAX INC: Investor Seeks Data Breach Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a German asset manager's parent company asked
an Atlanta federal judge on March 29 to grant class action status
to its suit accusing Equifax Inc. of misleading investors about its
cybersecurity strength. [GN]


ESKOM: De Beer Attorneys Prepare to File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Francesca Villette, writing for IOL, reports that law firm De Beer
Attorneys have called on South Africans who have suffered financial
losses as a result of load shedding to get in touch as the firm
prepare to take legal action against Eskom.

Managing partner at the firm Elaine Bergenthuin said they were
gearing for a class action against the power utility for losses
suffered by businesses and individuals.

They expected Eskom to argue that load shedding was neither
wrongful nor negligent, as it was a responsible response to the
electricity crisis.

The power utility recently came under the spotlight after
implementing rotational load shedding, citing shortage of
capacity.

But Bergenthuin said it could be argued that the electricity crisis
was as a result of Eskom's negligence in maintaining the
electricity infrastructure and it should therefore be held
accountable for the losses suffered.

"We have received a lot of interest and are calling people to come
forward to strengthen the case," Bergenthuin said.

Losses could include anything from damaged appliances to loss of
profit, Bergenthuin said.

"A cookie company, for example, which makes 10 000 cookies a day,
could prove that, as a result of load shedding, they were able to
make 5 000 cookies. They could show a loss in profit," Bergenthuin
said.

Eskom stated: "The General Public Liability policy has the current
exclusion below. Based on this exclusion, load shedding events will
not be covered.

"No indemnity is granted by this policy against liability for:
failure to supply arising out of any interruption of, variation or
fluctuation in the supply of electricity, which is not consequent
upon damage to generation and/or transmission plant or equipment."

Anyone wishing to contact De Beer Attorneys can email
eskom@debeerattorneys.com [GN]


EXXONMOBIL CORP.: Court Denies Certification of 4 Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Case
2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK (C.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 17, 2017), the Hon.
Judge Dale S. Fischer has denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify
these subclasses:

   A. Soil and Groundwater Contamination Subclass:

      "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property -- at
      any point between February 18, 2012 and the present
      ("Property Damage Period") -- within the boundaries of the
      plume maps";

   B. Operational Emissions Subclass

      "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property --
      during the Property Damage Period -- within the
"Contaminated
      Area," which shall mean the (to be modeled and mapped)
      locations where air emissions at any time exceeded safe
      levels and/or that are known to register as malodorous";

   C. Explosion Debris Subclass 2

      "Persons or entities owning or leasing real property within
      the 'Area of Debris,' which shall mean the (to be modeled)
      area where emissions and/or deposited particulate matter from

      the explosion on February 18, 2015 landed, migrated or
      otherwise impacted a portion of that property"; and

   D. Physical Exposure Subclass 3

      "Persons who live and/or work within the (to be modeled)
      Area of Debris, Contaminated Area, or within the boundaries
      of the soil and groundwater plume maps who were physically
      exposed to the emissions and/or deposited particulate matter
      from the refinery from February 18, 2012 to the present."

The Court finds that a class action is superior to other available
methods for adjudicating the Soil Subclass's trespass claim. Due to
the nature of the trespass -- subsurface contamination -- damages
in any individual action are likely to be modest and outweighed by
the time or expense of litigating the action, especially in light
of the risk that an individual plaintiff might prevail on the
merits but recover only nominal damages for failure to prove actual
harm. Trying the issue of liability on a class-wide basis would
mean that any subsequent individualized proceedings for class
members could focus on the single issue that is truly individual --
whether that class member suffered harm as a result of the
trespass. This makes a class action a superior method of
adjudicating this controversy. Therefore, except for the Court's
finding that typicality is not met and the Court's serious doubts
regarding counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class, the Court would otherwise find this
subclass’s claim proper for class certification. The Plaintiffs
also argue in the alternative that their Air Subclass can be
certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because it seeks abatement instead of
damages. However, the Court notes that, to the extent the class is
seeking only injunctive relief, it has been defined far too
broadly. It includes properties where air emissions exceeded safe
levels or were malodorous "at any time" since February 18, 2012.
This subclass almost certainly includes many members whose
properties do not currently meet these conditions, as well as
members who have sold their properties and moved elsewhere. In
short, "even though the validity of a (b)(2) class depends on
whether 'final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole," Wal-Mart,
564 U.S. at 365 (emphasis in original), Plaintiffs' proposed class
includes numerous individuals who have no standing to seek
injunctive relief and who would not benefit therefrom.
Certification of the Air Subclass under Rule 23(b)(2) is
not warranted.

This action arises out of the operations of an oil refinery in
Torrance, California, formerly operated by Defendant ExxonMobil
Corporation and currently operated by Defendant Torrance Refining
Company LLC (TRC). On February 18, 2015, an equipment malfunction
within the Refinery's Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) unit caused
flammable hydrocarbons to unexpectedly flow into an electrostatic
precipitator unit where they ignited. The resulting explosion
released spent catalyst and hydrocarbons into the air, and sent ash
filled with metals, fiberglass, and glass wool into nearby
neighborhoods.

On February 17, 2017, Plaintiffs -- individuals who live or work
near the Refinery -- filed this putative class action against the
former and current owners for harms allegedly related to that
explosion and other emissions from the Refinery. The Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants "negligently repaired, operated and/or
maintained the Torrance Refinery, which resulted in the release of
harmful pollutants, noxious odors, and excessive noise invading
their land, causing diminished use and enjoyment of their
properties, pollution of the land and air in and around their
properties, and/or caused adverse health effects.[CC]

FASHION NOVA: Garcia Brings Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Nelly Garcia, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FASHION NOVA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-09558-JTM-KWR (E.D. La., April 19, 2019) seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of sending unwanted text messages to the
cellular telephones of consumers, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

The complaint relates that consumers who purchase products online
from Fashion Nova receive unsolicited telemarketing and/or
advertising text messages on their cellular telephones. Fashion
Nova sends these text message advertisements to consumers without
their written or oral consent. As a result, Defendant repeatedly
violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

As a result, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the putative
Class, seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all
unlawful text messaging activities, and an award of statutory
damages to Plaintiff and the Class for each such violation,
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of the State of
Louisiana.

Fashion Nova, Inc. is an online fashion retail company.[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 70119
     Phone: (504)534-5005
     Email: jmk@beaumontcostales.com


FEDEX GROUND: Corley Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kawaski Corley, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CIV-DS1900867 (Cal. Super., January 9, 2019), was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 8, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-00429. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
      William A. Baird, Esq.
      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
             tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com
             atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com

FedEx Ground is represented by:

      Scott Voelz, Esq.
      Alexander J. Larro, Esq.
      Christianna Kyriacou, Esq.
      O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
      400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
      Telephone: (213) 430 6000
      Facsimile: (213) 430 6407
      Email: svoelz@omm.com
             alarro@omm.com
             ckyriacou@omm.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Converters
--------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a proposed class of drivers has filed suit in
Arizona federal court accusing Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of selling
them vehicles with faulty catalytic converters. [GN]


FLINT, MI: Rick Snyder Reinstated as Water Class Action Defendant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Dado and Hank Winchester, writing for ClickOnDetroit,
report that on April 1, former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was
reinstated as a defendant in the class action lawsuit brought by
victims of the Flint Water Crisis.

Snyder, as well as other government defendants in the suit, face
charges of violating Flint citizens' right to bodily integrity as
protected under the 14th Amendment.

In late 2018, Flint residents asked U.S. District Court Judge
Judith Levy to reconsider her decision removing Snyder as a
defendant. In her ruling on April 1, Judge Levy noted that “the
allegations plausibly describe 'conscience shocking' conduct."

"We are grateful that the Court agrees former Governor Snyder
should be held accountable for his role in the Flint water crisis,"
said Theodore J. Leopold, Partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
and co-lead Plaintiffs' attorney. “The citizens of Flint were
both forgotten and mistreated by those involved in the Flint water
disaster. To this day, residents continue to suffer because of the
reckless decisions of senior state and local officials, as well as
private contractors, and we hope to provide a measure of justice
and some much-needed relief to those still struggling to recover."

In her ruling issued this morning, Judge Levy noted that:

"Plaintiffs plausibly state that the Governor acted indifferently
to the risk of harm they faced, demonstrating a callous disregard
for their right to bodily integrity. This indifference manifested
itself in two ways. Initially, the Governor was indifferent because
instead of mitigating the risk of harm caused by the contaminated
water, he covered it up. In private, he worried about the need to
return Flint to DWSD water and the political implications of the
crisis. But in public, he denied all knowledge, despite being aware
of the developing crisis.

As a result, plaintiffs were lured into a false sense of security.
They could have taken protective measures, if only they had known
what the Governor knew. Instead, the Governor misled them into
assuming that nothing was wrong. Governor Snyder's administration
even encouraged them to continue to drink and bathe in the water."
[GN]


FLOWERS BAKING: Button Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RICHARD BUTTON, an individual, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF HENDERSON, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company; FBC OF HENDERSON, LLC, a business entity, form unknown;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-10116-RGK-AS (C.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 15, 2018), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on May 20, 2019, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals employed by Defendants at any time during
      the period of four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit
      [October 15, 2014] and ending on a date as determined by the
      Court, and who have been employed as Branch Sales Managers or

      Area Sales Directors within the State of California";

   2. certifying Subclasses:

      Minimum Wages Subclass:

      "all Class members who were not compensated for all hours
      worked for Defendant at the applicable minimum wage";

      Wages and Overtime Subclass:

      "all Class members who were not compensated for all hours
      worked for Defendant at the required rates of pay, including

      for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day and/or forty

      in a week";

      Meal Period Subclass:

      "all Class members who were subject to Defendant's policy
      and/or practice of failing to provide unpaid 30-minute
      uninterrupted and duty-free meal periods or one hour of pay
      at the regular rate of pay in lieu thereof";

      Rest Break Subclass:

      "all Class members who were subject to Defendant's policy
      and/or practice of failing to authorize and permit
      uninterrupted, duty-free, 10-minute rest periods for every
      four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and failing to

      pay one hour of pay at the regular rate of pay in lieu
      thereof";

      Expense Reimbursement Subclass:

      "all Class members who incurred necessary and reasonable
      expenses in connection with performing their job duties for
      Defendant and who were subject to a policy and/or practice
      under which such expenses were not reimbursed";

      Wage Statement Subclass.

      "all Class members who, within the applicable limitations
      period, were not provided with accurate itemized wage
      statements"

      Unauthorized Deductions from Wages Subclass:

      "all Class members who were subject to Defendant’s policy
      and/or practice of deducting wages earned from their pay,
      including by requiring off the clock work and by rounding
      down hours worked";

      Failure to Timely Pay Wages Twice Monthly Subclass.

      "all Class members who were subject to Defendant's policy and

      practice of not timely paying all wages earned when they were

      due and payable at least twice monthly";

      Termination Pay Subclass:

      "all Class members who, within the applicable limitations
      period, either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from
      their employment and were subject to Defendant's policy
      and/or practice of failing to timely pay wages upon
      termination"; and

      UCL Subclass:

      "all Class members who are owed restitution as a result of
      Defendant's business acts and practices, to the extent such
      acts and practices are found to be unlawful, deceptive,
      and/or unfair".[BN]

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

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com

G6 HOSPITALITY: Court Grants Bid to Remand Cummings Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
case, CHRISTINA CUMMINGS, an individual on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. G6
HOSPITALITY LLC, a Limited Liability Company; MOTEL 6 OPERATING
L.P., a Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-00122-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal.).

On Nov. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff, seeking to represent a class of
non-exempt employees who were allegedly underpaid due to the
Defendants' uniform policy and practice which failed to lawfully
compensate these employees for all their overtime worked, filed a
class action complaint in San Diego Superior Court alleging the
following claims: (1) unfair competition; (2) failure to pay
minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to
provide required meal periods; (5) failure to provide required rest
periods; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (7)
failure to provide wages when due. (ECF No. 1-2, at 2). On January
3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") which
detailed a new allegation pursuant to the Private Attorneys General
Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.  

The Plaintiff's FAC alleged the amount-in-controversy for the
aggregate claim of California Class Members was under $5 million.
On Jan. 17, 2019, the Defendants removed the putative class action
from state court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").

On Feb. 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her motion to remand,
challenging federal jurisdiction under CAFA.  Her motion does not
dispute either the diversity or the class size requirements under
CAFA, but instead solely challenges the Defendants' assertion that
the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.  

The Defendants filed an opposition on March 5, 2019, which the
Plaintiff replied to on March 12, 2019.  The Defendants claim that
the amount in controversy is $65,458,790.  They arrive at this
figure by adding their valuation of the damages from (1) the
Plaintiff's claim for wage statement penalties, (2) the Plaintiff's
claim for waiting time penalties, and (3) by assuming a 25%
benchmark rate for attorneys' fees.

Judge Curiel holds that applying the Ninth Circuit's framework to
the Plaintiff's FAC, the Defendants' utilization of a 100%
violation rate based on the Plaintiff's allegations of wage
statement penalties and waiting time penalties is unreasonable.  He
finds that the utilization of a 100% violation rate to calculate
the putative class's monetary recovery on the wage statement
penalty claim is not grounded in real evidence.  He also finds that
the Defendants do not meet their burden that the Plaintiff's claims
of waiting time violations exceeds the $5 million
amount-in-controversy requirement.  He is not prepared to fault the
Plaintiffs for not setting forth an alternative violation rate when
the Defendants have not sustained their burden to show why their
claimed rate was reasonable.

Finally, the Defendants allege that the Plaintiff's request for
attorney fees adds an additional $7,273,321 to the
amount-in-controversy.  They arrive at that total based upon a 25%
"benchmark" recovery scheme. Although the Defendants are correct
that attorney fees may be properly included in calculations of the
amount-in-controversy, the Judge holds that they did not establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that the underlying amount upon
which those fees would be based is at least $4 million, as would be
required to meet the $5 million minimum.  Accordingly, their fee
calculation is unsupported.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Curiel granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand.  He vacated the motion hearing set for the matter
on April 5, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/f9ZEt4 from Leagle.com.

Christina Cummings, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Shani Or Zakay -- shani@zakaylaw.com -- Zakay Law Group, APLC.

G6 Hospitality, LLC, a Limited Liability Company & Motel 6
Operating L.P., a Limited Partnership, Defendants, represented by
Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Timothy L. Johnson --
tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Jesse C. Ferrantella --
jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins & Nikolas Trpe
Djordjevski -- nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.


G6 HOSPITALITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Cummings Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants G6 Hospitality LLC and Motel 6 Operating LP filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Christina Cummings
v. G6 Hospitality LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00122-GPC-LL, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 37-02018-00056207-CU-OE-CTL) was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, and was later
removed to the District Court.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit
meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The appellate case is captioned as Christina Cummings v. G6
Hospitality LLC, et al., Case No. 19-80046, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent CHRISTINA CUMMINGS, an individual, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com
                  norm@bamlawlj.com
                  kyle@bamlawlj.com

               - and -

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 892-7095
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
          E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners G6 HOSPITALITY LLC and MOTEL 6 OPERATING LP
are represented by:

          Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
          Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com
                  jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
                  spencer.skeen@ogletree.com


GANNETT CO: Hall Sues to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
------------------------------------------------------
Grace Hall, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gannett Co. Inc., An Arizona
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00296-JHM-RSE (D. Ariz.,
April 19, 2019) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Kentucky Wage and
Hour Act, and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA" or
"South Carolina Act").

Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiffs 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
40 hours per workweek, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Gannett in Arizona during the relevant
time period.

Gannett operates call centers throughout the United States and
holds itself out as a "next-generation media company that empowers
communities to connect, act, and thrive".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
     Corey Feltre, Esq.
     Stanley Lubin, Esq.
     LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
     349 North Fourth Avenue
     Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
     Phone: (602) 234-0008
     Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
     Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com

          - and -

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


GENERAL CREDIT: Preliminary Writ of Prohibition Made Permanent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Zel M. Fischer of the Supreme Court of Missouri made the
preliminary writ of prohibition in the case, STATE EX REL. GENERAL
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, LLC, Relator, v. THE HONORABLE DAVID L.
VINCENT III, Respondent, Case No. SC97175 (Mo.), permanent.

Helena Weatherspoon defaulted on payments owed to Car Credit
Acceptance Co. pursuant to a consumer credit contract requiring her
to make installment payments.  Car Credit sent Weatherspoon notices
informing her of the default and how to cure it.  She did not cure
the default.  Car Credit assigned Weatherspoon's credit contract to
General Credit Acceptance Co., LLC ("GCAC").  GCAC repossessed the
vehicle, but Weatherspoon regained possession.

Weatherspoon defaulted again, and GCAC again notified her of the
default and how to cure it.  She did not cure the default and
voluntarily surrendered her vehicle to GCAC.  GCAC mailed a presale
notice informing Weatherspoon her vehicle would be sold in
compliance with the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code.  It sold the
vehicle and mailed Weatherspoon a post-sale notice of her
deficiency balance.

Weatherspoon filed the underlying class action on behalf of all
other similarly situated Missouri consumers alleging GCAC, and its
predecessors or successors, violated statutory notice requirements
relating to the repossession and disposition of collateral and
collected unlawful interest following default and repossession of
the collateral.  She alleged the deficient notices caused her and
all class members to suffer harm to their credit, character, and
general reputation. Weatherspoon requested damages equal to the
amount of any judgment wrongfully obtained by GCAC and a mandatory
injunction compelling GCAC to return any money collected for
deficiency judgments, time price differential, delinquency and
collection charges from Plaintiff and the classes.  She also
requested statutory damages, an injunction preventing GCAC from
collecting deficiency judgments from the class, and a declaration
that GCAC's form right to cure, presale, and post-sale notices
violate Missouri law.

GCAC introduced evidence of statistical sampling showing
approximately 87% of the potential class members' claims against
GCAC were resolved by final deficiency judgments or were
extinguished in bankruptcy.  GCAC argued the evidence showed the
proposed class was overbroad because the vast majority of the
potential class members' claims were resolved in prior judicial
proceedings.  GCAC has no deficiency judgment against Weatherspoon,
and she did not declare bankruptcy.

The circuit court certified two classes and designated Weatherspoon
as the sole class representative.  The first class included all
persons who are named as borrowers or buyers with a Missouri
address on a loan or financing agreement with GCAC, assigned to
GCAC or owned by GCAC; whose loan or financing agreement was
secured by collateral; and who had the possession of their
collateral taken by GCAC, voluntarily or involuntarily, from May
12, 2008 to present.  The second class included all persons from
Class 1 who had the possession of their collateral taken by GCAC
involuntarily.

GCAC filed a petition for permission to appeal the certification
order pursuant to Rule 84.035.  The court of appeals denied the
petition.  GCAC filed the underlying petition for a writ of
prohibition asserting the circuit court abused its discretion by
certifying the class.  The Court issued a preliminary writ of
prohibition.

Judge Fischer finds that because approximately 87% of the
individual class members' claims are either precluded by deficiency
judgments or have been extinguished in bankruptcy, the vast
majority of individual class members have no unresolved claim
against GCAC.  In addition, Jugde Fischer finds that it is unclear
why the circuit court certified only a single subclass whose
members constitute only a subset of the members of the class.  It
is unclear whether this single subclass was separated from the
larger class and the subclass members' interests may diverge from
those who had their vehicles returned voluntarily, such as
Weatherspoon.  This is the reason Weatherspoon is an inappropriate
class representative.  The circuit court should carefully consider
the definition of those subclasses, if any, it may certify.

The circuit court is prohibited from taking any further action
other than to decertify the existing class, but it may consider
whether to certify a class without the definition problems
identified and that satisfies the typicality and other requirements
for a class action.

The Judge also finds that Weatherspoon's claims are not typical of
the class because she did not suffer the same alleged injury as the
class members.  The second class consists of individuals "who had
the possession of their collateral taken by GCAC involuntarily."
Weatherspoon testified she voluntarily surrendered her vehicle to
GCAC.  GCAC also did not obtain a deficiency judgment against
Weatherspoon.  Weatherspoon's claim is not typical of the class
because she was not injured by an involuntary repossession or by a
deficiency judgment.

The circuit court abused its discretion by certifying a class with
Weatherspoon as the sole class representative because her claims
are not typical of the class and she is not a member of the
subclass.  The circuit court is prohibited from certifying the
class and subclass as presently defined.  The court is not
prohibited from considering whether Weatherspoon is typical of a
redefined class, if a new class definition is proposed and meets
the criteria set out in the rule and explained in the Opinion, nor
is it prohibited from appointing a new or additional class
representative should one be proposed with claims typical of the
class and who otherwise satisfies the criteria set out in the
rule.

Judge Fischer concludes tha the circuit court abused its discretion
by certifying an overly broad class with a class representative
whose claims are not typical of the class.  The preliminary writ of
prohibition is made permanent, and the circuit court is directed to
take no action inconsistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/9ofKfh from Leagle.com.

General Credit Acceptance was represented by William Ray Price Jr.
-- rprice@armstrongteasdale.com -- of Armstrong Teasdale LLP in St.
Louis, (314) 621-5070.

Timothy J. Wolf and Russel F. Watters of Brown & James PC in St.
Louis, (314) 421-3400; and

James F. Monafo -- jim.monafo@huschblackwell.com -- of Husch
Blackwell LLP in St. Louis, (573) 635-9118.

Weatherspoon was represented by Jesse B. Rochman --
rochman@onderlaw.com -- James R. Dowd -- dowd@onderlaw.com -- and
Martin L. Daesch -- daesch@onderlaw.com -- of OnderLaw LLC in St.
Louis, (314) 963-9000.

G. Keith Phoenix and Timothy C. Sansone of Sandberg Phoenix & von
Gontard PC in St. Louis, (314) 231-3332.

Two organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court. The
Missouri Bankers Association was represented by Edwin G. Harvey,
Maria G. Zschoche and David M. Mangian of Thompson Coburn LLP in
St. Louis, (314) 552-6000.

The National Consumer Law Center was represented by Dale K. Irwin
-- dale@daleirwin.com -- of The Irwin Law Firm in Kansas City,
(816) 359-8433.


GOOGLE INC: Cy Pres Class Settlement Favors Class Action Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Copland, writing for Bloomberg, reports that in recent
weeks, allegations of an audacious college-bribery scheme have made
headlines, implicating 50 well-heeled individuals and celebrities
in corruptly arranging school admissions for their children.

But another college-related scheme has gotten much less attention,
and there's nothing illegal about it.

On March 20, the U.S. Supreme Court sent Frank v. Gaos back to
lower courts. In that case, lawyers had settled a class-action
lawsuit with Google. The settlement had paid the absent
class-action plaintiffs nothing, but funneled millions of dollars
to the lawyers and their designated charities -- including three
universities two of the three lawyers for the case had attended.

Lawyers representing Pamela Gaos, two other named individuals and a
"class" of other individuals alleged that Google had violated
federal law by sharing users' search terms with other websites
without the users' explicit consent. The class as defined includes
essentially everyone in the U.S. who has used Google for an
Internet search.

Therein lies the rub. Class-action lawsuits -- which target a
majority of large corporations each year, according to a 2015
survey -- add together hundreds, thousands or even millions of
individual claims in a single legal action. They include absent
plaintiffs, and extinguish their legal claims, unless the
plaintiffs affirmatively "opt out" of the litigation.

But in a class-action suit as large as this case against Google, it
is next to impossible to notify absent class members about the
lawsuit, to process claims and to distribute settlement proceeds.

So the lawyers suing Google relied on a solution that has become
all too common in resolving lawsuits of this type: the so-called cy
pres class settlement. Borrowed from trust law, using a term that
means "as near as possible," cy pres settlements enable lawyers to
dole out their clients' money to nonprofits rather than to the
clients themselves.

Some plaintiffs' firms have specialized in this
class-action-for-charity practice, styling themselves as
disinterested humanitarians. The Ohio plaintiffs' firm Dworken and
Bernstein boasts that it "has been responsible for the distribution
of over $37 million to many deserving communal organizations since
2003."

Giving class-action settlement money to charities chosen by
attorneys, and affirmed by judges, creates at least the appearance
that lawyers are favoring their own rather than their clients'
interests. Why should lawyers be able to claim philanthropic credit
for giving away their clients' money, without their clients'
consent?

David Levi, a former federal judge and former dean of the Duke
University School of Law, has observed that the practice of judges
signing off on charitable gifts potentially compromises judges'
perceived impartiality. The risks are particularly acute, as Levi
claims was often the case, when charities solicited judges to be
considered for cy pres award dollars. Levi said the practice made
him "more than a little uncomfortable."

At least in cases like Gaos, it's also hard to see how this
practice benefits the clients the lawyers are supposed to
represent. Some $8.5 million in settlement proceeds from Google
were to be divvied up among the lawyers, a claims administrator and
various charities chosen by the lawyers. The charitable awards
include $2.5 million set to be given to three law school centers at
two of the three class lawyers' alma maters: Harvard's Berkman
Klein Center for Internet and Society, Stanford's Center for
Internet and Society, and Chicago-Kent's Center for Information,
Society and Policy.

Yet the absent plaintiffs got nothing. And the settlement did not
require Google to change its practices; it actually specified that
the company "will not be required or requested to make any changes
to . . .  the practices or functionality of Google Search."

Although class members lost their right to sue Google individually,
they were not contacted directly. Instead, these millions of
plaintiffs would have known about the settlement only if they saw a
website created for the case or read a press article about it.

Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever approved the
practice of giving class-action settlement dollars to charities
instead of victims. The idea was conceived in 1972 by a student
writing a note in a student-edited law review. Since then, it has
been used in more than 1,000 published federal court opinions.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself, argued that the court
should throw out the Gaos settlement: "the fact that class counsel
and the named plaintiffs were willing to settle the class claims
without obtaining any relief for the class -- while securing
significant benefits for themselves -- strongly suggests that the
interests of the class were not adequately represented."

But the other members of the court wanted lower courts to think
about a jurisdictional issue first, before they decided the case.
So, for now, expect lawyers to keep negotiating cy pres class
settlements that give their favorite charities money.

In the Gaos settlement, the amount of money the lawyers directed to
their alma maters would make even Lori Loughlin blush.
Unfortunately, this practice, as of now, remains legally
sanctioned. Let's hope that either the Supreme Court or Congress
steps in to put an end to it, sooner rather than later.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Dechert Attorneys Discuss Cy Pres Settlement Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McGinley, Esq. -- michael.mcginley@dechert.com -- Priya
Patel, Esq. -- ppatel@gunder.com -- Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq.
-- christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- and Jillian Taylor, Esq. --
jillian.taylor@dechert.com -- of Dechert LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, report that a cy pres-only settlement, designed to
indirectly benefit class members, while class counsel and named
plaintiffs receive monetary awards, recently came under scrutiny
before the Supreme Court.

A jurisdictional Article III standing issue (post-Spokeo) prevented
the Justices from assessing whether cy pres settlements alone
"satisfy the requirement that class settlements be 'fair,
reasonable, and adequate'" consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

The Court made clear that a class action settlement cannot be
approved absent a determination that the court has jurisdiction
over the matter.

Critics of cy pres settlements can find support from Justice
Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the per curiam opinion and
conveyed his belief that cy pres settlements "are not a form of
relief to the absent class members and should not be treated as
such."

Prior to agreeing to class-wide settlement, defense counsel should
ensure that all possible challenges have been exhausted, paying
particular attention to standing in light of the Court's Spokeo
decision.

In Frank v. Gaos, plaintiff Paloma Goas brought a class action
alleging that Google's transmission of users' search terms violated
the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. ("SCA").
The SCA creates a private right of action that allows any "person
aggrieved by any violation" of the statute to "recover from" the
entity that "engaged in th[e] violation such relief as may be
appropriate." § 2707(a). The SCA also prohibits an entity from
"knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or entity the contents of a
communication while in electronic storage by that service." Sec.
2702(a)(2).

Google challenged Plaintiff's standing in the district court
multiple times, but was ultimately unsuccessful. At the same time,
the bar anxiously awaited rulings from the Ninth Circuit and the
Supreme Court regarding standing. See, e.g., Edwards v. First
American Corp., 610 F.3d 514, 517 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. dismissed
as improvidently granted, 567 U.S. 756 (2012) (holding that "[t]he
injury required by Article III can exist solely by virtue of
statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates
standing"); Spokeo v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).

The parties eventually negotiated a US$8.5 million class-wide
settlement in which Google agreed to include certain disclosures on
some of its webpages and would distribute more than US$5 million to
cy pres recipients and more than US$2 million to class counsel and
the class representatives. Absent class members would receive no
monetary award.

The use of cy pres awards has come under increasing scrutiny in
recent years. "In the class action context, cy pres refers to the
practice of distributing settlement funds not amenable to
individual claims or meaningful pro rata distribution to nonprofit
organizations whose work is determined to indirectly benefit class
members." Slip. Op. at *4, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) (citing Black's Law
Dictionary 470 (10th ed. 2014)). Supporters of cy pres settlements
believe it provides a meaningful mechanism for obtaining hefty
settlements from businesses in cases where it can be hard to
determine the scope of damages.

The parties jointly selected the cy pres recipients to "promote
public awareness and education, and/or to support research,
development, and initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the
Internet." Slip. Op. at *4 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The District Court approved the settlement over the
objections of five class members, who then appealed to the Ninth
Circuit. During the pendency of the Ninth Circuit appeal, the
Supreme Court issued its opinion in Spokeo v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct.
1540 (2016). Spokeo clarified that a plaintiff may not establish
standing by simply alleging a violation of a federal statute, but
rather must identify some cognizable real-world harm. In doing so,
the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Edwards and the
premise upon which Plaintiff Goas relied to establish standing.
Ultimately, however, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Goas settlement
without addressing the newly imposed Spokeo standard or the Court's
rejection of Edwards.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari "to review whether such cy
pres settlements satisfy the requirement that class settlements be
'fair, reasonable, and adequate.'" Slip. Op. at *1 (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(2)). In a per curiam opinion, the Court determined
that a threshold jurisdictional question prevented it from being
able to rule on the merits. Thus, the Supreme Court vacated and
remanded for the lower courts to "consider the standing question
anew, applying the standard Spokeo articulated." Id. at *6.

While the Court did not weigh in on the merits of cy pres
settlements, it made clear that Spokeo applies to class action
settlements. The Court noted its "obligation to assure [itself] of
litigants' standing under Article III[,]" id. at 5, and that this
"obligation extends to court approval of proposed class action
settlements." Id. It emphasized that, "[a] court is powerless to
approve a proposed class action settlement if it lacks jurisdiction
over the dispute, and federal courts lack jurisdiction if no named
plaintiff has standing." Id. at *6.

Dissenting from the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas urged the
court to consider the merits. He argued that cy pres settlements do
not conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because they "are
not a form of relief to the absent class members and should not be
treated as such." Slip. Op. at *2 (Thomas, J. dissenting).
According to Justice Thomas, the lack of any direct benefit to
class members from such cy pres settlements suggests that the
interests of absent class members are not adequately represented
and that the class action structure is not the "superior" method
for adjudicating the claims at hand "when it serves only as a
vehicle through which to extinguish the absent class members claims
without providing them any relief." Id. at *3 (Thomas, J.
dissenting).

The Supreme Court may review another case raising the cy pres issue
in the near future. The Court is currently considering a petition
for certiorari in Perryman v. Romero, 906 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018),
pet. for cert. docketed, (Feb. 15, 2019) (No. 18-1074), in which
certain class members argue that the cy pres settlement in that
case, which allows leftover funds from a US$38 million settlement
to go to universities instead of class members, does not conform to
Rule 23.

Although the Justice's comments about such settlements during oral
argument in Frank v. Goas could indicate how they may eventually
rule on the issue, the ultimate outcome remains unclear. During
oral argument, Justices Kavanaugh and Alito criticized such
settlements, saying that they raise "the appearance of favoritism
and collusion[,]" and that "the class members get no money
whatsoever," respectively. Justice Ginsburg, presenting a less
critical view, said: "[p]ractically, the class members would get
nothing, nothing at all, and here at least they get an indirect
benefit."

While the Supreme Court ended up not deciding the issue it granted
certiorari to resolve, the Court's ruling in Frank v. Goas still
offers several lessons to class action litigants. First, before
agreeing to a class-wide settlement, defendants should vigorously
argue and exhaust all available defenses, including standing—at
all stages of the litigation. Second, though the Court did not rule
on the propriety of cy pres settlements as a general matter,
Justice Thomas' dissent and comments by other Justices during oral
argument highlighted obvious concerns regarding their use. As a
result, attorneys should take great care in structuring cy pres
settlements given the Supreme Court's criticism of such
arrangements. [GN]


GRIDSUM HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gridsum Holding Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the briefing on
defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated class action suit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York is now underway.

On April 25, 2018 and June 25, 2018, purported securities class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company, Guosheng
Qi, its chief executive officer and chairman, and Michael Peng
Zhang, its co-chief financial officer, among other defendants.

These lawsuits, which are captioned Xu v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et
al., Case No. 18-CV-3655, and Li v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al.,
Case No. 18-CV-5749, alleged, among other things, that "false
and/or misleading statements" were made "and/or" the company failed
to disclose its lack of effective controls over financial
reporting, in connection with its announcement on April 23, 2018
that its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016
should no longer be relied upon.

On September 17, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
and ordered the lawsuits consolidated.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 30, 2018
that variously alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
for a putative class period between September 22, 2016 to April 20,
2018, against the company and its current and former officers and
directors, among other defendants.

On March 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended class
action complaint, or the SAC. The court has entered a schedule for
the defendants' motions to dismiss the SAC, and the briefing on
defendants' motions is now underway.

Gridsum Holding Inc. provides data analysis software for
enterprises and government agencies in China. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Beijing, China.


GRIDSUM HOLDING: Gordon Class Action Stayed
-------------------------------------------
Gridsum Holding Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has stayed the
class action suit entitled, Gordon v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al.

On July 2, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against the
company and certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers, among other defendants, variously alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
against them.

The lawsuit, captioned, Gordon v. Gridsum Holding Inc., et al.,
Index No. 18-653342, is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who "purchased or otherwise acquired" ADSs in the
company's initial public offering on September 23, 2016, and are
based on substantially the same allegations as the consolidated
class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On January 22, 2019, an amended
complaint was filed.

On April 10, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to stay
this action pending the determination of the federal action, and
this action remains stayed.

Gridsum Holding Inc. provides data analysis software for
enterprises and government agencies in China. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Beijing, China.


H&M SNOW PROS: Williams Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
H&M Landscaping, Inc and H&M Snow Pros Inc. for alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned
ROBERT WILLIAMS, 11902 Honeydale Ave Cleveland, Ohio 44120, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
H&M SNOW PROS, INC c/o Statutory Agent Corporate Agents, Inc. 30195
Chagrin Blvd Ste 300 Pepper Pike Place Cleveland, Ohio 44124 and
H&M LANDSCAPING, INC c/o Statutory Agent Corporate Agents, Inc.
30195 Chagrin Blvd Ste 300 Pepper Pike Place Cleveland, Ohio 44124,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00830 (N.D. Ohio, April 15, 2019).
Plaintiff Robert Williams accuses the Defendants of implementing
the practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek. He also claims that the Defendants improperly classified
him and other similarly-situated individuals as independent
contractors.

H&M Snow Pros, Inc and H&M Landscaping, Inc are Ohio companies that
provide snow plowing and landscaping services to their customers in
Ohio. These companies are specialized in removing snow and ice in
large area, low tolerance sites. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INGRAM DISTRIBUTION: Perryman Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit OLLIE PERRYMAN On behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INGRAM
DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. A Tennessee Corporation, INGRAM BOOK
GROUP, LLC, A Tennessee Limited Liability Company, LIGHTNING
SOURCE, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01358 (M.D. Tenn.), Mr. Perryman asks the Court
for an order:

   1. authorizing the case to proceed as a collective action for
      overtime and/or minimum wage violations, under the Fair Labor

      Standards Act, on behalf of:

      "numerous hourly employees with a shift differential
employed
      by Defendant for the past three years who worked overtime
      hours with a shift differential and were denied the statutory

      required minimum wage and/or overtime premium for those on-
      call hours";

   2. directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel
      within seven days of the Order granting this Motion a list
      containing the names, the last known addresses, and phone
      numbers for all hourly employees with a shift differential
      nationwide of Defendants for the past three years that worked

      on-call hours; and

   3. directing Plaintiff to send notice and consent to join, to
      all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by
      Defendant's counsel by first-class mail so that they can
      assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this
      litigation.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Alan G. Crone, Esq.
          Laura Ann E. Bailey, Esq.
          Bailey H. Dorsey, Esq
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: 901 737 7740
          Facsimile: 901 474 7926
          E-mail: lbailey@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  bdorsey@cronelawfirmplc.com

JAND INC: Denied Full Amount of Regular and OT Wages, Clark Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CLARK and OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JAND, INC. DBA
WARBY PARKER and DOES ONE through TWENTY, Case No. CGC-19-575204
(Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 11, 2019), alleges that the
Plaintiff were denied the full amount of his regular wages,
overtime wages, and paid time off wages.

JAND, Inc., doing business as Warby Parker, engages in the
manufacture, retail, and online retail of men's eyeglasses, women's
eyeglasses, men's sunglasses, women's sunglasses, and gift cards.
The Company was incorporated in 2009 and is based in New York City.
The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Kesten, Esq.
          KESTEN-LAW
          101 Lucas Valley Road, Suite 273
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Telephone: (415) 457-2668
          Facsimile: (888) 619-3210
          E-mail: steve@kesten-law.com

               - and -

          Peter F. Lacques, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER F. LACQUES
          101 Lucas Valley Road, Suite 268
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Telephone: (415) 454-2100
          Facsimile: (888) 848-9519


JET MOUNTAIN: Huanca Action to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Huanca, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jet Mountain Development LLC and Eric Ross,
individually, Case No. 19-cv-08229 (D. N.J., March 8, 2019), seeks
to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages
and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Jet Mountain Development operates as Duke's Landscape Management
where Huanca worked full time as a driver and landscape laborer. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he worked.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Panther Partners' Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Jianpu Technology Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Panther Partners
Inc., v. Jianpu Technology Inc. et al.

On October 25, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
against the company, certain of its directors and officers, and
others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Panther Partners Inc., v. Jianpu Technology Inc. et al. (Case
No. 18-cv-09848).

The plaintiffs in the case allege, in sum and substance, that
certain disclosures and statements made by the company in
connection with its initial public offering contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of the Securities Act of
1933.

On January 10, 2019, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs of this case, and on March 28, 2019, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed.  

Jianpu Technology said, "The case remains in its preliminary
stages. Litigation or any other legal or administrative proceeding,
regardless of the outcome, is likely to result in substantial cost
and diversion of our resources, including our management's time and
attention."

Jianpu Technology Inc. operates a platform that provides online
discovery and recommendation services for financial products in the
People's Republic of China. The company operates its platform under
the Rong360 brand name. Jianpu Technology Inc. was founded in 2011
and is headquartered in Beijing, China.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Over Benacol Spread Labels Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that consumers
alleging Johnson & Johnson's buttery spread Benecol is falsely
labeled as free of trans fats may pursue their suit as a class
action, a federal court said March 29.

The court certified two classes: one of California buyers and
another of buyers in 10 states.

The multi-state class must be limited to purchases made between
August and December 2011 because of the applicable statute of
limitations, Judge Morrison C. England Jr. wrote. [GN]


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Choi Files Action Over Defective Tampon Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janna Choi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
against Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00468 (C.D. Cal., March 8, 2019), seeks damages resulting
from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of
fitness and for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide manufactures, markets and sells "U by
Kotex(R) Sleek(R) Tampon" products. Choi claims that they come
apart upon removal and needs medical attention to remove tampon
pieces left in the body, causing infections, vaginal irritation,
localized vaginal injury and other symptoms. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blair E. Reed, Esq.
      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      Thomas A. Reyda, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
             breed@bursor.com
             ykrivoshey@bursor.com

             - and -

      Marc G. Reich, Esq.
      Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
      REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
      4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 975-0512
      Facsimile: (949) 975-0514
      E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
              adhoover@reichradcliffe.com


KIND LLC: Proskauer Rose Discusses Lift Stay in "All Natural" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I. Weinstein, Esq., Jennifer Yang, Esq., and Russell
Kostelak, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
report that unlike a fine wine, a snack bar does not get better
with age. Neither, apparently, does litigation. Last month, Judge
William H. Pauley III in the Southern District of New York lifted a
years-long stay in a lawsuit against KIND LLC concerning the
allegedly false marketing of KIND snack products as "all-natural"
and "non-GMO." In re KIND LLC "Healthy and All Natural" Litigation,
No. 15-MD-2645. As we blogged about previously, the "all-natural"
claims were originally stayed in 2016 in light of ongoing FDA
rulemaking regarding the use of "natural" labeling, and the
"non-GMO" claims were subsequently stayed in early 2018 pending the
USDA's establishment of a national disclosure standard for
bioengineered food. In December 2018, the USDA promulgated its
"non-GMO" rules through the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
Standard, which became effective in February 2019. The FDA,
however, is continuing its lengthy deliberative process. In
considering this delay, Judge Pauley concluded that "[i]t is time
for this multi-district litigation to move forward."

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2015, alleging that KIND
deceptively marketed certain products as "all-natural" and
"non-GMO" even though they purportedly contain synthetic and
genetically modified ingredients, in violation of New York and
other state laws. In September 2016, Judge Pauley stayed the
"all-natural" claims pursuant to the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, to wait for the FDA rulemaking process to run its
course and provide guidance on the definition of the term
"natural." In March 2018, the Court also granted KIND's motion to
stay the "non-GMO" claims pending USDA action on a national
disclosure standard for bioengineered food, which was expected to
occur in July 2018. At the same time, the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion to lift the stay of the "all natural" claims. In doing so,
Judge Pauley recognized the "glacial pace" of the FDA in defining
the term "natural." However, because there was a significant
interest in litigating the "all natural" and "non-GMO" claims
together, the Court continued to stay the "all natural" claims, but
only through August 15, 2018—two weeks after the date on which
the USDA was expected to promulgate the "non-GMO" standard. In
doing so, the Court noted that the justification for lifting the
stay on the "all natural" claims would be "substantially stronger"
if the FDA failed to provide guidance by this date.

The USDA promulgated its "non-GMO" rules through the National
Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard on December 21, 2018. The
Court therefore found in its February 2019 decision that there was
no reason to continue the stay as to plaintiffs' "non-GMO" claims.
However, all parties were in agreement that the "non-GMO" claims
should not proceed without the "all natural" claims, again putting
at issue whether the stay of the "all natural" claims should be
lifted as well, despite the continued absence of FDA guidance on
the definition of the term "natural." Judge Pauley noted that
courts have split on the question of whether to lift similar stays
of "natural" claims pending FDA rulemaking: some have declined to
do so, others have lifted stays, and some have chosen not to stay
these types of claims at all. But citing his prior determination
that if the FDA provided no further guidance by August 2018, "the
basis for lifting the stay w[ould] be substantially stronger, and
that there was no reason to continue to stay the "non-GMO" claims,
the Court concluded that the stay of the "all natural" claims
should be lifted in this case. As a result, this lawsuit that began
in 2015 will now proceed to discovery.

In the meantime, KIND petitioned the FDA to update its regulations
on nutrient content labeling because, in KIND's view, current
regulations permit manufacturers to use nutrient content labeling
in a way that misleads the public by concealing the use of added
sugars and trans fats in products marketed as contributing to a
healthy diet. Watch this space for further developments in-KIND.
[GN]


LEGACY LAND: Cozort Sues Over Unremitted Insurance Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Cozort, in his own right and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Legacy Land Management Corp., Kenneth
Lambert, Sherri Lambert, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00161, (S.D.
W.V., March 8, 2019), seeks a refund of all deductions that were
intended to pay for medical insurance; statutory, compensatory and
liquidated damages; interest; attorneys' fees; costs; and all other
legal and equitable remedies under the Fair Labor Standards and Act
and the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Cozort claims that he was deducted a medical insurance premium from
his pay but this was not remitted to the insurance provider. His
insurance was eventually cancelled due to non-payment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Anthony M. Salvatore, Esq.
      Greg A. Hewitt, Esq.
      HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC
      204 North Court Street
      Fayetteville, WV 25840
      Phone: (304) 574-0272
      Fax: (304) 574-0273


LEGACY MEASUREMENT: Florence Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL FLORENCE, DERRICK FOSHEE, and CHRISTIAN KITCHENS,
Plaintiffs, v. LEGACY MEASUREMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Texas
Corporation; LEGACY MEASUREMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, a Foreign Limited
Liability Company, WDE JWM AGGREGATE, LLC, a Foreign Limited
Liability Company, EDELMAN & GUILL ENERGY L.P., II, a Foreign
Limited Partnership, and WHITE DEER ENERGY, L.P. II a Foreign
Limited Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00129 (E.D. Tex.,
April 19, 2019) is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, (the
"WARN Act") for Defendants' failure to give the required WARN Act
written notice to Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals in
connection with recent Mass Layoff and/or Plant Closing at
Defendants East Texas site of employment and Brookfield Township,
Ohio site of employment.

According to the complaint, Defendants are liable for failing to
provide Plaintiffs and the Class Members  60 days' advance written
notice, as required by the WARN Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs and the Class Members were "full-time employees" of
Defendants as that term is used in the Warn Act.

Defendants operate as a single business enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeffrey T. Embry, Esq.
     Christopher P. Peirce, Esq.
     HOSSLEY & EMBRY, LLP
     515 S. Vine Ave.
     Tyler, TX 75702
     Phone: (903) 526-1772
     Fax: (903) 526-1773
     Email: jeff@hossleyembry.com
            cpeirce@hossleyembry.com


LSB INDUSTRIES: June 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DENNIS WILSON, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 1:15-cv-07614-RA-GWG

Plaintiff,

           v.

LSB INDUSTRIES, INC., JACK E. GOLSEN,
BARRY H. GOLSEN, MARK T. BEHRMAN,
TONY M. SHELBY, and HAROLD L.
RIEKER, JR.

Defendants.

This notice affects all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired LSB Common Stock or LSB Call Options, or sold
LSB Put Options between November 7, 2014 and November 5, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class"):

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $18,450,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on June 28, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Ronnie Abrams at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, United States Courthouse, Courtroom
1506, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether
the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
January 19, 2019 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  The Notice and the Proof
of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from
the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.LSBSecuritiesLitigation.com.  You may also obtain copies of the
Notice and the Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
Wilson v. LSB Industries, Inc. et al., c/o JND Legal
Administration, P.O. Box 91236, Seattle, WA 98111-9336,
833-402-1726.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 23, 2019.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than June 7, 2019, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than June 7, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, LSB, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Wilson v. LSB Industries, Inc. et al.  
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91236
Seattle, WA 98111-9336
833-402-1726
www.LSBSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
ATTN: Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com

By Order of the Court [GN]


LYFT: Faces Class Action in California Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Stassinopoulos, writing for The Daily Californian,
reports that Disability Rights Advocates, or DRA, filed a
class-action lawsuit against Lyft on March 20, alleging that the
popular ride-sharing service violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, or ADA, by not providing a wheelchair accessible
vehicle, or WAV, service for Bay Area residents.

DRA, a nonprofit disability rights organization based in California
and New York, alleged in the suit that Lyft's failure to provide
WAVs constitutes unequal service for its riders with disabilities.
According to DRA attorney Melissa Riess, the situation is
compounded by the fact that Lyft has also driven competing taxi
companies that once provided WAVs out of the market.

"Their service is basically unusable for people who use wheelchairs
and need wheelchair accessible vehicles," said Riess. "It could be
a really important option for people to get around, especially in
the Bay Area, which is so car-centric. On behalf of this community,
we've brought this lawsuit to compel Lyft to fulfill their legal
obligations."

In addition to their current suit against Lyft, DRA filed a similar
class action against Uber in October 2018.

Dorene Giacopini, president of the board of directors for Community
Resources for Independent Living, which is a plaintiff in the class
action, said that transportation services for people with
disabilities are going "backwards" in the modern ride-sharing era.
Giacopini alleged that the very existence of companies such as Lyft
and Uber is causing the "disappearance" of taxis, including WAVs.

Lyft spokesperson Lauren Alexander said in an email that Lyft
considers accessibility "broadly" in its services and has entered
into partnerships with public transit agencies across the country
to create "innovative, on-demand WAV offerings."

"Lyft is committed to ensuring that those who need rides most are
able to get them," Alexander wrote in an email. "We think about
accessibility broadly and know that many who were previously
underserved by transit and taxis are now able to rely on Lyft for
convenient and affordable rides."

According to Alexander, riders who need a WAV can select "access
mode" within the Lyft app to be connected to a list of WAV
providers. The providers, which are grouped by area, include
options such as East Bay Paratransit, private WAV providers and
public transit options.

DRA's suit, however, claims that this service is not comparable to
those offered to other users. To use Paratransit, for example, one
must meet eligibility requirements and fill out an application,
according to Riess. She added that even if a customer meets these
requirements Paratransit rides must be scheduled at least a day in
advance.

In court documents, DRA also alleged that Paratransit services can
be late, even when scheduled up to two hours in advance.

"You need to schedule (Paratransit rides) a day in advance," Riess
said. "It's not like you can say, 'Oh there's not a WAV Lyft
available, I'll schedule a paratransit.'"

Berkeley District 4 Councilmember Kate Harrison said that in
addition to not providing services for customers with disabilities,
Lyft and other ride-sharing companies also impact alternate public
transit options available to those users. Harrison said that
ride-sharing services draw passengers away from public transit
systems and often disrupt bus routes by pulling over at bus stops.

"My own mother… can't take Lyft because they won't take her
wheelchair," Harrison said. "They're negatively impacting seniors
and the disabled (and) they're impacting our bus service."

Harrison added that she is currently looking into implementing a
local tax on ride-sharing companies to support public transit
systems. [GN]


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ANTHONY LENNEN and BETH LENNEN, the
Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT RESORTS
TRAVEL COMPANY, INC., MARRIOTT RESORTS TITLE COMPANY, INC., MVC
TRUST OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, FIRST AMERICAN TRUST, FSB, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA and MARRIOTT RESORTS
HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
6:16-cv-00855-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Smith
denied a motion to certify class and to file a reply brief without
prejudice to renewal if, and when, appropriate.

The case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class and motion for leave to file class
certification reply brief. The motion to certify is no longer
seasonable in light of the order on the motions to dismiss, the
Court says.[BN]



MDL 2492: Ashley Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, AUGUSTUS ASHLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-809 (Filed March 1,
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-02093 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 of generations of
University of Arkansas, Monticello student-athletes.

The Ashley 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 SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@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: Atkins Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PATRICIA ATKINS, as attorney-in-fact of Patrick Atkins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-809 (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-02091 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
Illinois State University student-athletes.

The Atkins 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 SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@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: Carney Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SEAN CARNEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00828 (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-02101 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
Tulane University student-athletes.

The Carney 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:

          Robert T. Dassow, Esq.
          HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC
          10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: 317 818 3100
          Facsimile: 317 818 3111

               - 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: Garay Suit Consolidated with Concussion Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANDREW GARAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-805 (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-02089 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 East
Texas Baptist University student-athletes.

The Garay 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: Jefferson Suit Consolidated with Concussion Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID JEFFERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-779 (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-02082 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
Butler student-athletes.

The Jefferson 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: Kloes Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHAD KLOES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-776 (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-02079 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
LU student-athletes.

The Kloes 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: Phipps Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DONNA PHIPPS, individually and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Morris Trent Phipps, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and BAYLOR UNIVERSITY,, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-819 (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-02099 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
Baylor student-athletes.

The Phipps 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: Rodgers Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSHUA RODGERS, and ETRIC PRUITT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-785 (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-02087 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 Southern Mississippi student-athletes.

The Rodgers 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 Plaintiffs 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: Schultz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SCOTT SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and CONCORDIA COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-894 (Filed March 1, 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-02102 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
Concordia student-athletes.

The Schultz 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: Solomom-Jett Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID SOLOMON-JETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-780 (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-02083 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
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania student-athletes

The Solomom-Jett 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 2672: 15 Cases in Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 3649,  Case No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted ECF No. 3649 motion to remand to
state court 15 cases that VWGoA removed to federal court based only
on federal-question jurisdiction.

Judge Breyer has reviewed the complaints, VWGoA's notices of
removal, and VWGoA's opposition to the motion.  For the same
reasons articulated in a recent Order, he concludes that none of
the federal issues identified by VWGoA will necessarily arise in
adjudicating the Plaintiffs' claims, all of which are state-law
claims.  As a result, he concludes that the Court lacks
federal-question jurisdiction over these cases.   Accordingly, he
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

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

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David
M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer
--
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2672: Bid to Remand 10 Cases to State Court Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motions to remand
the cases, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 3537, 3604, 3635, 4674, 4675, Cardenas, No.
3:16-cv-4533-CRB, Champoux, No. 3:16-cv-2598-CRB, Hebbe, No.
3:18-cv-0380-CRB, Mahan, No. 3:16-cv-3039-CRB, McCurley, No.
3:18-cv-0428-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), to state
court.

Judge Breyer has reviewed the complaints, VWGoA's notices of
removal, and VWGoA's oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motions.  For
the same reasons articulated in a recent Order, he concludes that
none of the federal issues identified by VWGoA will necessarily
arise in adjudicating the Plaintiffs' claims, all of which are
state-law claims.  As a result,he concludes that the Court lacks
federal-question jurisdiction over these cases.  Accordingly, he
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zzkbY8 from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David
M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer
--
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2741: Bruinsma Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled SJOERD BRUINSMA and BROOK BRUINSMA v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00217 was transferred on April 11, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01931-VC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:16-md-02741-VC.

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup (R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered 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(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) 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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Brody, Esq.
          Brion B. Doyle, Esq.
          Seth B. Arthur, Esq.
          VARNUM LLP
          Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352
          Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
          Telephone: (616) 336-6000
          E-mail: ajbrody@varnumlaw.com
                  bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com
                  sbarthur@varnumlaw.com


MDL 2886: Smith Suit Consolidated in Allura Fiber Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled as Smith, et al. v. Plycem USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00071, was transferred on April 11, 2019, from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston).

The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01063-DCN to the proceeding.

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

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

Plaintiffs Rebecca L. Smith, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, and Walter A. Smith, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, are
represented by:

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

               - and -

          Roger N. Braden, Esq.
          BRADEN HUMFLEET & DEVINE, PLC
          7000 Houston Road, Suite 5
          Florence, KY 41042
          Telephone: (859) 414-0777
          Facsimile: (859) 393-0930
          E-mail: rnb@bhdlaw.net

Defendants Plycem USA LLC and Elementia USA Inc. are represented
by:

          Anthony Vale, Esq.
          Brian H. Callaway, Esq.
          Leah Greenberg Katz, Esq.
          Robert L. Hickok, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 981-4502
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: valea@pepperlaw.com
                  callawab@pepperlaw.com
                  katzl@pepperlaw.com
                  hickokr@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Carol D. Browning, Esq.
          Chadwick A. McTighe, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202-3352
          Telephone: (502) 681-0516
          Facsimile: (502) 779-8232
          E-mail: cbrowning@stites.com
                  cmctighe@stites.com


MERCK & CO: Kaye Appeals Conn. Dist. Ct. Decision to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Kaye, et al. v. Merck
& Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-1546, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

The appellate case is captioned as Kaye, et al. v. Merck & Co.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-952, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Roger H. Kaye, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

Defendants-Respondents Merck & Co. and Medlearning, Inc., are
represented by:

          Edward Wood Dunham, Esq.
          WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
          1 Century Tower
          265 Church Street
          P.O. Box 1832
          New Haven, CT 06508
          Telephone: (203) 498-4400
          E-mail: edunham@wiggin.com

               - and -

          Matthew H. Geelan, Esq.
          DONAHUE, DURHAM & NOONAN, PC
          741 Boston Post Road
          Guilford, CT 06437
          Telephone: (203) 458-9168
          E-mail: MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com


MERCK & CO: Sued by Taff Over Injuries From ZOSTAVAX Vaccine
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN TAFF and KRISTINE TAFF v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP AND
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., Case No. 3:19-cv-09601-PGS-TJB
(D.N.J., April 11, 2019), alleges that the Defendants breached
their duty by representing to the Plaintiffs, their healthcare
providers, and the medical community that ZOSTAVAX's use did not
carry the serious and increased risk of viral infection, such as
those suffered by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
consumers.

The Plaintiffs bring these claims within the applicable statute of
limitations because they and their healthcare providers did not
discover and could not reasonably discover the defects and
unreasonably dangerous condition of ZOSTAVAX vaccine.  They argue
that their ignorance of the defective and unreasonably dangerous
nature of ZOSTAVAX and the causal connection between these defects
and their injuries and damages is due to the Defendants' fraudulent
conduct.

Merck & Co., Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
place of business located in Kenilworth, New Jersey.  Merck Sharp &
Dohme Corp. ("MSD") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck and part
of the Merck family of companies.

Merck designed, researched, developed, manufactured, tested,
labeled, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, supplied,
distributed, and/or introduced into the stream of commerce the
ZOSTAVAX vaccine, to be administered to consumers throughout the
United States.

McKesson Corp. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business located in in Sacramento, California.  McKesson,
individually as an agent of Merck and/or MSD, packaged, labeled,
re-packaged, marketed, promoted, supplied, distributed, sold,
and/or introduced into the stream of commerce the ZOSTAVAX vaccine
to consumers nationwide, including New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Margaret E. Cordner, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          60 E. 42nd St., Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 702-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0164
          E-mail: mcordner@bernllp.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Demarco FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Mara J. Demarco, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case
No. 622616/2018 was removed on April 11, 2019, from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02130 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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


MILLER & STARK: Holmes Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, SUMMER HOLMES, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MILLER, STARK,
KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01193-BJD-JRK
(M.D. Fla.) the Plaintiff ask the Court to:

   1. certify a class of:

      "all persons within the United States who (a) received a
non-
      emergency telephone call; (b) on his or her cellular
      telephone; (c) made by or on behalf of Defendant; (d) where
      such phone call was made with the use of an automatic
      telephone dialing system as defined under the TCPA and/or
      with an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time from

      October 10, 2014 to the date that class notice is
      disseminated";

   2. appoint Ms. Holmes as a class representative and Bursor
      and Fisher, P.A. as class counsel.

Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to the same pattern or practice
as every other class member: Defendant's common practice of using
an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or
prerecorded voice to place calls to cellular telephone numbers in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
                  aobergfell@bursor.com

MILLERCOORS LLC: Cardiel Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Henry Cardiel, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Millercoors, LLC and Does 1 to
100, Case No. 19STCV02979, filed in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court on January 29, 2019, was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on March 8,
2019, under Case No. 19-cv-01727.

Cardiel worked as a machinist at Millercoors' Irwindale facility.
He claims to be denied overtime wages and minimum wages, meal and
rest periods, or premium pay when no meal and rest periods were
provided, minimum wages, all wages due at termination, wage
statements and reimbursement for business-related travel
expenses.[BN]

Cardiel is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd, Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      Email: david@yeremianlaw.com
             natalie@yeremianlaw.com

             - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      Email: sahagii@aol.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Michael D. Mandel, Esq.
      Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
      Telephone: (310) 315-8200
      Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
      Email: mmandel@mcguirewoods.com
             abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Webb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Webb, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00801 (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
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567

MONSANTO COMPANY: Wheelers Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD L. WHEELER and NORMA G. WHEELER, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00795 (E.D. Mo.,
April 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by Mr. Richard L.
Wheeler, 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. Richard L.
Wheeler'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

MPA GRANADA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Schonton Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANYELA SCHONTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MPA GRANADA
HIGHLANDS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-12151-DJC (D.
Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The case is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs,
Brazilian tenants and tenant applicants, allege that Defendants MPA
Granada Highlands, Metropolitan Properties of America, Inc.,
Jeffrey J. Cohen, Marisa V. Cohen, Paula Nigro and Jacqueline
Motta, discriminated against them in violation of the Fair Housing
Act (Count I), the Civil Rights Act (Count II) and Mass. Gen. L. c.
151B, Section 4(6), (10) (Count III).  All other counts of the
amended complaint have been dismissed.

The Plaintiffs allege discrimination based upon their Brazilian
national origin between Jan. 1, 2016 and the present.  Defendant
Granada is a complex of 13 buildings and approximately 900 studio,
one, two and three-bedroom apartments located on Kennedy Drive in
Malden, Massachusetts.  Defendant Metropolitan is the owner of
Granada.  Defendant Jeffrey J. Cohen is the CEO, President and sole
director of Metropolitan.  Defendants Marisa V. Cohen, Paula Nigro
and Jacqueline Motta are employees, agents or servants of
Metropolitan and/or Granada.

The Plaintiffs initiated the case on Oct. 24, 2016, and filed the
operative, amended complaint on July 11, 2017.  The Defendants
moved to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part, leaving Counts I-III as the only remaining counts.  The

The Plaintiffs now have moved for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(2), (3).  They move for certification of the proposed
class, comprised of all persons subjected to discrimination on the
basis of Brazilian national origin in the leasing of rental housing
at the Defendants' apartment complex, Granada Highlands, from Jan.
1, 2016 to date -- whether they were denied leases, denied renewal
or subject to less favorable terms and conditions of occupancy
compared to other tenants.

The Court heard the parties on the pending motion and took the
matter under advisement.  

Judge Casper denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
She concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to make the initial
showing of ascertainability.  Even if they had succeeded, however,
they have also failed to satisfy Rule 23(a) and (b).

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/D62cJH from Leagle.com.

Danyela Schonton, Sergio Luciano Schonton, Jehozadak Sanches Alves
Pereira, Missieli Mason Souza, Ivonete Maximiano, Jasson Da Silva,
Vinicios Jordao, Kwame Boadi Acheampong & Diane Souza Hugueney,
Plaintiffs, represented by Ludovino P. Gardini --
info@gardinilaw.com -- Perez Gardini LLC, Stacey B. Marmorstein,
Perez Gardini LLC, Craig J. Tiedemann, Tiedemann Law Firm, Hector
E. Pineiro & Robert A. Scott, Law Office of Hector E. Pineiro, PC.

Marcelo Ricardo Souza, Luiz Silva & Leonicio Silva, Plaintiffs,
represented by Stacey B. Marmorstein, Perez Gardini LLC, Craig J.
Tiedemann, Tiedemann Law Firm, Ludovino P. Gardini, Perez Gardini
LLC & Robert A. Scott, Law Office of Hector E. Pineiro, PC.

MPA Granada Highlands LLC & Metropolitan Properties of America,
Inc., doing business as, Defendants, represented by Andrew C.
Pickett , Jackson Lewis PC, Matthew Stephen Sheldon , Goodwin
Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas J. Hoffman , Jackson Lewis PC,
James W. McGarry , Goodwin Procter, LLP & Jonathan R. Shank ,
Jackson Lewis PC.

Jeffrey J. Cohen, Marisa V. Cohen, Paula Nigro & Jacqueline Motta,
Defendants, represented by Andrew C. Pickett, Jackson Lewis PC,
Douglas J. Hoffman, Jackson Lewis PC & Jonathan R. Shank, Jackson
Lewis PC.


MUELLER WATER: Faces Chapman Suit Over Undisclosed Warranty Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLEN CHAPMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MUELLER WATER PRODUCTS, INC., GREGORY E. HYLAND, J.
SCOTT HALL, EVAN L. HART, and MARIETTA EDMUNDS ZAKAS, Case No.
1:19-cv-03260 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019), accuses the Defendants of
violating securities laws.

Mr. Chapman alleges that the Defendants fail, among other things,
to disclose to investors that the Company lacked adequate testing
for product quality, and that certain products with radio
components were susceptible to fail prematurely.  As a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur increased expenses,
including warranty costs, he says.

Mueller Water Products is incorporated under the laws of Delaware
with its principal executive offices located in Atlanta, Georgia.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Mueller Water Products operates in two business segments:
Infrastructure and Technologies.  Infrastructure, formerly known as
Mueller Co., manufactures valves for water and gas systems, fire
hydrants, and a broad line of pipe repair products.  Technologies,
formerly known as Mueller Technologies, offers residential and
commercial water metering, water leak detection, and pipe condition
assessment products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212)682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com


MYLAN: Must Face Class Action Over EpiPen, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Mylan must face a class-action lawsuit over its lifesaving allergy
treatment EpiPen, a judge ruled, according to Bloomberg.

Although the lawsuit will move forward, a judge narrowed the scope
of it.

Mylan still must face claims that it used anticompetitive tactics
to block the introduction of a rival's epinephrine product and
artificially inflated the price of the product in violation of
antitrust laws. But the judge dismissed charges that the company
made misleading statements, didn't disclose regulatory risks and
fixed prices for some generic drugs.

Plaintiffs claimed Mylan "blocked Sanofi from accessing a
significant portion of the market for epinephrine autoinjectors."

The lawsuit "adequately alleges both harm to competition in the
relevant market and the predominance of anticompetitive effects,"
U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled. [GN]


NCAA: Banks Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Banks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01599-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 22,
2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of California State University, Northridge ("CSUN")
student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other CSUN football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit, asserts the complaint.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former CSUN football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

Plaintiff Rodney Banks is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Texas.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEA-ALASKA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Crockett Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carol Carman, Timothy C. Christopherson, Donn Liston,
Kathryn McCollum, Dolores McKee and David Nees filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Tracy Crockett, et al. v.
Nea-Alaska, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00179-JWS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska, Anchorage.

The nature of suit is stated as constitutionality of state
statutes.

The appellate case is captioned as Tracy Crockett, et al. v.
Nea-Alaska, et al., Case No. 19-35299, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 13, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 11, 2019;

   -- Appellants Carol Carman, Timothy C. Christopherson, Donn
      Liston, Kathryn McCollum, Dolores McKee and David Nees'
      opening brief is due on July 22, 2019;

   -- Appellees Tyler E. Andrews, Mila Cosgrove, Lee Holen,
      Mantanuska-Susitna Borough School District,
      Matanuska-Susitna Education Association, Matthew McSorley,
      National Education Association, Nea-Alaska, Lon Needles and
      Jean M. Ward's answering brief is due on August 20, 2019;
      and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants KATHRYN MCCOLLUM, DAVID NEES, CAROL CARMAN,
DOLORES MCKEE, DONN LISTON and TIMOTHY C. CHRISTOPHERSON, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Talcott J. Franklin, Esq.
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN P.C.
          1920 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 326-5349
          E-mail: alexander@talcottfranklin.com

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940

               - and -

          John B. Thorsness, Esq.
          CLAPP, PETERSON, TIEMESSEN, THORSNESS & JOHNSON LLC
          711 H Street
          Anchorage, AK 99501-3454
          Telephone: (907) 272-9272
          E-mail: jbt@cplawak.com

Defendants-Appellees NEA-ALASKA, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, as representative of the class of all chapters and
affiliates of NEA-Alaska, and NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION are
represented by:

          Eric P. Brown, Esq.
          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: ebrown@altshulerberzon.com
                  skronland@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altshulerberzon.com

Defendant-Appellee MANTANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, as
representative of the class of all school districts in the state of
Alaska, is represented by:

          Saul R. Friedman, Esq.
          JERMAIN DUNNAGAN & OWENS P.C.
          3000 A Street, Suite 300
          Anchorage, AK 99503
          Telephone: (907) 563-8844
          E-mail: sfriedman@jdolaw.com

Defendants-Appellees JEAN M. WARD, in their official capacities as
chair and board members of the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, LEE
HOLEN, TYLER E. ANDREWS, MILA COSGROVE, MATTHEW MCSORLEY and LON
NEEDLES, in their official capacities as chair and board members of
the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, are represented by:

          Jeffrey G. Pickett, Esq.
          AGAK - OFFICE OF THE ALASKA
          ATTORNEY GENERAL (ANCHORAGE)
          1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 223-0809
          E-mail: bob.pickett@alaska.gov


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Final Settlement Hearing in Knurr Suit on June 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the
case, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., has set a final
settlement approval hearing on June 7, 2019.

On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming
Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven
Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK
securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and
misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital
ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as
a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term
contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber
ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.

On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting
claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the
Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital
ATK's Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger. The
complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at trial,
including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as deemed
appropriate by the Court.

On August 8, 2018, plaintiffs sought leave to file an additional
amended complaint; defendants filed an opposition. The parties
engaged in mediation on November 6, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the
parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the litigation
for $108 million subject to agreement on additional terms and to
court approval.

On February 22, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the parties'
proposed settlement and set a schedule for final settlement
proceedings, including a final approval settlement hearing on June
7, 2019.

Northrop Grumman said, "The company is also negotiating with and
pursuing coverage litigation against various of its insurance
carriers. The company intends vigorously to defend itself in
connection with these matters."

Northrop Grumman Corporation, a security company, provides products
in the areas of autonomous systems, cyber, space, strikes, and
logistics and modernizations in the United States, the Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company operates through four
segments: Aerospace Systems, Innovation Systems, Mission Systems,
and Technology Services. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded
in 1939 and is based in Falls Church, Virginia.


NUTANIX INC: May 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on April 1 disclosed that on March 29, 2019, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Nutanix, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NTNX). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is March 2, 2018 through
February 28, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Nutanix, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than Tuesday, May 28, 2019 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com

Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


NXIVM: Class Action Plaintiffs' Lawyer Provides Update
------------------------------------------------------
Frank Parlato, writing for ArtVoice, reports that the lawyer
representing the plaintiffs in the case Martinez & Leal v.
Brontman-Igtet, Index No. 517921/2018, Omar Rosales, provided an
update.

The case is in New York State Supreme Court and alleges that Nxivm
and its leaders, including Sara Bronfman-Igtet, engaged in a
longstanding pattern of fraud against students of Nxivm classes. It
is a class action lawsuit which means there is still time to join
in the lawsuit if you were a victim and paid money for Nxivm
classes. There is a chance to get your money back -- via Sara
Bronfman-Igtet. The following is a report by
Mr. Rosales. Mr. Rosales was also a Nxivm student for a time.

Attorney Omar Rosales
By Omar W. Rosales

THE GOOD

Acknowledgements

First off, I wanted to thank everyone that contributes to the Frank
Report, and most importantly, Frank Parlato. This website and forum
have become a force for justice and have led to many new leads and
a greater understanding of the criminal machine known as NXIVM and
Executive Success Programs (ESP), Inc. By discussing the issues and
hashing out different ideas, we have become a part of the narrative
and the history of the takedown of one of the largest and most
influential criminal enterprises in the history of New York -- the
Bronfman-Raniere Crime syndicate.

Second, it has been my great honor to represent each of the class
members as we seek our collective justice and day of reckoning for
the suffering, fraud, and crime committed by the senior members of
NXIVM including Keith Raniere, Clare Bronfman, Sara Bronfman-Igtet,
Kathy Russell, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman, and Allison Mack.

The journey has indeed been long, and we are not yet finished. Yet,
I can see the bright rays of the morning sun on the horizon.

The Lawsuit

The class action lawsuit is proceeding smoothly. At this point, we
have briefed the presiding Judge, the Hon. Paul Sweeney, on various
issues regarding the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The steps in a
class action lawsuit are: 1) surviving the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, 2) conducting discovery, 3) certifying the class, 4)
preparing for trial, 5) trial, and 6) judgment.

The Defense's motion to dismiss is quite pedestrian. As an attorney
that has litigated 10+ class actions against real companies such as
Apple, Microsoft, and AdTelamerica, I can state that this is the
weakest motion to dismiss that I have ever read. For your perusal,
the motion to dismiss is attached here:

Basically, twelve pages of nonsense. The Defense cannot dispute the
extensive criminal charges against NXIVM leadership or the copious
evidence of fraud and tax evasion. Nor can the Defense dispute the
guilty plea of Nancy Salzman and Lauren Salzman where they admit
that NXIVM and ESP, Inc., was indeed a racketeering enterprise. In
fact, more guilty pleas are expected.

So, where exactly is Sara Bronfman-Igtet? I think the more
important question is, why is she hiding? Would an innocent person
alternate their locations between England, France, and Morocco?
Wouldn't an innocent person instead visit their only 100% blood
sibling, under house arrest, and offer words of encouragement?

Is there a possibility that the Northern District of New York will
pick up the ball and attempt to clean its image with a prosecution
of Raniere and unindicted co-conspirators? Will the Albany County
DA or New York AG pick up the torch and finally take the last steps
to dismantle NXIVM? Who knows? So, why is Sara alternating her
locations between England, France, and Morocco? Hmmm…

THE BAD

Since taking on this case, I've had several interesting encounters
with what I call the Bronfman litigation machine and its smelly
tentacles/testicles. Since filing the lawsuit, I have:

Been followed by a PI (I encircled him and took pictures of him)
Had two credit card accounts hacked (someone called with my account
numbers and pretended to be me to get account info, but did not
know the passwords)
Had an old brokerage account hacked (see credit card hijinks
above)
Been threatened with a New York Bar complaint
Had someone pose as me and attempt to get my tax returns
And none of these things ever happened to me before! Coincidence?
Hmmm…

Luckily, I can assure you my paper trail is minimal and my life is
not super-exciting. I don't run up tabs at strip clubs, massage
parlors, escorts, etc. I didn't pay my way into my college or law
school (Vanderbilt and The University of Texas School of Law on my
own, thank you very much). And I don't purchase exotic weaponry or
have illegal shotguns, bump stocks, or fully automatic weapons in
my possession. So, fortunately for me, my life REALLY IS quite
mundane when it comes to nefarious activities. (Note: I have never
used the word 'nefarious' in a sentence as I didn't grow up in
1920s world of bootlegging, speakeasys, hideouts, or Tommy Guns).

So, please keep searching. Knock yourself out. You won't find
anything, because there is nothing there.  One thing you may not
understand about me is that I don't give up. I will find a way or
make one. And I will fight for you, for this class, for refunds,
against this beast, with my last breath.

THE UGLY

So, who exactly are these miscreants (I actually do like that word)
that are representing our very own on-the-lam heiress Sara
Bronfman? Here they are:

John J. McDonough. He is lead counsel for Sara. Although he has
never defended a class action lawsuit, he pretends to know
everything. Obnoxious and noxious, he does share some similarities
with Keith Raniere. Extreme litigation tactics including: witness
intimidation and harassment. Trying to hide evidence. Painting
critics as degenerates and criminals. Hmmm…sound familiar? There
is something interesting. McD's bio notes the following:

“High-net-worth individuals and celebrities hire John to resolve
private commercial litigation when confidentiality and discretion
are nearly as important as the ultimate resolution."

So, is McD working for Clare Bronfman also? Did Clare disclose this
to Judge Garaufis?

Rachel Bevans. The young acolyte. With three years of legal
experience. And never defended a class action lawsuit either. In
fact, Ms. Bevans was so confident of her legal abilities, she sent
this threatening document to my landlord:

Tell me, Ms. Bevans. On what basis are you threatening my landlord
and stating that the Court will hold them in Contempt – if
neither myself nor my landlord is a party to the lawsuit?

Then, she filed this doozy with the Court:  Notice of Objection.

In other words, the Bronfman Civil Trial Team doesn't want Judge
Sweeney to know about what is happening in the criminal case. I
wonder why???

SUMMARY

That is the latest in our quest to issue refunds to students. Knock
me down 6 times, I will get back up 7. We will not quit. We will
not waiver. We will prevail.

Thanks,

OWR [GN]


OHIO MULCH: Wolfe, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Wolfe, et al, On behalf of themselves
and other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. Ohio Mulch Supply, Inc., et al, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-1698-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to
      Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

      Flat Rate Driver Subclass:

      "all current and former drivers of Defendants who during the
      previous three years worked over 40 hours in any workweek who

      were compensated by a flat rate per delivery regardless of
      how many hours were worked"; and

      Hourly Rate Driver Subclass:

      "all current and former drivers of Defendants who during the

      previous three years worked over 40 hours in any workweek who

      were compensated at their normal hourly rate (i.e. straight
      time) for all hours worked per workweek"

      Collectively, the Flat Fee Driver Subclass and Hourly Rate
      Driver Subclass are referred to as the "216(b) Class" or
      "216(b) Class Members".

   2. approving the form and substance of an agreed-upon Notice
      of Collective Action Lawsuit;

   3. approving the form and substance of the Consent to Join;

   4. approving a 60-day period for individuals to return their
      Consent Forms to join the case from the date the Notice and
      Consent Form are sent;

   5. directing Defendants to provide names, last known address,
      phone numbers,, and location(s) worked for the putative
      collective class members, in Microsoft Office Excel format to

      Plaintiffs' Counsel no later than 14 days from the date this

      Stipulation is approved by the Court; and

   6. subject to Court approval of this Stipulation, directing
      Plaintiffs' Counsel to send the court-approved Notice Packet

      (containing the agreed-upon Notice and Consent Form) by mail,

      and nothing further, to the putative collective class members

      within seven days of receiving the information from
      Defendants.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated:

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

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614 787-4878
          Facsimile: 614 957-7515
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Jan E. Hensel, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          191 W. Nationwide Blvd, Ste. 300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614 227-4267
          E-mail: jan.hensel@dinsmore.com

ONONDAGA COUNTY: Class Action Certification Sought
--------------------------------------------------
In the case is captioned, J.B., a minor by and through her parent
and natural guardian TEREIA DUFF; J.M., a minor, by and through his
parent and natural guardian NICOLE SMITH, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
ONONDAGA COUNTY; RYAN MCMAHON, Onondaga County Executive in his
official capacity; EUGENE CONWAY, Onondaga County Sheriff, in his
official capacity, the Defendants, Case no. 5:19-cv-00137-LEK-TWD
(N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order on May
17, 2019, certifying the proceeding as a class action together with
such other relief as may be just.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua Cotter, Esq.
          Joshua T. Cotter, Esq.
          Samuel C. Young, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF
            CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC.
          221 South Warren Street, 3rd Fl.
          Syracuse, NY 13202

OXNARD SCHOOL: M.B. Seeks to Certify Class of Students
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit M.B., a minor, by and through her
guardian ad litem, F.B. et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. OXNARD SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04304-JAK-FFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 10, 2019,
for an order:

   1. certifying Plaintiffs' claims as a class action:

      "all students in Oxnard School District who have or may have
      disabilities and who have been or will be subject to the
      District's policies and procedures regarding identification
      and evaluation of students for purposes of providing services

      or accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities
      Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and/or
      the Americans with Disabilities Act"

   2. appointing Plaintiffs A.E., M.L., and D.C. as Class
      Representatives; and

   3. appointing Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The Plaintiffs' class claims arise under three statutes that
establish related standards: the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act ("IDEA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section
504).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Patricia Van Dyke, Esq.
          Janeen Steel, Esq.
          LEARNING RIGHTS LAW CENTER
          1625 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90015-4684
          Telephone: (213) 489-4030
          Facsimile: (213) 489-4033
          E-mail: janeen@learningrights.org
                  patsy@learningrights.org

               - and -

          Melissa Riess, Esq.
          Jessica Agatstein, Esq.
          Stuart Seaborn, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center St., 4th Fl.
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: sseaborn@dralegal.org
                  mriess@dralegal.org
                  jagatstein@dralegal.org

               - and -

          Shawna L. Parks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA L. PARKS
          4470 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 107-347
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Phone/Fax: (323) 389-9239
          E-mail: sparks@parks-law-office.com

PENGUIN NATURAL: Gallardo Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eddy Gallardo, on behalf of all similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff, v. Penguin Natural Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19STCV08035, (Cal. Super., March 8, 2019), seeks unpaid wages and
interest thereon for failure to pay for overtime and minimum wage
rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, and
failure to authorize or permit required rest periods.

The Plaintiff also seeks statutory penalties for Defendant's
failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment; injunctive
relief and other equitable relief; and reasonable attorney's fees
and costs and interest pursuant to the California labor Code, the
Unfair Business Practices provision of the California Business and
Professions Code, and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

Penguin -- https://www.penguinfoods.com -- is a food products
supplier where Gallardo worked at its Los Angeles County facility
as a production employee from approximately May 2016 to March 2018.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      Allen Feghali, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, California 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


PROGRESSIVE MAINTENANCE: Superintendents Seek Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Teodoro Garcia and William Martinez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE MAINTENANCE
LLC and PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT OF N.Y. CORP. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE
MANAGEMENT, and KEN MIDDLETON and ALLAN ARKER, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03518 (S.D. N.Y., April 21, 2019) is a
civil action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated building superintendents who worked for
Defendants, to recover overtime compensation owed to them pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

According to the complaint, throughout the entirety of their
employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs consistently worked more
than 40 hours each week, even though they were not exempt and they
were not paid overtime. The NYLL and Wage Theft Prevention Act
require employers to provide all employees with an accurate wage
statement each time they are paid. However, throughout the relevant
time period, Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the collective wages
without an accompanying statement that accurately listed the number
of overtime hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers worked as
building superintendents for Defendants.

Progressive Maintenance LLC is a domestic limited liability company
and was an "enterprise engaged in interstate commerce".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
     225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10007


RAY AND FRANK: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Fernandez and Rescalvo Mercenario (a/k/a Ricardo),
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. RAY AND FRANK LIQUOR STORE INC. (D/B/A RAY AND
FRANK'S LIQUOR STORE) and RAYMOND FRIAS, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03496 (S.D. N.Y., April 19, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. Plaintiffs worked
for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they
worked, notes the complaint.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a liquor store, located
at 706 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York 10019 under the name "Ray
and Frank's Liquor Store".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Battistini Action Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLO BATTISTINI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02718 (N.D. Ill., April 22,
2019) is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendants in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully placing through their agent(s), automated collection
calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the TCPA
and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The Defendants' telephone calls to Plaintiff utilizing an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or an artificial and/or prerecorded
voice message, for non-emergency purposes, and in the absence of
Plaintiff's express consent, invitation or permission, violated the
TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual who was at all relevant times residing
in Chicago Illinois.

RPM is a limited liability company of the State of Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David B. Levin, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
     Northbrook, IL 60062
     Phone: (224) 218-0882
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


RED HAT: Class Suits Related to IBM Merger Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Red Hat, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2019, that the class action suits
related to the company's merger with International Business
Machines Corporation (IBM) have been dismissed.

On October 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with International Business
Machines Corporation, a New York corporation ("IBM"), and Socrates
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of IBM ("Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things,
Sub will merge with and into the company, with Red Hat surviving as
a wholly-owned subsidiary of IBM (the "Merger").

The company's Board of Directors and the Board of Directors of IBM
each approved the Merger and the Merger Agreement, and the
company's stockholders approved the adoption of the Merger
Agreement at a special meeting of stockholders on January 16, 2019.
The transaction is expected to close in the latter half of 2019,
subject to certain conditions, including receipt of regulatory
approvals. Until the closing, the company will continue to operate
as an independent company.

Three putative class action complaints were filed against Red Hat
and its Board of Directors relating to the Merger with IBM. The
company received the following complaints, each filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware: Charles Orgel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red
Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 18, 2018), Michael Kent,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red
Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 19, 2018) and Christopher Nunn
Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Red Hat, Inc., et al. (filed December 21, 2018) (together, the
"Actions").

The complaints in the Actions alleged that the definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement") that was filed
with the SEC on December 12, 2018 omitted purportedly material
information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, rendering the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

On January 4, 2019, the parties reached an agreement whereby the
Actions were dismissed as moot in exchange for supplemental
disclosures filed by the Company. Those supplemental disclosures
were filed by the Company as definitive additional proxy soliciting
material on Schedule 14A with the SEC on January 4, 2019.

The Actions were dismissed on January 8, 2019 and January 9, 2019.
Plaintiffs in the Actions have reserved the right to seek an award
of attorneys' fees for causing the filing of the supplemental
disclosures.

Red Hat, Inc. provides open source software solutions to develop
and offer operating system, virtualization, management, middleware,
cloud, and storage technologies to various enterprises worldwide.
The company was formerly known as Red Hat Software, Inc. and
changed its name to Red Hat, Inc. in June 1999. Red Hat, Inc. was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina.


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA JOHNSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES LP and LVNV FUNDING LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00465-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as
class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

SANTEE COOPER: Failed to Disclose Project Status, Turka Says
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal securities class action complaint has been filed against
the South Carolina Public Service Authority and Lonnie N. Carter
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
case is captioned MURRAY C. TURKA, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC
SERVICE AUTHORITY and LONNIE N. CARTER, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01102-RMG (D.S.C., April 15, 2019).

This class action has been brought on behalf of purchasers of South
Carolina Public Service Authority mini-bonds between May 1, 2014
and July 31, 2017 for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule l0b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The mini-bonds were sold and marketed exclusively to
residents of South Carolina, customers of the South Carolina Public
Service Authority, and electric customers of the Bamberg Board of
Public Works, South Carolina and the City of Georgetown, South
Carolina.

In May 2008, SCANA Corporation and Santee Cooper reached agreement
as joint owners to build two new 1,117-megawatt AP1000 nuclear
reactors at the V.C. Summer site. The ownership interest was split
with SCANA taking a 55% ownership stake and Santee Cooper the
remaining 45% share. These two nuclear reactors would be the first
new nuclear power plants to be built in the Unites States since the
1980s.

If the nuclear project were completed by Jan. 1, 2021, SCANA and
Santee Cooper would qualify under the Energy Policy Act for nuclear
tax credits worth approximately $2.2 billion. Yet, the January 2021
goal for the completion of the project was always a pipedream.
Despite statements to the contrary, by at least 2015 the Nuclear
Project was hopelessly behind schedule. Still, executives at Santee
Cooper disclosed nothing of this to mini-bond investors.

Defendants knew that the nuclear project's failure would sacrifice
critical tax credits Santee Cooper would need to fulfill its debt
obligations. And Defendants knew that the information they kept
quiet was material to purchasers of Santee Cooper mini-bonds was
material. Despite this knowledge, Defendants chose to actively
conceal this information from Mini-Bond holders. Accordingly,
Plaintiff Murray Turka asserts that the Defendants have violated
the Securities Exchange Act by their failure to disclose this
material information to the investing public.

South Carolina Public Service Authority, a state-owned utility that
is also known as Santee Cooper, produces, distributes, and sells
electric power within the counties of Berkeley, Calhoun,
Charleston, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeburg, and
Sumter, South Carolina. Lonnie N. Carter served as President and
Chief Executive Officer of Santee Cooper during the Class Period.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


     William E. Hopkins, Esq.
     J. Clay Hopkins, Esq.
     HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC
     12019 Ocean Highway
     Post Office Box 1885
     Pawleys Island, SC 29585
     Telephone: (843) 314-4202
     E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com
     

             - and -


     Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
     James M. Ficaro, Esq.
     THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     22 Cassatt Avenue
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (610) 225-2677
     E-mail: cln@weiserlawfirm.com
             jmf@weiserlawfirm.com


SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Initial Public Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself
against a class action suit related to its initial public offering
(IPO).

Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for its IPO were named as
defendants in securities class actions purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's Class A common stock,
alleging violation of securities laws in connection with the IPO.

Snap said, "Management believes these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend them. Based on the preliminary
nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this matter
remains uncertain."

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

Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application
that helps people to communicate through short videos and images.
The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its
name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010
and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Child Welfare System Struggles to Meet Goals
------------------------------------------------------------
John Kelly, writing for The Chronicle of Social Change, reports
that South Carolina's child welfare system is struggling to meet
its goals under a class-action lawsuit settlement brought by
Children's Rights, a nonprofit litigator based in New York City.
Tennessee recently exited such a settlement with the same
organization after a nearly two-decade roller coaster ride.

It appears the former will attempt to learn directly from the
latter. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) announced that he
has tapped a senior Tennessee child welfare official to take over
his state's Department of Social Services (DSS).

Mike Leach, deputy commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Children's Services, will lead an agency presiding over troubling
trends in the state, as the number of children entering foster care
continues to rise.

Mike Leach spent the past 10 years at the Tennessee Department of
Children's Services, which recently exited a class-action lawsuit
settlement. Photo courtesy of South Carolina Governor's Office.
"This is a very important day," said McMaster, at an event
introducing Leach. "It is clear that transformative leadership is
required in South Carolina to resolve the daunting and frustrating
issues that the Department of Social Services faces."

Leach was only recently named deputy director in Tennessee, in May
of 2018, and spent the decade before that climbing the agency's
ladder. He started in 2008 as a program director for systems
integration, where he ran point on the initiatives specifically
related to Tennessee's class-action settlement in the Brian A case.
Leach then became director of the state's independent living
program, and more recently led its performance and quality
improvement division.

This year, Tennessee successfully exited the Brian A settlement, 19
years after Children's Rights took the state to court. The lawsuit
stemmed from struggles with high worker caseloads, and a lack of
foster home options that led to overuse of emergency shelters.

Those problems are also at the heart of Michelle H., the lawsuit
against South Carolina DSS that brought the system under a
settlement in 2016. Under the agreement, DSS agreed to address
staggering caseloads, improve its maltreatment investigation
practice, and reduce the number of young children placed into group
homes and other "congregate care" settings.

But DSS' struggle with workforce issues has remained. According to
recent reporting by The State, a local news site, nearly 1,000
full-time positions are unfilled at an agency with about 4,000
employees. Last November, frustrated with the pace of reform,
Children's Rights filed a contempt motion.

The situation worsened in early 2019 when legislative budget
leadership, angered over DSS' inability to answer certain
questions, refused to include funds related to the settlement in
the state's $9 billion budget.

Aside from the lawsuit, the state's foster care capacity trends are
alarming. The number of youth in foster care is up 47 percent since
2012, according to federal and state data collected for The
Chronicle of Social Change's "Who Cares" project. At the same time,
the number of foster homes in the state has declined, and the
number of youth living in congregate care has nearly doubled.

While the "Who Cares" project identified a massive shift toward
relying on relatives in many states, the percentage of South
Carolina foster youth placed with relatives has declined by 45
percent since 2012.

Leaders at Children's Rights gave Leach high marks as a candidate
to inherit these problems.

"Michael Leach has a clear passion for serving kids and families
and is committed to making the system better," said Litigation
Director Ira Lustbader, who serves as co-counsel on both
settlements. "We look forward to having [him] in South Carolina and
working to get a sufficient number of caseworkers and family
placements and for basic health care needs of this vulnerable group
of our children."

DSS' former director, Susan Alford, retired in July 2018. Joan
Meacham will remain as interim director until Leach is confirmed by
the State Senate. [GN]


SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Court Denies Bids to Exclude Expert Testimonies
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, GERALD ULIBARRI and WHITE RIVER ROYALTIES, LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHLAND ROYALTY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. GERALD
ULIBARRI, Plaintiff, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case Nos. 1:16-cv-215-RB-JHR, 1:18-cv-294-RB-SCY (D. N.M.), Judge
Robert C. Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Proposed
Opinion Testimony of Defendant's Expert Mark Lambert; and (ii)
denied as moot Southland's Conditional Daubert Motion to Exclude
Testimony of Donald A. Phend, CPA.

Southland holds the lessee's interest in numerous oil and gas lease
agreements under which it produces natural gas from "gas only"
wells in New Mexico.  The Plaintiffs hold the lessor's interest in
several such lease agreements.  They allege that, since Jan. 1,
2015, Southland has been consistently underpaying royalties it owes
on the sales proceeds of natural gas and related products that
Southland produces pursuant to their lease agreements.  The
Plaintiffs argue that Southland has breached the lease agreements
by engaging in a common method of calculating royalty payments that
(1) calculates a value for the royalties that is substantially less
than the sale proceeds received on the sale of gas, including
residue gas, the natural gas liquid products, and condensate, which
came from the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' Southland Wells;
and also (2) improperly deducts costs for gathering, compression,
processing, Natural Gas Processors Tax, natural gas liquids
transportation and fractionation, and other costs and expenses.

The Plaintiffs seek to bring the action on behalf of a putative
class including all individuals and entities who have been paid
royalties by Southland at any time since Jan. 1, 2015, and hold a
lessor's interest in a lease agreement that contains one of four
different types of royalty payment provisions. The four types of
royalty provisions that delineate the proposed class include:
"proceeds royalty provisions," "gross proceeds royalty provisions,"
"greater of market value or gross proceeds royalty provisions," and
"gross proceeds without deduction of post-production costs royalty
provisions."

In this contract dispute over oil and gas royalty payments, the
Court takes up the Parties' competing motions to exclude expert
testimony in advance of a class certification hearing.  The main
issue before the Court is whether consideration of how natural gas
products are processed, transported, and sold after extraction from
specific wells is relevant to the Court's determination of whether
class certification is proper in this case.

In the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Proposed Opinion Testimony
of Defendant's Expert Mark Lambert, they argue that Mr. Lambert's
opinions regarding well-specific natural gas quality and
composition, post-production activities, and midstream gas
processing are not "relevant to any issue related to class
certification."  Southland argues that it specifically sought Mr.
Lambert's testimony because the Plaintiffs' proffered expert in oil
and gas royalty accounting, Donald Phend, offers his opinions on
the same topics.  

In its conditional Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Donald A.
Phend, CPA, Southland urges the Court to exclude Mr. Phend's
testimony if it excludes Mr. Lambert's testimony.  The Plaintiffs
counter that the statements in Mr. Phend's expert report regarding
well conditions and gas production are not opinions but background
facts which cannot be disputed and will assist the Court in
understanding how the gas produced from the Class members' wells
was treated, processed, and sold.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and relevant law,
Judge Brack finds that the testimony of both proffered expert
witnesses is admissible at the class certification stage.  He (i)
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Proposed Opinion
Testimony of Defendant's Expert Mark Lambert; and (ii) denied as
moot Southland's Conditional Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of
Donald A. Phend, CPA.

The Judge will admit Mr. Lambert's testimony and thus need not take
up Southland's conditional motion to exclude Mr. Phend's testimony
based on lack of qualification to opine on engineering issues.
Given that Mr. Phend's accounting expertise is specific to oil and
gas production and he has decades of experience in the field, Mr.
Phend's various statements regarding oil and gas production that
inform his opinions on natural gas royalty accounting are
admissible.

In addition, the Judge finds that asking the Court to exclude Mr.
Lambert's testimony as irrelevant before ruling on the
certification issue, however, is akin to asking the Court to adopt
Plaintiffs' preferred contract interpretation before hearing the
evidence and arguments on both sides.  Disagreement over the law
relevant to the Court's class certification decision is not a
strong argument for excluding the testimony of an expert witness.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/9ofKfh from Leagle.com.

Gerald Ulibarri, Plaintiff, represented by A. Michael Chapman,
Newbold Chapman & Geyer, P.C., George Barton --
gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. &
Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George
A. Barton, PC.

Southland Royalty Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew A.
Zidovsky -- mzidovsky@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A.,
Sharon Theresa Shaheen -- sshaheen@montand.com -- Montgomery &
Andrews & Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, P.C., pro hac vice.


STEINHOFF INTERNATIONAL: VEB Temporarily Suspends Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fin24 reports that Steinhoff announced on April 2 that it had
reached an agreement with an investment group suing it and that
legal action would again be temporarily halted for six weeks.

Investment group VEB/European Investors sued the embattled
multinational retailer in a Dutch court over its financial
statements and prospectuses which VEB says are incorrect and
misleading.

Steinhoff is domiciled in the Netherlands.

This is the second time that VEB has temporarily suspended its
court action.

In an update to shareholders, Steinhoff said that "the suspension
will grant Steinhoff time to continue the ongoing restructuring of
its business, make further progress with the internal
investigations and finalise its 2017 and 2018 financial
statements".

"VEB/European Investors agreed to the extension because it further
supports the stabilisation of the company, which is in the
interests of both the current and former shareholders of
Steinhoff."

The suspension will now last until May 15.

"After the suspension, VEB/European Investors and Steinhoff are
both free to continue the legal proceedings or to reach a
settlement for affected shareholders through negotiations," said
Steinhoff. [GN]


STORED VALUE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Humphrey EFTA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Republic Bank & Trust Company and Stored Value Cards,
Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled
AMBER HUMPHREY, on behalf of herself and the class v. STORED VALUE
CARDS, D/B/A NUMI FINANCIAL, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01050, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at
Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge James S.
Gwin granted in November 2018 the Plaintiff's motion to certify the
three proposed classes: a nationwide class for the Plaintiff's
claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and two
Ohio classes for Ohio law conversion and unjust enrichment claims.

Ms. Humphrey brings the class action complaint against the
Defendants alleging that they wrongfully issued unsolicited and
activated debit cards to her and the class members.  She says this
distribution of unsolicited and activated debit cards was illegal
and caused them to suffer fees they had never agreed to.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Stored Value Cards, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 19-303, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent AMBER HUMPHREY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, fka Amber Horvath, is represented by:

          Stephen M. Bosak, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          Ryan M. Gembala, Esq.
          O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          E-mail: sbosak@omdplaw.com
                  MDooley@omdplaw.com
                  rgembala@omdplaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners STORED VALUE CARDS, INC., dba Numi
Financial, and REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST COMPANY are represented by:

          Terry W. Posey, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE
          10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400
          Miamisburg, OH 45342
          Telephone: (937) 443-6857
          E-mail: Terry.Posey@ThompsonHine.com


SUNOCO: 3 Chester County Residents Settle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hurdle, writing for State Impact Pennsylvania, reports that
three Chester County residents who sued Sunoco over its
construction of the Mariner East pipelines have agreed to settle on
undisclosed terms.

Two of the plaintiffs, Russell and Mary March, live on Lisa Drive,
a suburban development that became a poster child for opponents of
the pipelines after sinkholes appeared at a construction site there
in late 2017 and again in the early months of 2018 and 2019. The
third plaintiff, Jared Savitski, lives on a nearby street that is
also along the pipeline route.

Their attorney, Andrew Neuwirth, confirmed the suit had been
settled, but declined to discuss its terms or say why his clients
had agreed to settle. "Neither I nor my clients are permitted to
discuss terms," he said.

In the suit, filed with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in
March 2018, the plaintiffs accused Sunoco of failing to adequately
study the unstable local geology that led to the sinkholes; causing
an underground explosion of drilling fluid next to the Marches'
home; damaging their home, and risking a catastrophe by building
the new pipelines close to the Mariner East 1 line that was already
carrying natural gas liquids.

The suit accused Sunoco of negligence and several other counts in
its construction practices.

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
the settlement.

In its formal response to the suit, filed last October, Sunoco
admitted that an "above ground subsidence occurred" on or around
Nov. 11, 2017, and said the hole was "immediately investigated and
stabilized."

But it denied building the pipeline at Lisa Drive, in West
Whiteland Townsip, without being fully aware of the geology there,
and denied the plaintiffs' claims that it knew or should have known
that using horizontal directional drilling in the fragile geology
would likely result in an explosion of drilling fluids.

And the company denied that the suit was a legitimate class
action.

Rich Raiders, an environmental and land-use attorney who is not
connected with the case, said Sunoco's decision to settle, despite
its denials, may show that it accepts the merits of the plaintiffs'
case, or that it didn't want the negative publicity of taking the
case to trial after two turbulent years of spills and shutdowns
during pipeline construction.

Sunoco's public reputation in Pennsylvania has taken a heavy
battering during the last two years of construction, and it's
likely the company has decided it's time to try to mend fences with
the public, and is beginning to do that by backing down from a
legal fight with the Lisa Drive residents, he said.

"The court of public opinion is going to hold that there was merit,
regardless of what the court of law says," said Raiders, who has
clients who are fighting Sunoco over other aspects of the pipeline
project.

"How else can they minimize the damage caused by all this? The only
way they can really minimize this stuff is to keep the neighbors
happy."

The appearance of sinkholes in the back yards of several Lisa Drive
homes also prompted a Public Utility Commission judge in May 2018
to temporarily halt both the construction of the new pipelines and
the operation of the existing line at that location, saying that
the combined operation risked an explosion that would endanger
public safety.

In January, the PUC halted the operation of Mariner East 1 again
after a new sinkhole appeared yards from where the others had
opened up in 2017 and 2018. [GN]


T ROWE PRICE: 401(k) Plan Related Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself from a class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, over its 401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and
prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all
participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan
from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The plaintiffs are
seeking certification of the complaint as a class action. T. Rowe
Price believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously
defending the action.

T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the early stages of
litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome or whether it
will have a material negative impact on our financial results, or
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any
negative outcome."

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

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager.
The firm provides its services to individuals, institutional
investors, retirement plans, financial intermediaries, and
institutions. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc.
and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES: Faces Vannucci et al. Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C., and its parent company,
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned CARMILO VANNUCCI and
ROCKELL BOGAN, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES,
L.C. and ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-05076-TLB (W.D. Ark., April 15, 2019). Vannucci et al.
assert that Texarkana has violated FLSA by failing to pay wages.

Founded in 2000, Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C. owns and
operates a mental health facility in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The
company provides psychiatric and behavioral health services for
children/adolescents and adults. The company also provides
psychiatric review and consultation, medication management, case
management, psychological testing, and recreational activities, as
well as individual, group, and family therapy services; and
psychiatric assessment and evaluation, and medication management
services.

Headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee, and established in January
2005, Acadia Healthcare aims to develop and operate a network of
behavioral health facilities across the country.  Acadia provides
psychiatric and chemical dependency services to its patients in a
variety of settings, including inpatient psychiatric hospitals,
specialty treatment facilities, residential treatment centers,
outpatient clinics and therapeutic school-based programs. At Dec.
31, 2018, Acadia ran a network of 583 behavioral healthcare
facilities with approximately 18,100 beds in 40 states, the United
Kingdom and Puerto Rico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 221-0088


TRIGREEN EQUIPMENT: Doherty Files Class Action Under FACTA
----------------------------------------------------------
Tina Doherty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trigreen Equipment, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00417, (N.D. Al., March 8, 2019) seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant sells and services land equipment, including tractors,
lawn care equipment and utility vehicles. On July 19 2018, Doherty
purchased certain items from Trigreen's store located in Athens AL
using her debit card. She claims that the electronically printed
paper receipt reflected the entire expiration date of the debit
card, thereby compromising her account's security. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Festa, Esq.
      HOWARD - FESTA, LLP
      P.O. Box 1903
      Mobile, AL 36633
      Tel: (251) 431-9364
      Fax: (251) 431-9368
      Email: jfesta@howardfesta.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com

             - and -

      Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
      IJH LAW
      14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (786) 351-8709
      Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com


TULSA INSPECTION: Flynn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00230 (W.D. Tex., March 8, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Tulsa is an oil and gas associated services company specializing in
pipeline inspection, pipeline integrity services, and
non-destructive examination services to the oil and gas industry.
Flynn, an oil field worked, claims that he was paid a salary
regardless of the number of hours he worked in a day without any
overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


UNION LOCAL 237: Wynn Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kevin Fulton, Awilda Guzman, Jose Otero, John Williams
and Brian Wynn filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion
and order issued on March 13, 2019, in their lawsuit entitled Wynn,
et al. v. Union Local 237, I.B.T, Case No. 17-cv-3167, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover retroactive and prospective lost wage damages,
reimbursable expenses, attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant through their agents,
servants, and/or employees, violated the Plaintiffs' rights as
protected under Title VII, and violated the Plaintiffs' rights as
protected under the New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative
Code.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has a policy
and/or practice which disparately impacted Black and other Minority
employees, when it came to the adequacy of their pay; and their
right to receive commensurate pay as Plasterer Tenders/Plasterer
Helpers.

The appellate case is captioned as Wynn, et al. v. Union Local 237,
I.B.T, Case No. 19-962, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Brian Wynn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Awilda Guzman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Jose Otero, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; John Williams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
Kevin Fulton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Lee S. Nuwesra, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEE NUWESRA
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 370-8707
          E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net

Defendant-Appellee Union Local 237, I.B.T, is represented by:

          John H. Byington, III, Esq.
          ARCHER, BYINGTON, GLENNON & LEVINE, LLP
          1 Huntington Quadrangle
          P.O. Box 9064
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 249-6565
          Facsimile: (631) 777-6906
          E-mail: jbyington@abgllaw.com


VIP KITCHEN: Zhang Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
VIP Kitchen LLC trading as VIP Restaurant and Rong Bin Zheng for
alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and of
the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). The case is
captioned CHUN XIN ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against VIP KITCHEN LLC doing
business as VIP RESTAURANT, and RONG BIN ZHENG, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-09961 (D.N.J., April 15, 2019).

Plaintiff Chun Xin Zhang alleges that the Defendants have willfully
and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and
NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.  Plaintiff
alleges pursuant to the FLSA, that he is entitled to recover from
the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs. Pursuant to NJWHL, Plaintiff seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of trade, liquidated
damages equal to the sum of unpaid minimum and overtime,
prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees
and costs.

VIP Restaurant is a Chinese restaurant located at 202B Main St,
Lakewood, New Jersey. Owner-operator Rong Bin Zheng manages the
day-to-day operations of the restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ge Qu, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Telephone: (718) 353-8588
     Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
     E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com


WESTPAC: Court Rebukes Hasty Commencement of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirsty Sutherland, Esq., and David Hertzberg, Esq., of Corrs
Chambers Westgarth, in an article for Lexology, report that the
Federal Court has issued a rebuke of Maurice Blackburn's hasty
commencement of a consumer class action against Westpac. The
judgment is a timely reminder, in a post-Financial Services Royal
Commission climate, that the costs and burdens associated with
class actions procedure should not be imposed on defendants until
plaintiffs' claims are properly articulated.

In reasons published on 25 March 2019 in the Tate v Westpac Banking
Corporation proceeding, the Honourable Justice Perram declined to
make a common fund order. His Honour did so on the basis that the
Tates had not yet articulated their claim.

In the Federal Court of Australia, there are two ways to commence
proceedings:

   1. By originating application accompanied by a 'concise
statement'; or
   2. By originating application accompanied by statement of claim
or affidavit.

In commercial and corporations matters, the Court encourages
parties to use the more informal concise statement process.

One perceived advantage of the concise statement process is that it
quickly brings the dispute before a judge, which facilitates the
early identification of the real issues in dispute. It also allows
faster commencement of proceedings. In a highly competitive class
action market, the attraction of using the concise statement
process to quickly commence proceedings is readily apparent.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Class Actions Practice Note states that
the concise statement process will 'usually' be inappropriate for
use in class actions. Nonetheless, in Tate v Westpac Banking
Corporation, the Applicants commenced proceedings by way of concise
statement.

His Honour was less than impressed by this course, noting that:
“In doing so, [the Applicants] have shirked the burden of
articulating what their case is."

His Honour observed that the procedural mechanisms for case
managing class actions -- which include making and communicating
common fund orders, opt out notices and class closure orders -- are
all “very expensive and burdensome" and should not be imposed
until class members properly articulate their claim in accordance
with the Class Actions Practice Note.

Accordingly, his Honour ordered that the plaintiffs file a
Statement of Claim and postponed the question of whether to make a
common fund order and orders for discovery until after the
plaintiffs had done so.

In a climate where firms are rushing to commence class actions, in
part because of an attitude that the first to commence is the most
likely to survive a beauty parade, Perram J's comments are a
welcome reminder that the 'class action machinery' should not be
imposed on defendants lightly.

Prosecuting a class action takes time. Plaintiffs rush it at their
own risk. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: Robbins Geller to Lead in Labul Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY LABUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., BRADLEY S.
JACOBS, JOHN J. HARDIG, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-CV-2062 (VLB) (D.
Conn.), Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut granted the motion of the Pension Funds for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and approved its selection of
Robbins Geller as the Lead Counsel.

On Dec. 14, 2018, Mr. Labul sued the Defendants, alleging that the
Defendants defrauded investors in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  He brought the
action on behalf of himself and all others who purchased or
otherwise acquired XPO securities between Feb. 26, 2014 and Dec.
12, 2018, inclusive.

XPO is a corporation that provides transportation and logistics
services to customers in various industries in the United States
and internationally.  The Plaintiff acquired XPO common stock
allegedly at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
He claims the stock he owned lost value and caused him damage when
a report revealed the untruth of XPO's representations as to its
financial stability and success.

The Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendant
XPO made materially false and misleading statements regarding its
business, operational and compliance policies.  He alleges the
beginning of the Class Period on Feb. 23, 2015, when XPO filed an
Annual Report Form 10-K with the SEC, reporting a net loss of $63.6
million, or $2 per diluted share, on revenue of $2.36 billion for
2014, compared to a net loss of $48.53 million, or $2.26 per
diluted share, on revenue of $702.3 million for 2013.  It also
reported its debt obligations and estimated future amortization
expense for amortizable assets for the next five years.

The Plaintiff alleges that the statements in XPO's 10-Ks were
materially false and misleading and failed to disclose that: (i)
XPO's highly touted aggressive M&A strategy had yielded only
minimal returns to the Company; (ii) XPO was utilizing improper
accounting practices to mask its true financial condition,
including inter alia, under-reporting of bad debts and aggressive
amortization assumptions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading.

On Dec. 14, 2018, Mr. Labul filed the action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired XPO
securities between Feb. 26, 2014 and Dec. 12, 2018, seeking to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against XPO and the Individual Defendants.   The same
day, he published notice of the action.

On Feb. 12, 2019, six putative Plaintiffs moved for appointment as
the Lead Plaintiff and for appointment of their counsel as the Lead
Counsel.  As competing motions were filed, one party withdrew her
motion recognizing that other parties had a greater financial stake
in the action.  Three others filed notices of non-opposition to the
competing motions in recognition of the fact that other parties had
a greater stake, with Mr. Cooper and Riviera Beach Police Pension
Fund expressing their continued willingness and ability to serve as
the Lead Plaintiff should the Court determine that the other Lead
Plaintiff movants with larger losses are not appropriate class
representatives

Motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff by Local 817 IBT
Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local
282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund ("Pension
Funds"); and the Trustees of Local 464A Funds United Food and
Commercial Workers Union Pension Fun and Local 464A United Food and
Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund ("Local
646A"), remain.

On Feb. 27, 2019, Defendants XPO and Jacobs filed a Notice of
Relevant Information Concerning the Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
and Counsel, advising the Court that they believed the Pension
Funds implicates a significant issue that warrants careful
consideration at this time.  The Notice explained an alleged
ongoing effort by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to
unionize XPO facilities and a lawsuit pending in Illinois state
court against the Teamsters concerning trespass at an XPO facility
near Chicago.  The Pension Funds filed additional memoranda in
response to Defendants' Notice and in further support of their
motion for appointment.  Local 464A also filed opposition and reply
memoranda in support of its motion for appointment.

Judge Bryant holds that the Pension Funds have made a sufficient
preliminary showing of satisfaction of the Rule 23 requirements.
This, along with the fact that they claim the greatest loss,
entitles the Pension Funds to a rebuttable presumption that they
are the most adequate Lead Plaintiff under the PSLRA.  The Pension
Funds claim to have suffered the greatest losses of the movants,
approximately $1,222,938 under both the "last in, first out" and
"first in, first out" calculations.

The Pension Funds have chosen Robbins Geller to prosecute the case
on behalf of the class.  Robbins Geller has submitted a firm resume
setting forth its extensive experience in prosecuting securities
fraud actions.  Based on its proven track record as counsel in
securities class actions, Robbins Geller is approved as the Lead
Counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Bryant granted the motion of the Pension
Funds for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff for the proposed Class
in the action, and approved its selection of Robbins Geller as the
Lead Counsel for the Class.  Further, she denied as moot the
motions for appointment of Bradley Cooper, Riviera Beach Police
Pension Fund, and XPO Investor Group.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2019 Ruling and Order is
available at https://is.gd/165AIH from Leagle.com.

Larry Labul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins --
shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David
R. Schaefer -- dschaefer@bswlaw.com -- Brenner, Saltzman &
Wallman.

XPO Logistics, Inc. & Bradley S. Jacobs, Defendants, represented by
Daniel Sinnreich -- dsinnreich@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Evan A. Kubota --
ekubota@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison,
LLP, pro hac vice, James I. Glasser, Wiggin & Dana & Martin
Flumenbaum -- mflumenbaum@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice.

Bradley Cooper, Movant, represented by Brian P. Murray --
bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Elena Paraskeva, Movant, represented by William H. Narwold, Motley
Rice LLC.

Local #817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension
Fund & Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust
Fund, Movants, represented by Christopher M. Barrett, Izard,
Kindall & Raabe, LLP.

Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Pension and
Welfare Service Benefit Funds, Movant, represented by George C.
Springer, Jr., Rogin Nassau LLC.

XPO Investor Group, Movant, represented by Shannon L. Hopkins, Levi
& Korsinsky, LLP.


ZAPPOS: Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Data Breach Case Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Hudgins, writing for Legaltech News, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to settle a circuit split concerning if
actual and immediate damages are needed to adequately allege an
injury from a data breach, leaving some jurisdictions hotspots for
data breach class action filings because of a lower threshold for
standing.

On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court declined Zappos' petition for
writ of certiorari in a case involving the 2012 data breach of
Zappos' computer systems that led to hackers stealing 24 million
customers' names, email and physical addresses and partial credit
card information. Although no fraudulent charges were reported by
breached customers, class action suits followed after Zappos
revealed the breach. The central issue of the case was whether
individuals whose data is breached have Article III standing
without concrete injury.

Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that
imminent risk of identity theft from the breach was enough to
establish standing to sue for customers who weren't fraud victims.
That view differs with the higher bar needed to adequately allege
injury in the First, Second, Fifth and Eight circuits.

The Supreme Court's inaction on the matter means there won't be a
uniform view anytime soon, and the Ninth, Third, Sixth, Seventh and
D.C. circuits will likely see the most fillings for class action
data breach lawsuits.

Plaintiffs will want to bring class actions in circuits "where the
courts recognize you have standing without showing you suffered
actual losses, monetary or otherwise," said Jones Walker partner
and privacy and data security team co-chair Andy Lee. "It's
geographical now, it has been, that's because the split has been
there for a while in terms of history from the last 10, 12 years.
This has been sent up to the Supreme Court a couple of times and it
hasn't accepted cert yet."

The circuit courts' varying decisions is partially based on the
U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 Spokeo v. Robins ruling, which held
Article III standing requires concrete harm.

Fox Rothschild U.S. chief privacy officer and partner Mark McCreary
said the Spokeo ruling was a "big deal" that hasn't translated over
to data breach litigation. "There have been courts that have leaned
toward allowing speculative risk causes of action, such as a
heightened risk of future identity theft, and permitting standing
for those cases," McCreary said.  

Plaintiffs attorney and founder of Edelson law firm Jay Edelson
said litigating breach cases is less a question of standing but
damages.

"Standing is a jurisdictional requirement and Spokeo was pretty
clear that you don't need to have out-of-pocket harm to have
standing in court," Edelson noted.

"If a company promises to deliver a product with a certain amount
of security and they didn't, the consumer overpaid for that. . . .
That's how they've been harmed. To us that's the best damages
theory," he added. [GN]


ZESTFINANCE INC: Sued Over Excessive Pay Day Loan Interest Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Brueggemann, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that while
it awaits the results of an appeal, ZestFinance -- a company
founded by the former chief information officer of Google -- is
facing another claim over payday loans that allegedly featured
triple-digit interest rates.

The most recent lawsuit was filed by a Houston woman in Los Angeles
federal court against ZestFinance Inc.; its founder, former Google
executive Douglas Merrill; and BlueChip Financial, claiming the
defendants engaged in making so-called payday loans at excessive
interest rates.

The Houston woman's lawsuit is similar to another woman's class
action suit that was filed earlier in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the same defendants that
claims she was charged excessive interest rates on payday loans
involving a Native American tribe.

In the Washington case, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Bryan
rejected motions by the defendants to require the woman, Teresa
Titus, to go through arbitration, allowing the case to proceed in
court.

In their motion, the defendants argued that the loan agreements
specified that any dispute would go to arbitration. Titus argued
that the arbitration clause in the loan is unenforceable because it
circumvented federal and state laws.

The issue is on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Titus' suit alleges that the defendants are part of a "rent-a-tribe
scheme" for making payday loans.

Non-tribal entities ZestFinance and Merrill allegedly provided the
capital, marketing, underwriting and other resources for BlueChip
Financial, doing business as Spotloan.

Spotloan is organized under the laws of the Turtle Mountain band of
Chippewa Indians and makes usurious loans to Washington residents
and to persons located throughout the United States, the suit
alleges.

The suit further alleges that, under a rent-a-tribe scheme, a
payday lender -- typically one that does most of its lending over
the internet -- affiliates with a Native American tribe to
circumvent federal law.

The suit alleges that borrowers were charged rates above what is
allowed in Washington – as high as 490% annual interest.

"Construing the contract as a whole, giving meaning to each
provision, it appears that the intent of the contract is that the
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians law applies, to the
exclusion of federal and state law, except where those laws are
specifically mentioned as applying to the contract," Bryan said in
his court ruling denying arbitration.

Bryan wrote that the defendants' "choice-of-forum and choice-of-law
clauses operate as a prospective waiver of a party's right to
pursue federal statutory remedies, and so the arbitration clause is
invalid." [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to lift stay remains pending in the bankruptcy cases of
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants
who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter,
"Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in
the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion").  Under
relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of
the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against
D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action.  In
their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the
stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate
entities as defendants in their respective California state court
asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance
policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate
entities.  The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as
an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things,
insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the
D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates.

"Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the
assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well.  For this and
other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion
to lift stay.

"After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No.
07-12776, issued an order lifting the stay.  In the order, the
court permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United States
appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay.

"In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court
order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law
to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision.  On
appeal the district court noted that the law requires consideration
of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims
to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining
insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay.  Among other
things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to explain
why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate their
claims before the other claimants whose claims remained subject to
the stay.  The district court remanded the case for further
proceedings.  It is uncertain whether such further proceedings on
the lift stay will take place.

"The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached
out to each other to determine if there is any interest in pursuing
a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and D/C
bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies are
concerned.  If such discussions take place, they may take the form
of a mediation or other format and involve some form of resolution
of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's Fund insurance
policies for Kaanapali's various and future insurance claims.
Kaanapali may consider entering into such discussions, but there is
no assurance that such discussions will take place or prove
successful in resolving any of the claims in whole or in part."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/7xmBfm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Williams Industrial Unit Defends PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that it intends to "vigorously
defend" all currently active asbestos-related actions, all without
liability.  The Company also said it does not anticipate that any
of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

The Company states, "A former operating unit of the Company has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits.  Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever
mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the
material that allegedly caused the injury underlying these
actions.

"In 2006, the Company filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The bankruptcy court's discharge order
issued upon the Company's emergence from bankruptcy in January 2008
extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had filed
asbestos claims against it before that time.  The Company believes
the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar
against any later claim filed against it, including any of its
subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time
before emergence from bankruptcy.  In any event, in all of the
asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, the Company has been
successful in having such cases dismissed without liability.

"Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance coverage that
will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity
obligations of its former operating unit relating to these claims.

"The Company intends to vigorously defend all currently active
actions, all without liability, and it does not anticipate that any
of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.  However,
the outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/wWDq0y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fox Rothschild Discusses DeVries Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Temple, Esq., partner at Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, wrote that colleagues and clients frequently pose the
question whether after more than forty years the asbestos
litigation juggernaut has finally neared its inevitable conclusion.
The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Air and
Liquid Systems Corp v. DeVries 586 U.S. ___ (2019) demonstrates why
the tide of asbestos litigation is hardly receding.  To the
contrary, rulings such as the Court's rendition of current federal
maritime common law can reasonably be expected to energize a surge
in claims in the national asbestos tort system.

The DeVries decision embraces, but does not specifically
acknowledge, two fundamental factors that have sustained asbestos
litigation since its inception:  1) the cases usually involve
substantial time delays between dates of manufacture, the alleged
causative interaction with the product, and the manifestation of
actual injury; and 2) the imposition of new and evolving legal
obligations which did not exist at the time the products were
originally manufactured and sold.

At issue in DeVries is the resolution of a split in the Circuit
Courts of Appeal on the question whether a product manufacturer is
liable under federal maritime common law for failing to warn
original customers about the subsequent use and incorporation of
replacement parts manufactured by others.  The Court held that
under federal tort law in the maritime context, a product
manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires
incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason
to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for
its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to
believe the that product's users will realize that danger. Notably,
the Court's ruling is stated in the present tense because the Court
is actually applying this "new" articulation of the law to
defendant product manufacturers with respect to their conduct
surrounding products made and sold many decades ago and long before
the court precedents giving rise to the defendants' duties were
fully conceived, much less written.

Article I Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress
from passing ex post facto laws, but that provision has generally
been applied in the context of criminal or civil sanctions imposed
to punish persons for past acts.  Akin to an ex post facto law but
in the civil litigation context, the Court in DeVries has imposed
legal duties and obligations on product manufacturers for past
conduct undertaken at a time when no such duty existed or could
have been reasonably anticipated.  As the dissent notes, the
majority decision imposes "a duty [the product manufacturer
defendants] could not have anticipated then and one they cannot
discharge now.  They can only pay."   The retrospective imposition
of previously non-existent obligations on manufacturers remains a
key feature fueling the asbestos litigation system in the U.S.

A closer view of some case facts confirms at least part of the
dissent's observation.  One of the plaintiffs in the Devries case
was the widow of a sailor who served in the U.S. Navy from 1957 to
1960 aboard a Navy ship originally built and commissioned during
World War II.  Plaintiff alleged that the sailor encountered
asbestos released from parts of equipment installed on the ship
during his service. Although the date of the equipment's
manufacture and installation are not revealed in the opinion, it is
reasonable to conclude that the original products at issue in the
case were likely manufactured and installed sometime in the early
1940s and replacement parts were added or substituted sometime
later but before 1960.  Plaintiff claimed the onset of
asbestos-related disease sometime after 2009 and filed suit in late
2012.  As is quite common in asbestos litigation, one plaintiff's
case generally involves a product made in the 1940s, the alleged
exposure to harm occurred some 15 to 20 years later, and the actual
injury did not manifest for yet another 50 years. The time delay
between manufacture and lawsuit in this case was more than 70
years.

There is nothing in the record that outlines the state of the law
or the legally recognized duties that were imposed upon
manufacturers at the time of manufacture or sale in the 1940s.
Every case cited by the Court with respect to the requirements of
tort or product liability law post-dates the manufacture of the
product and the plaintiff's exposure to the alleged harm. Stated
another way, there is no analysis whether a manufacturer of
equipment for sale to the U.S. Navy had at the time of manufacture
a recognized legal duty to warn the government that aftermarket
replacement parts manufactured by some other company may pose a
hazard.  Any duty such a manufacturer had in the context of this
case was applied retrospectively 70 years later.

The real effect of the Devries decision is that a manufacturer
supplying critical equipment to the U.S. Navy during wartime
exigencies in 1943 should have issued a written warning based on a
legal duty that would not be recognized by the law until the
Court's opinion decades later.  This embraces the very concept of
ex post facto -- a law passed today that punishes behavior and
imposes liability for conduct that was by all accounts appropriate
and lawful at the time.  In this environment, it is little wonder
that asbestos litigation is and will remain as vibrant as ever.

Mr. Temple can be reached at:

     Chris M. Temple, Esq.
     FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
     BNY Mellon Center
     500 Grant St., Suite 2500
     Pittsburgh PA 15219
     Tel: (412) 394-5549
     Fax: (412) 391-6984
     Email: ctemple@foxrothschild.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genesis Has $9MM Asset Retirement Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis Healthcare, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that it has a liability for the asset retirement
obligation associated primarily with the cost of asbestos removal
aggregating approximately US$9.0 million, which is included in
other long-term liabilities.

Genesis Healthcare states, "Certain of the Company's leased and
owned real estate assets contain asbestos.  The asbestos is
believed to be appropriately contained in accordance with
environmental regulations.  If these properties were demolished or
subject to renovation activities that disturb the asbestos, certain
environmental regulations are in place, which specify the manner in
which the asbestos must be handled and disposed.

"At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Company has a liability for the
asset retirement obligation associated primarily with the cost of
asbestos removal aggregating approximately US$9.0 million and
US$9.8 million, respectively, which is included in other long-term
liabilities.  The liability for each facility will be accreted to
its settlement value, which is estimated to approximate US$19.8
million through the estimated settlement dates extending from 2019
through 2042.  Due to the time over which these obligations could
be settled and the judgment used to determine the liability, the
ultimate obligation may differ from the estimate.  Upon settlement,
any difference between actual cost and the estimate is recognized
as a gain or loss in that period.

"Annual accretion of the liability is recorded each year for the
impacted assets until the obligation year is reached, either by
sale of the property, demolition or some other future event such as
a government action."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2UqBSuC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 29 PI Suits at Jan. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries are still facing 29 pending
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of January 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
January 31, 2019.

The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as
well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building
fires.  As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent
risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the
use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the
future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss,
personal injury or property damage or violated environmental,
health or safety or other laws.

"Such product liability claims have included and may in the future
include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design,
a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence,
strict liability or a breach of warranties.  In particular, certain
of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed
prior to 1979.

"Since 2002 and as of January 31, 2019, approximately 988
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we
vigorously defend against them.  Of these, 949 have been dismissed
without any payment by us, 29 are pending and only 10 have been
settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our
financial condition or operating results."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2Tk17ue


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gorman-Rupp Says Suits Don't Have Material Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gorman-Rupp Company said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that asbestos-related claims and associated
legal expenses generally have been covered by the Company's
insurance, subject to applicable deductibles and limitations.  

The Company states, "For nearly twenty years, numerous business
entities in the pump and fluid-handling industries, as well as a
multitude of companies in many other industries, have been targeted
in a series of lawsuits in several jurisdictions by various
individuals seeking redress to claimed injury as a result of the
entities' alleged use of asbestos in their products.

"Since 2001, the Company and some of its subsidiaries have been
involved in this mass-scaled litigation, typically as one of many
co-defendants in a particular proceeding.  The allegations in the
lawsuits involving the Company and/or its subsidiaries have been
vague, general and speculative.  Most of these lawsuits have been
dismissed without advancing beyond the early stage of discovery,
some as a result of nominal monetary settlements recommended for
payment by the Company's insurers.

"The claims and related legal expenses generally have been covered
by the Company's insurance, subject to applicable deductibles and
limitations.  Accordingly, this series of lawsuits has not,
cumulatively or individually, had a material adverse impact on the
Company's consolidated results of operations, liquidity or
financial condition, nor is it expected to have any such impact in
the future, based on the current knowledge of the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Ohh43b


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma Lost 7 Relatives to Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Himelfield, writing for Examiner Live, reported that a
great-grandmother, who died from exposure to asbestos, lost seven
relatives following their exposure to the deadly insulation
material.

Celia Brackenbury, 82, died in August from mesothelioma, a cancer
of the lung lining most commonly caused by exposure to asbestos.

An inquest, at Wakefield Coroner's Court, concluded that Ms
Brackenbury, from Liversedge , had died from industrial disease.

Before her death Ms Brackenbury had lost seven relatives, including
a brother, uncles and a nephew, to conditions linked to asbestos,
her solicitors Irwin Mitchell said.

Lucy Andrews, asbestos disease specialist lawyer for Irwin
Mitchell, said: "This is a truly terrible case which once again
highlights the devastating consequences of asbestos exposure.

"Celia's death is perhaps made even more tragic by the fact that
seven other members of her family all died as a result of
asbestos-related conditions too."

Ms Brackenbury, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma approximately
two years before her death, had instructed the solicitors to
investigate the cause of her disease.

It is alleged she contracted the cancer after working at British
Belting and Asbestos (BBA), Cleckheaton, between 1951 and 1960.

Ms Brackenbury's job worked out the cost of everything made by the
firm, at Scandinavia Mills, and she often had to enter production
areas for further information.

She also recalled the extensive presence of asbestos at the site.

Celia's husband Donald, 82, said: "It was truly awful to see how
mesothelioma affected Celia in the final years of her life and the
entire family misses her so much. She was an incredible wife,
mother and grandmother and not a day goes by when we do not think
about her.

"Asbestos has touched Celia's family so much down the years and it
was hard to take that she herself was ultimately affected by it
too."

Ms Brackenbury's family have now warned employers to check their
premises for asbestos and other hidden hazardous materials.

The warning comes in time for Workers' Memorial Day (Sunday 28
April), an international day of remembrance and action for workers
killed, disabled, injured or made unwell by their work.

Donald added: "This year's Workers' Memorial Day and its theme on
dangerous substances is very welcome as it is putting issues like
asbestos firmly in the spotlight. This material should not be
allowed to impact on other lives and employers need to ensure
workers are protected from it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.5-Bil. Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$2,491
million related to asbestos matters at March 31, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related
personal injury actions related to North American Refractories
Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction
Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rZqoZL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $897MM NARCO Liabilities at Mar. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$897 million at March 31,
2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company
North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation
owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.  When the NARCO business was sold,
Honeywell's predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement
with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser
for asbestos claims.  Such claims arise primarily from alleged
occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and
mortar for high-temperature applications.  NARCO ceased
manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims
were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983.  Claims
filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s
through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January
2002.  Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future
NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell
pending the reorganization of NARCO.

"Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell
recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of US$3.2 billion, which
was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to
settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain
post-petition settlements (US$2.2 billion, referred to as
"Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability"), (ii) the estimated liability
related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through
2018 (US$950 million, referred to as "NARCO Trust Liability"), and
(iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling US$73
million.

"As of March 31, 2019, our total NARCO asbestos liability of US$897
million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO liability of US$154 million
and NARCO Trust Liability of US$743 million.  Through March 31,
2019, Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced by
approximately US$2 billion since first established in 2002, largely
related to settlement payments.  The remaining Pre-bankruptcy NARCO
Liability principally represents estimated amounts owed pursuant to
settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO
bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims
to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the
settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures.  The other
NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations were paid in 2013 and no
further liability is recorded.

"As of March 31, 2019, Honeywell has not made any payments to the
NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims as any Annual
Contribution Claims which have been paid since the Trust became
operational have been funded by cash dividends from HWI.

"Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the US$743
million NARCO Trust Liability.  Despite becoming effective in 2013,
the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully
operational.  Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and
the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute
resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to
the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims
processing experience in the Trust since it became operational.  As
a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust
Liability.  The US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability continues to
be appropriate because of the unresolved pending claims in the
Trust, some portion of which will result in payouts in the future,
and because new claims continue to be filed with the NARCO Trust.
When sufficiently reliable claims data exists, we will update our
estimate of the NARCO Trust Liability and it is possible that a
material change may need to be recognized.

"Our insurance receivable of US$301 million as of March 31, 2019,
corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and
unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which
reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and
defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims.  While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries.  We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rZqoZL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face lawsuits alleging
personal injury due to asbestos that may be in certain wire and
cable, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Houston Wire & Cable states, "The Company, along with many other
defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that
certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.
These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  It is not
clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire
and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed
the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries.

"The Company maintains general liability insurance that, to date,
has covered the defense of and all costs associated with these
claims.  In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the
wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any
warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were
determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company
distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs.

"In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated
with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its
insurance coverage proves inadequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2VfgVjo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Tosses Claims Citing Del. Contractor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reported that the Superior
Court has rejected an attempt by a union carpenter to hold three
companies liable for asbestos-related injuries he allegedly
sustained while working for an independent contractor at the firms'
Delaware facilities.

In a 29-page opinion, Judge Vivian L. Medinilla on April 18 said
that Delmarva Power & Light Co., Getty and Sunoco did not owe
plaintiff Werner Rath a duty of care stemming from his alleged
exposure to the harmful substance while working alongside other
tradesmen during his 27-year career with contractor Catalytic Inc.,
which was hired to perform work at the companies' facilities in
Delaware City and Claymont.

The ruling cited a line of Delaware Supreme Court cases holding
that landowners are generally not liable to employees of individual
contractors, except under a limited set of circumstances.

According to Medinilla's opinion, Rath claimed to belong to a
specific subset of asbestos plaintiffs that did not work directly
with the substance and thus was required to show he was injured as
a result of other workers on the defendants' property.

Rath alleged in court papers that he was required to "stand by"
after constructing scaffolding at the sites, while pipefitters,
boilermakers and other tradesman worked on piping and insulation
that were negligently maintained by the defendants.

But Medinilla said Rath's argument improperly tried to include
DP&L, Getty and Sunoco among the groups that could be held
responsible for workers' asbestos injuries. Under Delaware law, she
said, landowners can only be held accountable in such cases if they
actively controlled the manner or method of a plaintiff's work,
voluntarily assumed safety responsibility at the site, or took
"possessory" control of the work area.

In her ruling, Medinilla said that none of the three firms ever
exercised control over the work sites, finding that only Rath's
employer, Catalytic, did. According to the opinion, Rath never
sought worker compensation benefits from Catalytic and instead
tried to impose liability on the landowners based on the acts of
Catalytic's employees.

"This is problematic," Medinilla wrote.

"The record is clear that Catalytic was the only contractor at the
various facilities and was the sole employer of all the employees
of the different trades that were working there, including the
insulators, pipefitters and laborers that worked alongside Rath,"
she said.

An attorney for Rath was not immediately available to comment.

Counsel for Sunoco and DP&L did not return calls Monday seeking
comment on the ruling, and an attorney for Getty declined to
comment.

Rath was represented by Donald P. Blydenburgh and Patrick I.
Andrews of Levy Konigsberg in New York and Thomas C. Crumplar of of
Jacobs & Crumplar in Wilmington.

DP&L was represented by Robert S. Goldman and Lisa M. McLaughlin of
Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall in Wilmington.

Getty was represented by James F. Harker of Cohen Seglias Pallas
Greenhall & Furman in Wilmington.

Sunoco was represented by Francis Gondek and Nicholas E. Skiles of
Swartz Campbell in Wilmington.

The case is captioned Rath v. 3M.

A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3gbet8x from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC still faces personal injury suits related to
asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation ("D/C"), a
subsidiary of Kaanapali Land, have been named as defendants in
personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.
While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land,
there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against
D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.  Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases.  The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation.

"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases.  Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will
result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there
can be no assurance in this regard."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/7xmBfm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Mum-of-Four Dies of Asbestos Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
Don Mort, writing for The Yorkshire Post, reported that a widower
has appealed for help to find out if his wife's asbestos-related
cancer was caused when she worked at a manufacturing company in the
early 1960s.

Mother-of-four Patricia Yeadon, from Leeds, died aged 72 just six
months after she first developed severe chest pain and was
diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Husband Colin, 74, of Yeadon, Leeds, instructed specialist lawyers
to launch an investigation after an inquest found she died from the
disease, which is linked to exposure to asbestos.

Law Firm Irwin Mitchell is seeking information about her time
working at Lewis & Co, on Globe Road, Leeds in 1960 and 1961.

Mr Yeadon, a retired lorry driver, said: "Patricia was working at
the company when I first met her and as far as I'm aware she was
only there a matter of months. After a short time working for
another company we had our first child and she stopped work until
the early 1970s.

"It was awful to see how mesothelioma affected her and her health
deteriorated in just a few short months. Losing her so quickly was
a huge shock and the entire family still misses her so much.

"Patricia was such a loving and caring person and we still miss her
every day. Our family is not the same without her."

Mr Yeadon appealed for information ahead of Workers' Memorial Day
in April 28, an annual event to commemorate those who died as a
result of their work.

The theme of this year's event is "dangerous substances -- get them
out of the workplace."

In the UK around 2,500 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma every
year.

Lucy Andrews, Irwin Mitchell's legal expert representing Mr Yeadon,
said: "This is sadly yet another tragic case where we believe an
individual has gone on to develop an asbestos-related illness many
years after exposure to the material.

"Asbestos has affected so many lives through the decades and it is
welcome that this year's Workers' Memorial Day is all about shining
a spotlight on the impact that this material and many others have
had."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Still Faces PL Suits at Dec. 31, 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. remains a defendant in several
multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, ""In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company’s
products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but
believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect
to these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/2K3Dn9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $188.3MM Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation recorded US$188.3 million for asbestos-related
reserves on a gross basis at December 31, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "At December 31, 2018, asbestos-related
reserves were US$188.3 million and US$63.4 million on a gross and
net basis, respectively.  Net reserves for reported claims for A&E
exposures were US$74.4 million at December 31, 2018.  Net incurred
but not reported reserves for A&E exposures were US$8.7 million at
December 31, 2018.  Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss
adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures totaled US$647.7
million at December 31, 2018.

"The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of
ultimate settlement values based on the Company's statistical
analysis of these reserves, which is reviewed by the Company's
independent actuaries.  A&E exposures are subject to significant
uncertainty due to potential loss severity and frequency resulting
from the uncertain and unfavorable legal climate.  A&E reserves
could be subject to increases in the future; however, management
believes the Company's gross and net A&E reserves at December 31,
2018 are adequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2TUx7tf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 62,522 PI Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that there are approximately
62,522 asbestos personal injury claims pending at year end December
31, 2018.

The Company also disclosed that there are 3,359 new claims filed in
2018. Settlement payments during the year amounted to US$51.4
million.

The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has
been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts.  These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks.  Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases.  The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.  Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos.  Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations)
include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty
to the plaintiffs — it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the
asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired.  During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions.  There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

"The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given
year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2HSYpuq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Asbestos Claim Reform Bill Moving Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that proposed
legislation aimed at reforming the way asbestos civil actions are
dealt with in Missouri courts is moving forward and is scheduled to
be debated in the Senate.

But those driving the legislation, Senate Bill 69, are not sure it
will pass all votes and in both chambers as there remains only a
month left in the legislative session.

SB69 states that plaintiffs suing in civil court must provide all
information relating to any claim made to separate bankruptcy
trusts set up to compensate those harmed by asbestos, many of whom
suffer from mesothelioma.

Further, the bill allows defendants to object not later than 60
days prior to the trial date if they believe all information has
not been provided.

Supporters characterize the bill as helping those harmed by
protecting funds in bankruptcy trusts. Critics claim the proposals
will allow defendants to delay the progress of suits to the point
where the plaintiffs may be dead.

The bill, which passed the Government Reform Committee, is
currently on the informal calendar, but will be debated and voted
on "for perfection" on Tuesday. Changes will be introduced in the
Senate.

But both the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Lincoln Hough
(R-Springfield), and lobbyist Rich AuBuchon, representing the
MIssouri Civil Justice Reform Coalition, which describes itself as
a pro-business tort reform group, say that it is not clear that it
will pass this year.

"There are several tort reform issues on the informal calendar and,
as of now, I'm not sure which ones will receive floor time," Hough
told the St. Louis Record.

AuBuchon, who is also helping to advance a bill in the House, said
he remains hopeful the bill will pass but "we are in the last month
of the session, and that late, it is about timing" with other
pieces of legislation vying for advancement.

"It does not diminish its importance, but we might have to wait
until it comes back next year," AuBuchon told the St. Louis
Record.

Under current laws, a claimant can file for relief for
asbestos-related injuries or diseases via an asbestos trust funded
by companies that had to file bankruptcy because of pending and
future claims and through civil actions.

But those supporting reform claim "double dipping" happens, and
increasingly so. Claimants are filing claims to the trust, then
taking action in civil action against other companies that remain
solvent.

"What we are seeing in Missouri is an outgrowth of what Illinois
saw, (that is) a proliferation of asbestos actions" in court,
AuBuchon said.

The bill requires claimants to disclose claims they have filed with
asbestos trusts when that same claimant is making a civil case,
Hough told the Columbia Missourian newspaper, adding that it
creates fairness for both  the claimant and businesses.

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce, in a statement, said the bill
"would allow for the fair allocation of fault and ensure plaintiffs
receive fair compensation for their injuries, while not letting
trial attorneys pursue multiple avenues of recovery."

"It would also prevent the depletion of limited trust fund
resources so that future claimants will still be able to receive
compensation," the chamber added.

However, Bart Baumstark, a St. Louis attorney who represents
asbestos claimants, told the Columbia Missourian the bill is aimed
at delaying court dates, and justice.

"What this bill does, is it allows (the court) to wait 60 days
before a trial, and with the way it is written now they will
absolutely get a continuance from that trial date. Now you senators
may say to yourselves, 'What's one continuance?' That's the
difference between life and death for our clients. . . . . Fifty
percent of our clients don't make it to their trial date,"
Baumstark said.

AuBuchon said the trust funds were set up to help those harmed and
that the bill protects that money for future claimants that deserve
to be adequately compensated.

He stressed that supporters of the bill are "not making the
assertion that harmed individuals not be made whole."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 86 Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. still defends itself against
approximately 86 asbestos-related personal injury cases, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 86
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 188 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2UfIpZR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 460 Open Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31,
2019, that it is aware of approximately 460 open and active
asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of
its subsidiaries.

The Company states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC
Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG.  The
Company is defending the remaining open and active claims
vigorously.

"Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in
claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing
products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American
architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was
acquired by PPG.  All such claims have been either served upon or
tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to
obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the
Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings
business.  The seller has accepted the defense of these claims
subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and
the seller.  The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in
connection with newly filed claims ceased with respect to claims
filed after April 1, 2018.

"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180 million
for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the
Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe
will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and potential
future asbestos liabilities.  These reserves include a US$162
million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an amendment
to the PC plan of reorganization.  These reserves, which are
included within Other liabilities on the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its
liability for these claims.  PPG does not have sufficient current
claim information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company
was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016.  PPG will monitor
the activity associated with its remaining asbestos claims and
evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such
claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying
assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for
these claims is required.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including
a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are
scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential
judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information
in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly
responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from
such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal
and/or state tort liability law.  All of these factors may have a
material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.
As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure,
under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own
account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its
historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of
reorganization.  While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that
any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/qvGwMW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has At Most 500 Cases in US, 50 in Europe
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that its current docket of
active and inactive asbestos-related cases is less than 500 cases
in the United States and less than 50 in Europe.

The Company states, "For many years we have been and continue to be
subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems
as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Our current docket of active
and inactive cases is less than 500 cases in the United States and
less than 50 in Europe.

"With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in our line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive products
although a significant number of those claims appear also to
involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other than
automotive.  A small number of claims have been asserted against
one of our subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to
asbestos products in railroad cars.  We believe, based on
scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that U.S. claimants
were exposed to asbestos by our former products and that, in any
event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related
disease based on their work with these products.  Further, many of
these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number in some
cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries.
Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do not specify
any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for
damages.
"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material.  A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.

"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased
number of these claims.  We vigorously defend ourselves against
these claims as part of our ordinary course of business.  In future
periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings
if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us.  To date,
with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the
judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable resolutions.
Accordingly, we presently believe that these asbestos-related
claims will not have a material adverse impact on our annual
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FM6Ns8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.2-Bil. Net Reserves at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. has net asbestos reserves of US$1,243
million at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the property
and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions
and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos
claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and
policyholders.  The Company has received and continues to receive a
significant number of asbestos claims.  Factors underlying these
claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers
seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation.  The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years.  The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands
against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in
the tort system.  Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who
allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical
evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in
the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease
manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on
an inactive docket.  Prioritizing claims involving credible
evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were
not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation,
contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment
patterns experienced by the Company.  The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

"The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including
litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in
bankruptcy over coverage for asbestos-related claims.  Many
coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through
settlement agreements.  Because many policyholders make exaggerated
demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement
negotiations.  Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may
include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but
which could result in settlements for larger amounts than
originally anticipated.  Although the Company has seen a reduction
in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains
difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.  As in the
past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement
opportunities.

"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages
arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.  It is
possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers,
including the Company, could be made in the future.  It is
difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including
whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions
against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and
has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions.

"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review
are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any
umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated
claim adjustment expense; the potential role of other insurance;
the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos
claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses
or determinations, if any, including the determination as to
whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation
claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if
any, for that claim.

"Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first three months
of 2019 and 2018 were US$38 million and US$33 million,
respectively.  Net asbestos reserves were US$1.24 billion at March
31, 2019, compared with US$1.25 billion at March 31, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NplpL3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Trustee Objects to FCR Appointment
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Vara, the Acting United States Trustee for Region 3,
objects to the motion of Imerys Talc America, Inc., and its
affiliated debtors seeking an order appointing James L. Patton,
Jr., as the legal representative of future talc personal injury
claimants, nunc pro tunc to the Petition Date.

The U.S. Trustee does not object to the appointment of an FCR,
which is an important and appropriate form of relief in a chapter
11 case involving significant present and future tort claim
liabilities.  The U.S. Trustee though does object to the Debtors'
request to appoint Mr. Patton as FCR, which disregards the Court's
statutory authority and responsibility to independently select the
FCR and exercise its discretion in soliciting or considering other
candidates.

The U.S. Trustee points out that the Bankruptcy Code requires that
the Court select and appoint the FCR, the fiduciary charged with
protecting the due process rights of future claimants who are
unknown and absent.  The future claimants will not have a later
opportunity to replace the FCR should he fail in meeting his
fiduciary responsibility to represent the future claimants'
interests effectively.  This is an important constitutional
consideration that requires the selection and appointment process
to yield an independent and effective FCR.

The Court's appointment of an FCR should also not be the subject of
an adversary proceeding or contested matter, the U.S. Trustee
further points out.  As requested in a separate filing by the U.S.
Trustee, in order for the Court to meet its statutory appointment
obligation, FCR candidates should be considered by the Court in a
collective proceeding, where the candidates are evaluated by the
Court on equal footing.  Deference should not be given to the
Debtors' or any other party's nominee, the U.S. Trustee said.

Therefore, the U.S. Trustee asks that the Court defer decision on
the Motion and on appointment of the FCR for future talc claimants
until the time when the Court may conduct such a proceeding.



                            *********

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 ***