CAR_Public/190510.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 94

                            Headlines

ACTIVISION: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action Suit Over Bungie Split
AKIMA LLC: Underpays Maintenance Laborers, Avery Suit Alleges
ALIERA HEALTHCARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Newell Suit Claims
AMERICAN FINANCE: Callaway Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN RENAL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Fraud Suit

AMERICAN RENAL: Kaskela Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
APEX SYSTEMS: Dietrick Suit Transferred From Maryland to Virginia
ASECOEXPORT: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BEVERAGE MARKETING: Faces Lockhart et al. Suit in N.D. California
BLACK HORSE: Tims Files Suit Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention

BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT: Underpays  Overtime Wages, Bailey Suit Says
BLOOMBERG LP: Underpays Data Analysts, Doe Suit Alleges
BOB MOORE AUTO: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
BOULDER BJ: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Knerr Suit Says
BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Farmer BELO Suit Endorsed

BP EXPLORATION: Pinsdorf BELO Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
BROOKS BROTHERS: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in Phipps
BROTHERS CAR WASH: Does not Pay Overtime Premium, Arredondo Says
CARTER'S INC: Aguilar Brings Class Action Over Misleading Info
CHARTER COMMS: Marcelino Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court

CHICAGO GUEST: Knowles Brings Suit Over Blind-inaccesible Website
CLEAR VIEW BUILDING: Underpays Manual Laborers, Rojas Alleges
CLOUD NINE SHOW: Bennett Suit Seeks Damages and Back-pay
COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE: Carrillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
CREDIT BUREAU: Class Notice in Bassett FDCPA-NCPA Suit Approved

CREDIT CONTROL: New York Court Dismisses Nardino FDCPA Suit
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Prentice Suit Transferred N.D. Illinois
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Riehm Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
DRILTEK INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Willis Wage Suit
EASTPOINTE, MI: Bid to Dismiss KBT Suit Denied as Moot

EDR ASSETS: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Hess Suit Affirmed w/o Costs
EVEREST HOTEL: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Baker et al. Say
FCR COLLECTION: Ortz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FINANCE OF AMERICA: Faces Burkart Labor Suit in Sacramento
FINANCE SYSTEM: Bid to Certify Class in Boucher FDCPA Suit Denied

FOUR SEASONS: Ill. App. Affirms Arbitration Bid Denial in Liu Suit
GANNETT COMPANY: Hall FLSA Suit Moved From Arizona to Kentucky
GOOGLE INC: Freedom Watch Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
HILL'S PET: McIlvaine Files Fraud Class Suit in W.D. Pa.
HILL'S PET: Rider et al. Sue over Contaminated Dog Food

HOME DEPOT: Court Enters Confidentiality Order in C. Golden's Suit
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Craw's Bid for Class Certification Terminated
HOSOPO CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Gonzalez TCPA Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hernandez Files Suit Over Deadly Airbag Defect
INTERNATIONAL LASER: Alvarado's Bid to Certify Class Continued

INVENTION SUBMISSION: Claims in Amended Calhoun TCPA Suit Narrowed
J-B WELD COMPANY: Faces Baum Suit in N.D. California
JAIL HILL INN: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Dynamex Retroactively Applies to Franchisors
JONATHAN NEIL: Court Dismisses Brown FDCA Suit With Prejudice

KIA MOTORS: Cox Sues over Vehicle Design Defect
KIA MOTORS: Ramos Sues over Sale of Defective GDI Engines
LAKE GROVE: Mendoza Seeks Damages Over Unpaid Wages
LYFT INC: Gupta, et al. Bring Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
MDL 2741: Bellanger Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit.

MDL 2741: Gurley Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
MDL 2741: Ludovicy Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit.
MDL 2741: Mansfield Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit.
MDL 2741: Moore Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
MDL 2741: Neill Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation

MDL 2741: Oliver Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
MDL 2741: Tebay Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ruiz FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
MIDWAY RENT: Faces Machuca Labor Suit in Los Angeles California
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: May 20 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

MODIS INC: Faces Victorio Suit over Background Checks
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ashley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Austin Files Suit Over Roundup-related Injuries
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ball Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Banker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Binneboese Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Brown Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Holmes et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ridner Suit Moved to N.D. California
MOWI ASA: Schneider's Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon

MUSE GALLERY: West Files ADA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
NILKANTH PIZZA: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Burton Suit Says
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Carroll et al. Suit in C.D. California
PETLAND MALL: Faces Suit over Sale of Bacteria-Infected Puppies
PLYCEM USA: Harmel Sues over Sale of Defective Allura Siding

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Grants Bis to Dismiss Pozzuolo FDCPA Suit
POWER MACHINERY: Faces Meyers Labor Suit in Kern County
PROMISED LAND: Underpays Medical Assistants, Thomas Alleges
ROACH & MURTHA: Clute Sues over Debt Collection Practices
SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Bid to Compel Discovery in Pontones Denied

SCHRA LODI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lane Suit Alleges
SCHWEBEL PETROLEUM: Faces Gonzalez Labor Suit in Kern County
SECURE PARKING: Seeks Appellate Review of Order in Liotta Suit
SERVICELINK FIELD: Collins Remanded to San Diego Superior Court
SOFTWARE GUIDANCE: King Seeks Pay for Excess Worktime

SOURCE CONSTRUCTION: Sastre Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPRINT CORP: Baron Suit Alleges Customer Privacy Rights Breach
STARBUCKS CORP: Rosario FCRA Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
STATE FARM: Removes Palmer Suit to District of New Mexico
TARGET CORPORATION: Thomas Suit Transferred to E.D. California

TATE & KIRLIN: Shelton Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
TITAN GAS: Frey Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Popp Sues over Defaulted Consumer Debt
TRUMMER'S INC: Restaurant Workers Win Conditional Certification
U.S. SECURITY: Scott Suit Removed to S.D. New York

UBER TECH: Dismissal of Anderson Suit Recommended
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Bauserman Timely Notice Ruling Partly OK'd
UNITED RENTALS: Court Denies Bid to Remand Elizarraz Labor Suit
UNITED STATES: Acadiana et al. Hit Bankruptcy Fees
UNITED STATES: Bid for Attorneys' Fees in McCarty Suit Partly OK'd

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Manley Suit Transferred to W.D. Ark.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: 3d Cir. Restores 2 Counts in ERISA Suit
VARSITY PRODUCED: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE: Bid to Enforce Steamer Suit Settlement Denied
WHOLE FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Scott Suit under NYLL

WISCONSIN: King Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
WM. BOLTHOUSE: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 200+ Teachers Died From Asbestos in UK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arcata Bowl Owner's Family Awarded $4.4MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Durham Gas Explosion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Mountains Council Sued Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City of Eau Claire, Contractor Could be Fined

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Disregarded Experts in Issuing Asbestos Rule
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Bord na Mona Worker Dies from Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces Suit on Bendix Claims Accounting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.6BB Bendix Liabilities at Mar.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $1.4MM for Lawsuits in 1Q 2018

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Faces PI Suits at April 12
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Researcher Says Asbestos in Baby Powder
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofer's Mesothelioma Suit to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swindon Records 248 Mesothelioma Deaths

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Shakes Take Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers, Students Exposed to Shed 26 Asbestos


                            *********

ACTIVISION: Kuznicki Law Files Class Action Suit Over Bungie Split
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Wilson, writng for KitGuru, reports that in a surprise move
earlier this year, Bungie and Activision split up, allowing Bungie
to go independent once again with the Destiny IP in hand.  At the
time, investors called for a third-party investigation into the
situation and now, a class-action lawsuit is being pursued.

Kuznicki Law PLLC, a California-based law firm, is currently
seeking shareholders to join a class action lawsuit against
Activision.  Those participating will need to have purchased shares
between the 2nd of August 2018 and the 10th of January 2019-- just
one day before the split was made official.

The complaint alleges that Activision made "materially false and/or
misleading statements" to share holders prior to the break up with
Bungie.  The complaint also says that Activision failed to disclose
that the termination of the Bungie partnership with imminent, which
would have had a "significant negative impact" on revenues.

Activision was never thrilled with Destiny's sales, which came to a
head after Destiny 2: Forsaken launched. At the time, Activision
executives expressed disappointment, meanwhile Bungie seemed
pleased with the work it was doing. A recent SEC filing notes that
Destiny 2 generated $164 million throughout 2018.[GN]


AKIMA LLC: Underpays Maintenance Laborers, Avery Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIER AVERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AKIMA, LLC; AKIMA SUPPORT OPERATIONS, LLC;
and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE2019-4271
(Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., April 3, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Avery was employed by the Defendants as ground
maintenance laborer.

Akima, LLC, through its subsidiaries, engages in construction,
information technology, data communications, systems engineering,
software development, cyber security, space operations, aviation,
fabrication, facility management, hospitality, and logistics
businesses. Akima, LLC was formerly known as Akima Management
Services, LLC and changed its name to Akima, LLC in October 2012.
The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Herndon,
Virginia. Akima, LLC operates as a subsidiary of NANA Development
Corporation, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Spivak, Esq.
          Stephanie Greenberg, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          1650 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561


ALIERA HEALTHCARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Newell Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC.; and INSURANCE CARE
NOW, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01489-SCJ (N.D. Ga., April
2, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Aliera Healthcare offers affordable alternatives to health
insurance through our unique healthcare plans for individuals and
employee groups. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven H. Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


AMERICAN FINANCE: Callaway Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
LYNDA CALLAWAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FINANCE TRUST, INC., AMERICAN
FINANCE ADVISORS, LLC, AR GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, NICHOLAS S.
SCHORSCH, WILLIAM M. KAHANE, EDWARD M. WEIL, JR., NICHOLAS RADESCA,
DAVID GONG, STANLEY R. PERLA, LISA D. KUBNICK, Defendants, Case No.
652523/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., April 30, 2019) is a
securities class action arising from the issuance of shares of
American Finance Trust, Inc. ("AFIN") to Plaintiff and members of
the class in AFIN's merger with/takeover of Retail Centers of
America ("RCA") in 2017.

According to the complaint, the AFIN shares that Plaintiff and the
other class members received in the merger were registered with the
SEC pursuant to defective registration statements, issued on
December 2016 and supplemented thereafter through February 9, 2017
(the "Registration Statement").

Specifically, the Registration Statement contained materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (a) the financial
impact to AFIN and its shareholders of the changes in 2015 to the
Advisory Agreement ("2nd Advisory Agreement") between AFIN and
Defendant American Finance Advisors, Inc. ("Advisor") and the
additional changes to the Advisory Agreement in 2016, which were
conditioned upon approval of a "Merger" of AFIN and Retail Centers
of America ("RCA") in early 2017 (the "3rd Advisory Agreement")
(under the same control as Advisor); (b) the material negative
impact of the 2nd and 3rd Advisory Agreements upon AFIN and its
shareholders for a public listing liquidity event; and (c) the
material risk that upon a public listing of AFIN shares, the market
price would plunge to reflect a material discount to NAV due to
AFIN's external management structure.

The Defendants also failed to disclose in the Registration
Statement that public markets discount the value of externally
managed REITs like AFIN. When AFIN, then known as American Realty
Capital Trust V, Inc., went public in 2013, it filed a Form S-l
registration statement/prospectus on March 6, 2013 that disclosed
the higher advisory fees and market discounts for externally
managed REITs. Those facts remained true through the date of the
merger and issuance of AFIN shares to Plaintiff and the class. Yet
when AFIN filed the Registration Statements on October 21, 2016,
November 23, 2016 and December 16, 2016, and supplements
thereafter, Defendants omitted those disclosures or any warning
that a public listing could result in the public valuation of AFIN
shares at a deep discount to their net asset value due to issues
surrounding AFIN's external management by AR Global and affiliates.
The Registration Statements also omitted material information about
AFIN's inability to obtain a public listing of its stock in 2015
and 2016 despite a direction from the SEC to make such disclosure.

Defendants Weil, Radesca, Gong, Perla and Kubnick signed the false
and misleading Registration Statement pursuant to which the AFIN
stock was issued and Advisor, AR Global Investments, LLC ("AR
Global"), Schorsch and Kahane were controlling persons of the
issuer, AFIN.

For these reasons,  Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for
violations of the Securities Act.

Plaintiff Lynda Callaway received AFIN shares in the AFIN RCA
merger issued pursuant to the defective Registration Statements.

AFIN is a publicly registered, non-traded real estate investment
trust formerly known as American Realty Capital Trust V, Inc. It is
"externally managed" and under the complete control of Advisor,
Schorsch and Kahane.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
     SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
     32 East 57th Street
     12th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212)421-6492
     Fax: (212)421-6553



AMERICAN RENAL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (http://www.blockesq.com/),a securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide, informs
investors that there has been a class action lawsuit filed against
American Renal Associates Holdings Inc. (NYSE:ARA) and certain of
its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP to learn
more.

The complaint that was filed in the District of New Jersey, and
captioned Vandevar v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc. et
al., 2:19-cv-09074, relates to the announcement that certain of
American Renal's annual and quarterly reports which were filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission could no longer be relied
upon and would have to be restated.  A judge has not yet been
assigned to the case.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell more than 38%.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired American Renal
securities between August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, and have
questions about your legal rights, or possess information relevant
to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact Attorney Dan
DeMaria at (888) 868-2385, by email at dan@blockesq.com, or by
visiting http://shareholder.law/cases/?case=americanrenal.
Additionally, those interested in serving as lead Plaintiff must
apply to do so before the May 27, 2019, lead plaintiff deadline.
         
Contact:

         Dan DeMaria, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5660 phone
                    (888) 868-2385
         Email: info@blockesq.com
                dan@blockesq.com [GN]



AMERICAN RENAL: Kaskela Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ARA)
on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Company's common
stock between August 10, 2016 and March 27, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

To learn how to participate in this action please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/american-renal/

On March 8, 2019, American Renal disclosed that it was delaying the
filing of its fiscal 2019 Annual Report, and that the Company's
Audit Committee was "examining reserve computations and other
accounting practices that could have an impact on accounts
receivable and revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018,
as well as the previously reported fiscal years..."  Following this
news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.05 per share, or
over 16% in value, to close on March 8, 2019 at $10.46 per share,
on heavy trading volume.

Subsequently, on March 27, 2019, American Renal disclosed that the
Company's previously issued financial statements for fiscal years
2014-2017 "should be restated and should no longer be relied upon,"
and that the Company's Chief Financial Officer had "resigned"
effective March 26, 2019.  Following this additional news, shares
of the Company's stock declined a an additional $3.69 per share, or
38% in value, to close on March 28, 2019 at $6.01 per share, again
on heavy trading volume.

Among other things, the shareholder class action complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and misleading statements to
investors during the Class Period, and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the Company's financial statements were false
and could not be relied upon; and (ii) American Renal had material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting.  The
complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing,
investors purchased American Renal's common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered investment
losses as a result of the defendants' conduct.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased American Renal's common
stock during the Class Period may, no later than May 28, 2019, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of class.

Contact:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


APEX SYSTEMS: Dietrick Suit Transferred From Maryland to Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dietrick, et al. v. Apex Systems,
LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00006, was transferred on April 19, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Richmond).

The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00299-JAG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

Plaintiffs Emily Dietrick, Steven Connell, Brock Deel, Monica
Jones, Tyler Suite and Allie Bruno are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          Charles Center South
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com

Defendant Apex Systems, LLC, is represented by:

          John Brian Cashmere, Esq.
          WILLIAMS MULLEN
          8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1100
          Tysons Corner, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 760-5232
          Facsimile: (703) 748-0244
          E-mail: bcashmere@williamsmullen.com


ASECOEXPORT: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH GABRIELA MARTINEZ, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ASECOEXPORT INTERNATIONAL INC, JAIME DIAZ,
Defendants, Case No 1:19-cv-21674-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2019)
is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and recklessly failed to investigate whether
Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the Act, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an assistant and secretary from
January 12, 2013 through April 5, 2019.

ASECOEXPORT INTERNATIONAL INC is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. Zidell, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


BEVERAGE MARKETING: Faces Lockhart et al. Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beverage Marketing
USA, Inc. The case is captioned as NICOLE LOCKHART; BOBBI
O'SULLIVAN; and ALEXIS JADE HUNTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEVERAGE MARKETING
USA, INC.; ARIZONA BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC; ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC;
ARIZONA ICED TEA LLC; and HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01711-JSC (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2019). The case is
assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Beverage Marketing USA, Inc. produces and distributes beverages
including Arizona Iced Tea. The company was founded in 1992 and is
based in Woodbury, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
          Adam Gutride, Esq.
          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 789-6390
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: marie@gutridesafier.com
                  adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com


BLACK HORSE: Tims Files Suit Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorome Tims, individually and all others similarly situated v.
Black Horse Carriers Inc., Case No. 2019CH03522 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., March 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiffs
sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Supervisor from June of
2017 until January of 2018, at the Defendant's facility located at
680 Remington Blvd, Bolingbrook, IL 60440.

The Defendant Black Horse Carriers is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, with a principal
place of business located at 150 Village Court, Carol Stream, IL
60188. The Defendant is a company that provides trucking services
to companies in a variety of industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      100 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste 2150
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 233-1550
      Fax: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
              jzouras@stephanzouras.com
              cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT: Underpays  Overtime Wages, Bailey Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Bailey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Black Tie Management Company LLC, Black Tie
Moving Services LLC, Black Tie Moving Columbus LLC, Black Tie
Moving Cleveland LLC, Black Tie Moving Cincinnati LLC, James Dustin
Black, and Christopher Hess, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01677-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 29, 2019) is a case
challenging policies and practices of Defendants that violate the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio Wage Laws; and
concerns the underpayment of overtime and/or minimum wages to
non-exempt employees.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and others similarly situated
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, they
are not paid at least one and one-half times their regular rates
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The unpaid meeting
time and travel time further increases the amount of time over 40
hours per week that Defendants did/do not pay Plaintiff and others
similarly situated overtime compensation at a rate of at least one
and one-half times their regular rates, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants from approximately
November 2018 through March 2019.

Black Tie Management Company LLC d/b/a Black Tie Moving Services is
a Texas limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


BLOOMBERG LP: Underpays Data Analysts, Doe Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02920 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as data analyst.

Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and
media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Getman, Esq.
          Artemio Guerra, Esq.
          GETMAN SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
          260 Fair St.
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com

               - and –

          Michael Korik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES A. GRUEN
          381 Broadway, Suite 300
          Westwood, NJ 07675
          Telephone: (201) 342-1212
          Facsimile: (201) 342-6474
          E-mail: mkorik@gruenlaw.com


BOB MOORE AUTO: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Moore Auto Group
LLC et al. The case is styled as Vernon Lawrence, Winnie Lawrence,
individually and On behalf of all other putative plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bob Moore Auto Group LLC a
Domestic Limited Liability Company, BMAG Luxury 1 LLC doing
business as: Bob Moore Land Rover doing business as: Bob Moore
Maserati doing business as: Bob Moore Audi a Domestic Limited
Liability Company, Jozef Dabrowski Individually and acting in his
official capacity as an agent of Bob Moore Auto Group, L.L.C. and
BMAG Luxury 1, L.L.C., and all Bob Moore d/b/a subsidiaries, Jeremy
Freeman Individually and acting in his official capacity as an
agent of Bob Moore Auto Group, L.L.C. and BMAG Luxury 1, L.L.C.,
and all Bob Moore d/b/a subsidiaries, Kendrick Neal Individually
and acting in his official capacity as an agent of Bob Moore Auto
Group, L.L.C. and BMAG Luxury 1, L.L.C., and all Bob Moore d/b/a
subsidiaries, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00395-PRW (W.D. Okla.,
April 30, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Bob Moore Auto Group, LLC operates as an automotive dealer in
Greater Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Edmond, Norman, and Moore, Oklahoma.
It offers new and used cars, trucks, and SUVs; parts and
accessories, as well as services; and finance options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence K Donahoe, Esq.
     LKDLAW PC
     PO Box 31375
     Edmond, OK 73003-0023
     Phone: (405) 282-1225
     Fax: (405) 282-1298
     Email: lkdlaw


BOULDER BJ: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Knerr Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Knerr, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v.
Boulder BJ, LLC, BlackJack Enterprises, LLC, et.al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00799 (D. Colo., March 18, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA and Colorado law by failing to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
and other work related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery
drivers the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver at one of Defendants'
Blackjack stores located in Boulder, Colorado from approximately
2015 to approximately May 2017.

The Defendants operate approximately 42 Blackjack Pizza restaurants
in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, Utah, and Florida (the
"Blackjack stores"). The Defendants also own and operate a number
of other food chains, including Papa Romano's, Papa's Pizza,
Breadeaux Pizza, and Mr. Pita. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
       BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
       3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
       Cincinnati, OH 45209
       Tel: (513) 715-8711
       Fax: (614) 340-4620
       E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com


BP EXPLORATION: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Farmer BELO Suit Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LANEY FARMER, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET
AL., SECTION "J" (2). Related to 12-968 BELO in MDL 10-2179, Civil
Action No. 19-1572 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C.
Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana recommended that BP's motion to dismiss be denied.

Farmer was employed as a clean-up worker along the Florida Gulf
coast, where she also lived, after the BP/Deepwater Horizon
explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010.  On Feb. 20, 2019, the
Plaintiff filed her complaint pursuant to the Back-End Litigation
Option ("BELO") provisions of the BP/Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement.  She timely filed her
BELO lawsuit within the requisite six-month period from the date of
receiving notice of the Defendants' Election Not to Mediate on Aug.
24, 2018.  As a member of the BELO settlement class, the Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and related costs for later-manifested
physical conditions that she allegedly suffered as a result of
exposure to substances released after the oil spill.

On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed and the Court accepted her
first amended complaint, which corrected a typographical error in
her original complaint that inadvertently alleged her diagnosis as
"neuropathy" rather than the intended diagnosis of reactive airway
disease.  BP's notice of its Election Not to Mediate clearly
indicates that in assessing the Plaintiff's claim, the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Claims Administrator considered reactive
airway disease -- not neuropathy -- which suggests that the
Plaintiff's typographical error was confined to her original
complaint and did not pre-date the filing of this lawsuit.  On
March 29, 2019, Defendants, BP Exploration and BP America
Production Co., filed their answer to the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint.

BP filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, asserting
that the Plaintiff failed under Rule 15 to seek leave of the Court
or dthe Dfendants' consent to file her first amended complaint and
that the Court had not accepted the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint at the time the instant motion was filed.  Based on the
premise that the Plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed in a
procedurally improper manner and/or not filed at all, the
Defendants argue that dismissal of the Plaintiff's original
complaint without prejudice is justified in light of (1) the
Plaintiff's failure to identify neuropathy as a claimed condition
in her notice of intent to sue; (2) the Claims Administrator's
inability to review plaintiff's neuropathy claim; and (3) BP's lack
of opportunity to decide whether to mediate the neuropathy claim
prior to the filing of the lawsuit.  The Plaintiff filed a timely
opposition memorandum.

Because the Plaintiff's first amended complaint, properly filed,
alleges the condition of reactive airway disease, Judge Wilkinson
does not accept the Defendants' arguments in favor of dismissal
because (1) the Plaintiff's alleged condition of reactive airway
disease was properly identified in her notice of intent to sue; (2)
the Claims Administrator reviewed the Plaintiff's claim of reactive
airway disease; and (3) BP had an opportunity to decide whether to
mediate the reactive airway disease claim before the Plaintiff
filed her BELO complaint.

For all the forgoing reasons, he recommended that the Defendants'
motion be denied.  A party's failure to file written objections to
the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation within 14 days after
being served with a copy will bar that party, except upon grounds
of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district
court, provided that the party has been served with notice that
such consequences will result from a failure to object.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Report and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/GNA4V6 from
Leagle.com.

Laney Farmer, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Downs, Downs Law
Group, PA, Michael Dewayne Dunlavy, Downs Law Group, PA & Nathan
Lee Nelson, Downs Law Group, PA.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune McEldowney
-- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC,
Devin C. Reid, Liskow & Lewis, Georgia Lee Lucier, Hunton Andrews
Kurth LLP, Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly, LLP & Scott C. Seiler -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow &
Lewis.


BP EXPLORATION: Pinsdorf BELO Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATTI J. PINSDORF, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION J (2). Related to: 12-968 BELO in MDL
10-2179, Civil Action No. 18-14315 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl Barbier
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted BP's Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice
the Plaintiff's Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") complaint.

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, which recommends that the Court grants BP's motion
and dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiff's BELO complaint as
untimely.  The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation, and BP responded.  

Judge Barbier has considered the Report and Recommendation de novo.
The Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement permits a class member to file a BELO lawsuit for a
Later-Manifested Physical Condition.  However, a BELO lawsuit must
be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section VIII.G of the
Medical Settlement.  Relevant in the complaint is the Medical
Settlement's requirement that any BELO Lawsuit must be filed within
six months of notice by the Claims Administrator to the Medical
Benefits Settlement Class Member of the election of all BP
defendants named in the Notice of Intent to Sue not to mediate.

As the Magistrate Judge correctly pointed out, the six-month
deadline is not a mere case management tool, but is required by the
court-approved Medical Settlement Agreement and is not subject to
alteration.  Indeed, the Medical Settlement explicitly states that
a class member's claim for a Later-Manifested Physical Condition is
released and forever discharged" if the class member "fails timely
and properly to file the BELO lawsuit as provided in Section
VIII.G.1.b.

The parties agree that the Claims Administrator's notice issued on
June 22, 2018, making Dec. 22, 2018 the deadline for the Plaintiff
to file her BELO case.  The Plaintiff concedes that her BELO
complaint was filed on Jan. 2, 2019, eleven days after the December
22nd deadline.  Therefore, the Plaintiff's BELO complaint is
untimely and will be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Barbier overruled the Plaintiff's objections to
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and accepted the
recommended disposition.  He (i) granted BP's Motion to Dismiss,
and (ii) dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/H7B4Iz from Leagle.com.

Patti J Pinsdorf, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy John Falcon,
Falcon Law Firm, Allen W. Lindsay, Jr. -- awl@lal-law.com --
Lindsay & Andrews, PA, Jarrett S. Falcon, Falcon Law Firm &
Jeremiah A. Sprague, Falcon Law Firm.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


BROOKS BROTHERS: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in Phipps
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELINA PHIPPS, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BROOKS BROTHERS GROUP, INC., a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2-18-cv-10010-SJO (RAOx) (C.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California entered the Parties'
Stipulation Re Protective Order and FRE 502(D) and (E) Clawback
Order in its entirety as the order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/e2ptKm from Leagle.com.

Delina Phipps, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John Matern --
mmatern@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC & Scott Ashford
Brooks -- sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC.

Brooks Brothers Group, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Amy Schaefer Ramsey --
aramsey@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Bennett Kaspar --
bkaspar@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


BROTHERS CAR WASH: Does not Pay Overtime Premium, Arredondo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Antonio Barrientos Arredondo, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiff, v. Brothers Car Wash, Inc. an Illinois
corporation, Antonio German, an individual, Mauricio Mora, an
individual and Faustino Mora, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02850 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2019) is a lawsuit arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff
an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and other car washers,
dryers and detailers at one and one-half times their hourly rates
of pay for hours worked in excess 40 in individual workweeks. The
Defendants never paid them an overtime premium, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a car washer, dryer and detailer at Defendants'
car wash from approximately May 2013 through February 19, 2019.

Brothers Car Wash, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that operates
the Brothers Car Wash business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
     NOLAN LAW OFFICE
     53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 322-1100
     Fax: (312) 322-1106
     Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


CARTER'S INC: Aguilar Brings Class Action Over Misleading Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIBELL AGUILAR, for Herself, as a Private Attorney General,
and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
CARTER'S, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03088-SMJ (E.D. Wash., April 29, 2019) alleges that
Carter's violated and continues to violate the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, and/or the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail
Act, by transmitting to Washington consumers emails which contain
false or misleading information in the subject lines.

On February 16, 2019, Carter's initiated the transmission of a
commercial email to Plaintiff Maribell Aguilar (and to a class of
Washington consumers similarly situated to Ms. Aguilar) with a
subject line which read in its entirety: "50-70% OFF EVERTHING."
This transmission is referred to herein as the "Email." The subject
line of the Email did not contain an asterisk or other indication
that the words in the subject line had a special or invented
meaning.

Relying on Carter's representation of "50-70% OFF EVERTHING" in the
subject line of the Email, Ms. Aguilar believed that Carter's was
holding a sale at its retail stores and website at which Ms.
Aguilar would receive a discount of 50% to 70% off Carter's regular
or prevailing prices for all of its products. In response to
Carter's representations in the Email subject line, Ms. Aguilar
visited and made purchases on February 19, 2019, at the Carter's
retail store located at 1602 E. Washington Avenue, Union Gap,
Washington. However, Ms. Aguilar did not receive the actual
discounts she was promised in the Email subject line, and which she
had reasonably expected, because in fact the representations of the
discounts were false, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Maribell Aguilar is a citizen of the United States of
America.

Carter's is a retailer and manufacturer of baby and young
children's clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Che Corrington, Esq.
     HATTIS & LUKACS
     400 108th Avenue, Suite 500
     Bellevue, WA 98004
     Phone: 425.233.8650
     Facsimile: 425.412.7171
     Email: che@hattislaw.com


CHARTER COMMS: Marcelino Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. James Lorenz of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California remanded to the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego the putative
wage and hour class action styled MICHAEL MARCELINO, Plaintiff, v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
19cv783-L-MSB (S.D. Calif.), after determining that the Defendant,
as the removing party, has not met its burden to affirmatively
allege the citizenship of all relevant parties.

The notice of removal therefore fails to establish federal
jurisdiction, Judge Lorenz held.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 2, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6l2oz55 from Leagle.com.

Michael Marcelino, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, JCL Law Firm.

Charter Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Aimee G. Mackay, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.

CHICAGO GUEST: Knowles Brings Suit Over Blind-inaccesible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Chicago Guest House, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01868 (N.D.
Ill., March 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This class action seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights
violations committed by the Defendant against the blind in Illinois
State and across the United States. Defendant is denying blind
individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods
and services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers
through www.chicagoguesthouse.com, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff is blind and a member of a protected class under the
ADA. The Plaintiff is a resident of Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina.

The Defendant owns and operates three full service hotels under the
name Chicago Guest House, which are places of public accommodation
located in Illinois State. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATIN GROUP, PLLC
      73 West Monroe Street
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


CLEAR VIEW BUILDING: Underpays Manual Laborers, Rojas Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LILIAN PALOMINO ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR VIEW BUILDING SERVICES,
INC.; JOHN ELARDE; and ERIC ELARDE, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01863 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Rojas was employed by the Defendants as manual
laborer.

Clear View Building Services, Inc. is engaged in the building
maintenance industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway Suite B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


CLOUD NINE SHOW: Bennett Suit Seeks Damages and Back-pay
--------------------------------------------------------
CHEA BENNETT On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals, Plaintiff v. CLOUD NINE SHOW BAR, INC. d/b/a CLOUD
NINE SHOW BAR AND DIAMOND GIRLS OF FLINT AND THE DIAMOND GIRLS
SHOWBAR, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11224-AJT-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
April 29, 2019) is a class and collective action against Defendant
seeking damages, back-pay, restitution, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and all
other relief that the Court deems just, reasonable and equitable in
the circumstances.

Plaintiff complains that Defendant and any predecessor or successor
entities doing business as Cloud Nine Show Bar, Diamond Girls of
Flint, The Diamond Girls Showbar (or under similar names) at the
location 1714 South Saginaw Street Flint, Michigan 48503
misclassified her and all other members of the class and collective
as "independent contractors" at all times in which they worked as
dancers at Defendant's Flint, Michigan based gentlemen's club.

As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all other
members of the class and collective minimum wages they were
entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the Michigan Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an exotic dancer at
Defendant's gentlemen's club during the period of about 1997
through about November 2018.

Cloud Nine is a corporation formed in the State of Michigan that
operates as a gentlemen's club featuring female exotic
dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clifford Neubauer, Jr., Esq.
     Erskine Law
     342 S. Main Street
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Phone: (248) 601-4499
     Email: cneubauer@erskinelaw.com

          - and -

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Phone: (301) 587-9373
     Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE: Carrillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE HEALTHCARE SERVICES
LLC, a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00443 (W.D.
Tex., April 29, 2019) is an action on behalf of plaintiff and all
other similarly situated collective members to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs as a result of Defendant's willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendant required the hourly-paid home care workers to perform
work for over 40 hours a week but it failed to pay overtime wages
at a rate of not less than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, asserts the
complaint. Specifically, Defendant impermissibly paid overtime at a
straight rate of pay without adding a premium, it adds.

Plaintiff Ms. Carrillo is employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
home care worker from approximately August 2017 to the present.

Defendant is a non-medical home care agency providing in home
companion and personal care services to physically-challenged and
dependent individuals of all ages in their own home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
     DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY, LLP
     302 N. Market Street, Suite 300
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 722-5990
     Fax: (214) 722-5991
     Email: tbranham@dobslegal.com

          - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     BROWN, LLC
     111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
     Jersey City, NJ 07310
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


CREDIT BUREAU: Class Notice in Bassett FDCPA-NCPA Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY M. BASSETT, individually and as heir of James M.
Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated;
Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC., and C. J. TIGHE,
Defendants, Case No. 8:16CV449 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the
Plaintiff's motion for approval of class notice.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for
approval of class notice; the Defendants' motion to stay; and the
Plaintiff's objections thereto.  The matter is a certified class
action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
and the Nebraska Consumer Practices Act.  The Plaintiff challenges
a collection letter sent to her by the Defendants.

In conformity with the Court's order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, the Plaintiff moves for approval of
class notice.  The Defendants oppose the motion, contending that
notice is premature, pending permission to pursue an interlocutory
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The
Eighth Circuit has now denied the Defendants' motion for an
interlocutory appeal and their motion for a stay and the
Plaintiff's objections thereto are moot.

Judge Bataillon has reviewed the Plaintiff's proposed form of
notice and finds that the notice by first class mail to the class
members constitutes the best notice practicable under the
circumstances.  Because the notice program will provide direct
notice to all the class members the requirements of Rule 23 and due
process are met.  The proposed notice provides all the information
required by the rule, along with a plain language description of
the case and an explanation of what a class action is and what the
case is about.  He finds the motion for approval of class action
notice should be granted and the proposed notice should be
approved.

Accordingly, Judge Bataillon denied as moot the Defendants' motion
to stay and the Plaintiff's objection.  He granted the Plaintiff's
motion for approval of class notice, and approved the Plaintiff's
proposed notice to the class.

The Plaintiff will issue notice to be delivered to the class
members by First Class United States Mail, based on address
information gathered from business records of the Defendants.  The
Defendants will provide the names and addresses of the class
members to the class counsel within four weeks of the date of the
Order; the Plaintiff will mail the Notice to the class members
within 21 days of receipt of the information from the Defendants;
the class members will be directed to opt-out or intervene within
60 days of the date of mailing the Notices.

The Judge appointed First Class, Inc. as the class administrator.

The parties are directed to contact the chambers of U.S. Magistrate
Judge Susan Bazis within seven days of the date of the Order to
schedule a status conference to discuss further progression of the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/fnV5vN from Leagle.com.

Kelly M. Bassett, individually and as heir of James M. Bassett, on
behald of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by O. Randolph Bragg -- rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ,
HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car -- pacar@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT
LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Credit Bureau Services, Inc. & C. J. Tighe, Defendants, represented
by Joshua C. Dickinson -- jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER,
FANE LAW FIRM & Shilee T. Mullin -- smullin@spencerfane.com --
SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM.


CREDIT CONTROL: New York Court Dismisses Nardino FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROLINE NARDINO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-3772 (ADS) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Arthur D. Spatt
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1)
denied the Defendant's motion to strike; (2) granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss; and (3) denied as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On June 22, 2017, Nardino commenced the putative class action
against Credit Control for damages stemming from alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion or class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedur.  In
responding to the Plaintiff's motion, the Defendant cross-moved to
dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12.  The Defendant further
moved to strike the Affidavit of Richard Jacoby, Esq., which was
submitted by the Plaintiff in support of her opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 10, 2018, the Court referred the matter to U.S. Magistrate
Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for a recommendation as to whether the
motions for any party should be granted, and if so, what relief
should be awarded.

On March 26, 2019, Judge Tomlinson issued a Report & Recommendation
("R&R") recommending that (1) the Defendant's motion to strike be
denied; (2) the Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted; and (3)
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied as moot.

More than 14 days have elapsed since service of the R&R on the
parties, who have failed to file an objection.  Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Judge
Spatt has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now
concurs in both its reasoning and its result.  Accordingly, he
adopted the R&R in its entirety.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Adoption Order is
available at https://is.gd/jYEreX from Leagle.com.

Caroline Nardino, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similiarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin.

Credit Control, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas R. Dominczyk
-- tdominczyk@MauriceWutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher, LLP.


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Prentice Suit Transferred N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned DAVID PRENTICE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN T. GRIFFIN, JEFFREY PARK, and ATUL
KAVTHEKAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-01642, was transferred on April 18,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02635 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.[BN]

Plaintiff David Prentice, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

Defendants Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., Brian T. Griffin, Jeffrey Park
and Atul Kavthekar are represented by:

          Jodi E. Lopez, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          E-mail: jlopez@sidley.com


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Riehm Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled WILLIAM RIEHM,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., BRIAN T. GRIFFIN, JEFFREY PARK, and ATUL
KAVTHEKAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-01369, was transferred on April 18,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago).

The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02631
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.[BN]

Plaintiff William Riehm, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Defendants Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., Brian T. Griffin, Jeffrey Park
and Atul Kavthekar are represented by:

          Jodi E. Lopez, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          E-mail: jlopez@sidley.com


DRILTEK INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Willis Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, KENNETH WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRILTEK,
INC., Defendant-Appellee. KENNETH WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
ENTERPRISE DRILLING FLUIDS, INC.; DRILTEK, INC.; JAMES JOSLYN,
Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 17-17397, 17-17472 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order granting summary judgment in favor of DrilTek in
Willis' putative class action claiming violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws.

Willis is seeking to recover overtime pay from DrilTek on the
theory that DrilTek was a joint employer with Enterprise, the
company that hired him.  The Ninth Circuit holds that the district
court correctly rejected that theory.  At most, DrilTek criticized
work done by one or two of Enterprise's engineers.  Because DrilTek
was the subcontractor in charge of overseeing operations, it
scheduled work to be done by Enterprise's employees.  DrilTek did
not hire, fire, or control the wages and hours and working
conditions of Willis and other engineers employed by Enterprise.
DrilTek therefore did not exercise the requisite degree of control
required by federal or California law to make DrilTek an employer.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/m2kOyg from Leagle.com.


EASTPOINTE, MI: Bid to Dismiss KBT Suit Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KBT GROUP, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
EASTPOINTE, Defendant, Case No. 18-10409 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Arthur
J. Tarnow of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, (a) orverruled the Defendant's
Objection to the Order on Motion to Substitute Party; and (b)
denied as moot (i) the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,a nd (ii) the
Plaintiff's Motion to Stay.

The Plaintiff brings the suit against the City of Eastpointe for
taking what it alleges are illegal and unconstitutional regulatory
actions against its property at 23155 Beechwood, after the City
deemed it a "dangerous property."  The Plaintiff brings the suit as
a putative class action and challenges both the means by which the
"dangerous property" designation is assigned and the City's actions
in furtherance of its scheme.

On Feb. 2, 2018, Plaintiff, H&J Solutions, brought the action
against the City of Eastpointe.  On March 19, 2018, the Defendant
filed an Answer stating that it lacked knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted
in regard to the Plaintiff's assertion that jurisdiction by the
Court is proper, and in regard to the portion of the complaint that
described the injuries H&J suffered as a result of the City's
actions.

On Sept. 21, 2018, after some discovery, the Plaintiff moved to
substitutein KBT as the Plaintiff.  It noted that both H&J and KBT
are controlled by the same people, and that it was KBT, not H&J,
who had title to the property at issue prior to the invoice being
issued for the City's unlawful fees.

The Defendant filed a response to that Motion on Oct. 5, 2018
stating that the City of Eastpointe does not object to the
substitution, but also reserving additional defenses created by the
substitution created by the transfer of a property interest during
the pendency of the litigation.  Among these defenses was that KBT
does not have standing, because it did not participate in the
Dangerous Buildings hearing.  On Oct. 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed
an Amended Motion to Amend, clarifying that H&J was the manager of
KBT and that the property was transferred on Feb. 10, 2017 for
liability purposes and in order to put title in a Michigan
company.

On Feb. 15, 2019, after another three months of discovery, the
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Standing.  It
argued that H&J Solutions lacked standing to bring the suit because
KBT, not H&J, sustained the alleged injuries giving rise to the
suit.  On Feb. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pending the outcome of its motions
for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.  The Defendant filed a
Response to the Motion to Stay on Feb. 27, 2019.  On March 14,
2019, the Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff's First Motion to
Substitute Party.  The Magistrate Judge noted that the Defendant
did not object to the substitution in its response and ordered the
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 10 days.  The Amended
Complaint was filed on March 19, 2019.

The Defendant objected to the Order on March 18, 2019.  It argued
that the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be
waived, and that the Magistrate Judge's Order is a "nullity,"
because the Court never had jurisdiction.

Judge Tarnow finds that the Defendant is correct that defects in
subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and mandate dismissal
even when not raised until the Supreme Court.  In the case though,
the Court never found that it lacked jurisdiction, because it never
adjudicated the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  Far from the
Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff is a complete stranger to
the case, it seems that H&J and KBT are closely related, and that
the standing question would be resolved in the normal course of
things, after briefing by the parties and a hearing.  This was
never necessary, of course, because the Magistrate Judge decided
the outstanding motion to amend before briefing was even completed
on the motion to dismiss.

In addition, the Judge finds that there is no rule that courts must
prioritize adjudicating Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss over
earlier-filed procedural motions that may moot those motions.  The
Plaintiff filed a motion to amend; the Defendant didn't object; and
then the Defendant turned the basis of that motion into its own
motion to dismiss.  The equities weighed towards granting leave to
amend, and the Magistrate Judge's Decision to do so, despite the
pending motion to dismiss, was not erroneous.  The Plaintiff's
March 19, 2019 Amended Complaint now supersedes its original
complaint.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Tarnow (a) orverruled the Defendant's
Objection to the Order on Motion to Substitute Party; and (b)
denied as moot (i) the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,a nd (ii) the
Plaintiff's Motion to Stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/iv4AyP from Leagle.com.

H&J Solutions, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Wasvary --
mark@wasvarylaw.com -- Becker and Wasvary & Aaron D. Cox --
aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com -- Law Offices of Aaron D. Cox PLLC.

KBT Group, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Mark K. Wasvary, Becker
and Wasvary.

City of Eastpointe, Defendant, represented by Timothy S. Ferrand --
tferrand@cmda-law.com -- Cummings, McClorey.


EDR ASSETS: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Hess Suit Affirmed w/o Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELE E. HESS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.
EDR ASSETS LLC, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, Case 8940, 160494/17
(N.Y. App. Div.), Judge Dianne Renwick of the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, unanimously
affirmed, without costs, the order Judge Frank P. Nervo of the New
York County Supreme Court entered on Sept. 7, 2018, which denied
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the
alternative, to dismiss the class action allegations of the
complaint.

She finds that the court properly found that the second and third
causes of action of the complaint were not moot because there was a
justiciable issue regarding the proper method of calculating the
amount of the rent overcharges, which, based on the record before
the court, DHCR did not determine.

She also finds that the court did not improvidently exercise its
discretion in denying the Plaintiffs' cross motion for class action
status with leave to renew following discovery, based on issues
raised by defendants concerning the typicality of a named
representative.  The court correctly determined that there were
common questions of law and fact that predominated over individual
issues, such as the proper method of calculating the amount of the
rent overcharges and whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent
scheme to deregulate the apartments.  Moreover, the Court of
Appeals has found that class action treatment was superior to
individual adjudication in similar situations.

The Judge rejects respondent's request for dismissal of the action
on the ground that DHCR has primary jurisdiction since the action
raises legal issues, including class certification, that must be
addressed in the first instance by the court.

She has considered the Defendants' remaining arguments and find
them unavailing.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6JrUas from Leagle.com.

Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Adrienne B. Koch --
akoch@katskykorins.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Roger Sachar -- rsachar@nfllp.com --
of counsel), for respondents.


EVEREST HOTEL: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Baker et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------
LATEE BAKER; BRADLEY CROWE; STEVEN CAMACHO; and KATINA MURRAY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE EVEREST HOTEL GROUP, LLC; RAJUMAANAR ENTERPRISES
CORP.; AMIR KHAN; SUNNY KHAN; and BETH ANNE SMITH, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00390-FJS-DEP (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 2019) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff.

The Everest Hotel Group, LLC is engaged in the hotel business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stan Matusz, Esq.
          29 Murfield Drive
          Ithaca, NY 14850
          Telephone: (607) 319-5513
          E-mail: stanmatusz@gmail.com


FCR COLLECTION: Ortz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
DAWN STEPHENSON ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCR Collection Services, Inc.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01936-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2019) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case is assigned to Judge Raymond J. Dearie and referred
to Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold

FCR Collection Services, founded in 2001 is a corporation located
in Foothill Ranch, California, and is engaged as a debt collection
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Silver, Esq.
          JACOB SILVER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          237 Club Dr
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (718) 855-3834
          Facsimile: (718) 534-0057
          E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com


FINANCE OF AMERICA: Faces Burkart Labor Suit in Sacramento
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Finance of America Mortgage LLC. The case is captioned as ANNETTE
BURKART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCE OF AMERICA MORTGAGE LLC; and DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00253677-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., April 2, 2019).

Finance Of America Mortgage LLC provides mortgage solutions in the
United States. It offers home loans, such as Federal Housing
Administration, VA, interest-only, jumbo, fixed rate, and
adjustable rate loans; reverse mortgages; and other services. The
company was founded in 1994 and is based in Horsham, Pennsylvania
with office locations in the United States. As per the transaction
announced on June 2, 2015, Finance Of America Mortgage LLC operates
as a subsidiary of Finance of America Holdings LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


FINANCE SYSTEM: Bid to Certify Class in Boucher FDCPA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN BOUCHER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FINANCE SYSTEM OF GREEN
BAY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-C-132 (E.D. Wis.), Judge
William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin (a) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification; and (b) granted (i) FSGB's motion for leave to file
a sur-reply, (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion to file a response to
FSGB's sur-reply, and (iii) FSGB's motion for leave to file papers
under seal.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") action is before
the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The case arises
out of a form debt collection letter that Defendant FSGB sent to
the named Plaintiffs in an effort to collect debts they had
incurred for medical services.

The Plaintiffs allege that the letter was false, deceptive and
misleading, and therefore violated the FDCPA, because FSGB could
neither legally, nor contractually impose "late charges and other
charges" on debts for medical services.  Reasoning that the letter
substantially met the "safe-harbor" rule created by the Court in
Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, LLC,
the Court originally dismissed the action and denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.  The Seventh
Circuit held that the statement did not comply with Miller,
however, and reversed.

On remand, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which added
four new Plaintiffs who had received similar letters and renewed
their motion for certification of a class consisting of all persons
with Wisconsin addresses to whom FSGB mailed an initial written
communication between Jan. 30, 2016 and Feb. 20, 2017, which was
not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service, and which
sought to collect a debt on behalf of the following creditors: (i)
Barker Physical Therapy Clinic; (ii) Fox Valley Emergency
Medicine;
(iii) Orthopedic Sports Medicine; (iv) Hand to Shoulder Center of
Wisconsin; or (v) The Center for Anesthetics and Plastic Surgery
and the collection letter: (i) stated, because of interest, late
charges and other charges that may be assessed by your creditor
that vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay, may
be greater; and (ii) late charges and other charges were not
subsequently added to the amount of the debt.

FSGB opposes the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the
ground that class treatment is not superior to individual treatment
for three separate reasons: (1) class recovery would be de minimus,
(2) the policies underlying class treatment are not implicated in
this case, and (3) the Plaintiffs' narrowed class definition will
expose FSGB to successive class action lawsuits on the same
grounds.  FSGB also argues that the Plaintiffs and their attorneys
are not adequate class representatives as evidenced by their
decision to cut out nearly 90% of the individuals falling within
the class as defined by the Amended Complaint.

Judge Griesbach finds that Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement is
satisfied.  The same standardized letter FSGB mailed to each class
member on behalf of medical providers is the source of each
member's claim.  He also finds that the Plaintiffs are adequate
class representatives.  The Plaintiffs' decision to limit the class
size is justified; they limited the class to those they could
establish were liable on the same grounds as liability was found
for Boucher, not as the result of deficiency in representation.

Having satisfied the four requirements of Rule 23(a) by a
preponderance of the evidence, the Plaintiffs must satisfy at lease
one of Rule 23(b)'s provisions.  The Judge finds that the issue --
the use of language that implied late charges and other charges
could be assessed when in fact they could not -- predominates over
any individual questions of the class members as each class member
received a letter containing the exact same language that gives
rise to FSGB's liability.  The Plaintiffs have therefore met their
burden of establishing the predominance element of Rule 23(b)(3).

It is over the superiority requirement that FSGB makes its
strongest argument.  Given the peculiar posture of the case --
FSGB's liability has already been established -- and in light of
FSGB's net worth, FSGB contends that a class action is not the
superior method to resolve the individual class members' disputes.
The Judge finds it true that without a class notice, many of those
who received an offending letter from FSGB may never know they have
a claim. But this is really a consequence of the fact that they
sustained no actual damages.  They would gain nothing of any
significance from a de minimus recovery.  The only way they would
truly benefit is by bringing an individual lawsuit, which flies in
the face of the primary purpose underlying Rule 23.  When one adds
the additional expense of mailing notices and the costs of
administration (estimated at $12,500), along with the additional
attorneys' fees that would be incurred, it seems clear that class
treatment is not a superior method of adjudicating the Plaintiffs'
claims unless the purpose is simply to punish FSGB.

Having also concluded that discovery on the issue was unnecessary
because it was not relevant to the issue of class certification,
the Plaintiffs have waived any objection to the financial
disclosures FSGB provided for purposes of deciding the motion
seeking such certification.

FSGB requests that its balance sheet, filed in conjunction with its
response brief to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
be filed under seal and that it be allowed to file a redacted
response brief that excludes references to its financial condition.
Upon review of the document, the Judge finds that it appears to
only contain sensitive financial information.  As a result, he is
satisfied that good cause exists to seal the document and keep
references to the information contained therein restricted except
as disclosed in the briefs of the parties and the decision of the
Court.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Griesbach denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  He granted FSGB's motion for leave
to file a sur-reply, the Plaintiffs' motion to file a response to
FSGB's sur-reply, and FSGB's motion for leave to file papers under
seal.  Dkt. Nos. 55 and 57-4 will remain restricted.  The Clerk is
directed to schedule this matter for a status conference to discuss
further proceedings.

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

Ryan Boucher, Heather L Boucher, Adam W Duch & Christopher W
Dettloff, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson --
Andrew@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Daniel A. Edelman
-- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC,
Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP,
Philip D. Stern -- Philip@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP
& Heather B. Jones, Stern Thomasson LLP.

Tom E Bremer, Michelle R Bremer, Mark Tessen & Brenda J Chambers,
Plaintiffs, represented by Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP &
Andrew T. Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP.

Finance System of Green Bay Inc, Defendant, represented by Brett B.
Larsen -- blarsen@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, David
M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP &
Elizabeth A. Odian -- eodian@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.


FOUR SEASONS: Ill. App. Affirms Arbitration Bid Denial in Liu Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael B. Hyman of the Appellate Court of Illinois for the
First District, Second Division, affirmed the trial court's order
denying Four Seasons' motion to compel arbitration in the case,
TONY LIU and CATHY LI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FOUR SEASONS HOTEL,
LTD., and 900 HOTEL VENTURE, LLC, d/b/a FOUR SEASONS HOTEL,
CHICAGO, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 1-18-2645 (Ill. App.).

In the interlocutory appeal, the Court is asked to decide one
issue: whether an arbitrator or the trial court should determine
whether hotel employees' claims under the Biometric Information
Privacy Act constitute "wage or hour violations."  The Four
Seasons, a luxury hotel in downtown Chicago, offers newly-hired
employees an employment agreement called "EmPact."  The EmPact
agreement includes a six-step "Complaint, Arbitration & Review for
Employees," (C.A.R.E.) process for dispute resolution.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, alleging that their
employer, Four Seasons, violated the Act in its method of
collecting, using, storing, and disclosing their biometric data,
namely, their fingerprints for timekeeping purposes.  Four Seasons
filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the Plaintiffs
signed an employment agreement that required four types of
employment disputes, including "wage or hour violation" claims, be
submitted to an arbitrator.  The trial court denied the motion to
compel arbitration on the grounds that a claim under the Act is not
one of the types of disputes the parties agreed to arbitrate.

Four Seasons argues that (i) the Plaintiffs' claims constitute
"wage or hour violation" claims because Four Seasons used the
fingerprint data to track employees' work hours, (ii) the
arbitration provision was not unconscionable, (iii) the class
action waiver provision does not affect the enforceability of the
arbitration provision, and (iv) the question of arbitrability
should be decided by an arbitrator.

Judge Hyman affirmed.  He opines that the Plaintiffs' claim does
not involve a "wage or hour violation" subject to arbitration.
Instead, it alleges Four Seasons violated their privacy rights by
requiring them to submit to fingerprint scanning as a timekeeping
method, squarely a matter under the Act.  In short, the Act is a
privacy rights law that applies inside and outside the workplace.
Neither party cites Illinois cases defining the phrase "wage or
hour violations" in the context of mandatory arbitration.  

Further, under the employment agreement, which limits the types of
disputes that must be arbitrated, arbitrability lies within the
domain of the trial court.  The Judge holds that the language in
the C.A.R.E. process is neither broad nor unclear, and specifies
four types of arbitratable disputes.  Collecting fingerprint data
does not fall into any of the four categories.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/qnr3jb from Leagle.com.


GANNETT COMPANY: Hall FLSA Suit Moved From Arizona to Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hall, et al. v. Gannett Company
Incorporated, Case No. 2:19-cv-00339, was transferred on April 19,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(Louisville).

The Kentucky District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00296-JHM-RSE to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[BN]

Plaintiffs Grace Hall, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Darren Brasher and Nicole Love are represented
by:

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          William C. Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey R. Feltre, Esq.
          Nicholas Jason Enoch, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 N. Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: corey@lubinandenoch.com
                  nick@lubinandenoch.com
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com

Defendant Gannett Company, Inc., An Arizona Corporation, is
represented by:

          Andrew Lylburn Scroggins, Esq.
          Camille A. Olson, Esq.
          Richard B. Lapp, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5275
          Facsimile: (312) 560-7000
          E-mail: ascroggins@seyfarth.com
                  colson@seyfarth.com
                  rlapp@seyfarth.com


GOOGLE INC: Freedom Watch Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's order dated
March 14, 2019, granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned Freedom Watch, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Google, Inc.
et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02030-TNM.

Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer appeals the March 14 Order and
all other orders and rulings adverse to them in this matter.

Plaintiffs Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer are represented
by:

     Larry Klayman, Esq.
     KLAYMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (310) 595-0800
     Fax: (202) 379-9289  
     Email: leklatman@gmail.com

The Defendant Google, Inc. is represented by:

     John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
     Thomas Goodman Hentoff, Esq.
     WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
     725 12th St. NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 434-5000
     Fax: (202) 434-5029
     Email: jschmidtlein@wc.com
            thentoff@wc.com

          - and -

     Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq.
     PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
     2001 K Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 223-7300
     Fax: (202) 223-7420
     Email: kshanmugam@paulweiss.com

The Defendant Facebook, Inc. is represented by:

     Craig S. Primis, Esq.
     Kenneth Winn Allen, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
     1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20004
     Phone: (202) 389-5921
     Fax: (202) 389-5200
     Email: craig.primis@kirkland.com
            winn.allen@kirkland.com

          - and -

     Mary Elizabeth Miller, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
     655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 879-5933
     Fax: (202) 879-5200
     Email: mary.miller@kirkland.com

The Defendant Twitter, Inc. is represented by:

     Brian M. Willen, Esq.
     Jonathan M. Jacobson, Esq.
     WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
     1301 Avenue of the Americas
     40th Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (650) 849-3340
     Fax: (650) 493-6811
     Email: bwillen@wsgr.com
            jjacobson@wsgr.com

The Defendant Apple, Inc. is represented by:

     James Adam Kraechenbuehl, Esq.
     Joshua P. Riley, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     1401 New York Ave, NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 237-1146
     Fax: (202) 237-6131
     Email: jkraechenbuehl@bsfllp.com
            jriley@bsfllp.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Gottlieb, Esq.
     WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP
     1875 K Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 303-1442
     Fax: (202) 303-2442
     Email: mgottlieb@willkie.com

          - and -

     William A. Isaacson, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     1401 New York Ave, NW
     11th Floor
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 237-9604
     Fax: (202) 237-6131
     Email: wisaacson@bsfllp.com


HILL'S PET: McIlvaine Files Fraud Class Suit in W.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HILL'S PET NUTRITION,
INC. The case is styled as JOHN MCILVAINE on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00497-AJS (W.D. Pa., April 30,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc, marketed simply as "Hills", is an
American pet food company that produces dog and cat foods. The
company is a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
     Morrow & Artim, PC
     304 Ross Street
     7th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 209-0656
     Fax: (412) 386-3184
     Email: cmorrow@allconsumerlaw.com


HILL'S PET: Rider et al. Sue over Contaminated Dog Food
-------------------------------------------------------
SHARON RIDER and PATRICIA MAXWELL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02206 (D. Kan., April 29,
2019), seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to fully comply
with proper quality and safety standards in its manufacturing
processes for its dog food before resuming sales of its Science
Diet and Prescription Diet dog foods; seeks damages to reimburse
for the worthless and dangerous cans of Science Diet and
Prescription Diet dog food Plaintiffs purchased, and/or any
statutory damages available; and seeks award of damages to
Plaintiffs to reimburse for veterinary and other economic expenses
caused by Defendant's dangerous dog food.

According to the complaint, over the years, Rider has been known to
take in older dogs who needed homes due to neglect or abuse. Rider
is a former employee of a veterinary clinic and provides her dogs
with a nutritious, balanced diet and regular veterinary care and
checkups.

Rider purchased cans of Hill's dog food, which were later recalled,
and ultimately caused Hemi's health to deteriorate to the point
that Hemi had to be put down. She did not learn about Hill's dog
food recall until March 16, 2019 when she went to PetSmart to
return Defendant's canned food because Hemi kept vomiting it up.
Hemi was the first dog in several years that Rider raised from a
pupp. At that time, Rider learned that some of the cans of Science
Diet dog food she had purchased had been recalled on January 31,
2019.

Several of the cans of Science Diet that Rider purchased on January
15, 2019 were not added to Hill's product recall until March 20,
2019. Rider had no way of knowing that she was feeding Hemi toxic
dog food. Hill's could have prevented this vitamin D contamination.
However, Hill's did not have the proper quality controls in place
to identify and stop the vitamin D contamination. Even after Hill's
issued a product recall on January 31, 2019, Hill's took until
March 20, 2019 to test its products and expan

Dogs are considered and treated as beloved family members for many
pet owners. Recently, an unfortunate number of these cherished pets
became violently ill and some perished after eating tainted dog
food manufactured by Hill's, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Sarah S. Ruane, Esq.
          Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
          Sarah S. Ruane, Esq.
          4740 Grand Ave., Ste 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-701-1100
          Facsimile: 816-531-2372
          E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                  sruane@wcllp.com
                  bwicklund@wcllp.com

HOME DEPOT: Court Enters Confidentiality Order in C. Golden's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Bakersfield Division,
entered the Agreed Confidentiality Order in the case, CLYDE GOLDEN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00033-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

All materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery,
including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests,
deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly
therefrom, will be subject to the Order concerning Confidential
Information.  The Order is subject to the Local Rules of this
District and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on matters of
procedure and calculation of time periods.  It governs the named
Plaintiff as well as Defendant Home Depot.

As used in the Order, "Confidential Information" will mean all
non-public material which contains or discloses information
relating to, referencing, or pertaining to: proprietary or
commercially sensitive information that could do harm to the
designating party's business advantage (e.g., marketing documents,
business relationships with other parties and other similar
information); research, technical, commercial or financial
information that the party has maintained as confidential; personal
information, as defined in Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.3, or other
personally sensitive information; information received in
confidence from third parties; and any other material that is
Confidential pursuant to applicable law.

All Confidential Information exchanged pursuant to the Order will
be used by the receiving party solely for purposes of the
Litigation, will not be used by the receiving party for any other
purpose, and will not be disclosed by the receiving party to anyone
other than those identified in subparagraph (b).  In a putative
class action, Confidential Information may be disclosed only to the
named Plaintiff(s) and not to any other member of the putative
class unless and until a class including the putative member has
been certified.

The counsel for the parties will make reasonable efforts to prevent
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Confidential Information.
The counsel will maintain the originals of the forms signed by
persons acknowledging their obligations under the Order for a
period of three years after the termination of the case.

The designation of any material or document as Confidential
Information is subject to challenge by any party.  Applications to
the Court for an order relating to materials or documents
designated Confidential Information will be by motion.  

The Order will take effect when entered and will be binding upon
all counsel of record and their law firms, the parties, and persons
made subject to this Order by its terms.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Wah7bJ from Leagle.com.

Clyde Golden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Keith L. Altman --
kaltman@lawampmmt.com -- Keith Altman, Excolo Law PLLC.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Virostko -- jvirostko@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac
vice, John R. Lawless -- jlawless@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP,
Marisa C. Maleck -- mmaleck@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro
hac vice & Sidney Stewart Haskins -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding, pro hac vice.


HOMETOWN AMERICA: Craw's Bid for Class Certification Terminated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, BARBARA CRAW, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-12149-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered
an order terminating, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Court held that, at any point, the Plaintiffs may file a
renewed motion or a request to restore the original motion to the
Court's active motions list.

The Court adopted the schedule for initial disclosures, discovery
on the Plaintiffs' individual claims, and summary judgment briefing
that the Defendants propose in the parties' joint status report.

Barbara Craw and Joan Shurtleff allege, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated current and former residents of two
manufactured housing communities, that the Defendants unlawfully
refused to make necessary repairs to the infrastructure on their
homesites, resulting in damage to their homes and dangerous
conditions on their homesites.

On November 2, 2018, shortly after this case was removed to federal
court, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On November
21, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim. Before the Court ruled on the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment. Because of the pending motion to dismiss, the Court
extended defendants' deadlines to oppose the motions for class
certification and partial summary judgment until after the
resolution of the motion to dismiss.

The Court then denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss in its
entirety. The parties have now filed a joint status report that
includes their separate proposals for a schedule for the remainder
of this litigation, including discovery and the briefing of the
still-pending motions for class certification and partial summary
judgment.[CC]

HOSOPO CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Gonzalez TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM GONZALEZ and JEREMIAH DAVILA-LYNCH, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOSOPO
CORPORATION d/b/a HORIZON SOLAR POWER; TMI 4 U COMM LLC; DAVID
GOODSTEIN; and FLOWMEDIA SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 18-10072-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied HOSOPO's
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  Plaintiffs Davila-Lynch and Gonzalez
allege that they received telemarketing phone calls from Defendants
Horizon Solar, Flowmedia, and TMI 4 that violated the TCPA and
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.  The Plaintiffs are residents of
Massachusetts whose cell phone numbers have a "508" area code.
Horizon Solar designs and installs residential solar-power systems.
To generate new clients, it makes telemarketing calls and hires
third parties, including Flowmedia and TMI 4 to make telemarketing
calls on its behalf.

In November and December 2017, Davila-Lynch received at least five
calls from Solar Spectrum, a company he contends is the "same" as
Horizon Solar.  He alleges that the calls included "pre-recorded
messages" offering to save him money by using solar-generated
electricity.  He also alleges that heard a "click and pause" sound
upon answering each of those calls, a fact that he contends
"indicates" the calls were made using an Automatic Telephone
Dialing System ("ATDS").

In January 2018, Gonzalez received an unidentified number of calls
on his cell phone from TMI.  He contends that those calls included
"scripted telemarketing pitches" on behalf of Horizon Solar, and
were made by a "ViciDial predictive dialer," a type of ATDS.
Finally, during the end of January, and at times through February
and March 2018, Gonzalez received at least eight telemarketing
phone calls directly from Horizon Solar.  Gonzalez alleges that
these calls were made with Five9, yet another type of ATDS.

On Jan. 15, 2018, Davila-Lynch filed a complaint against Horizon
Solar and "John Doe Corp." on behalf of a proposed nationwide class
of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or
on behalf of the Defendants.

On April 25, 2018, Davila-Lynch filed an amended complaint that
added Flowmedia as a Defendant.  On Aug. 31, 2018, Davila-Lynch,
now joined by Gonzalez, filed a second amended complaint.  The
second amended complaint added TMI and David Goodstein as
Defendants and alleges two counts: (1) a violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act; and (2) a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
93A.

Defendants Horizon Solar and Flowmedia both moved to dismiss the
complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.  On Jan. 30, 2019, Flowmedia
filed a suggestion of bankruptcy.

Judge Saylor finds that Gonzalez does not allege that he heard a
"click and pause" after he answered any of the calls.  Nonetheless,
the allegations are sufficient, if barely so, to raise a plausible
inference that an ATDS was used.  He alleges the use of a specific
type of predictive dialer and dialing system, not simply a generic
ATDS, and further alleges that the calls contained a scripted
pitch.  More significantly, the high number of calls in a short
period of time, all for the same purpose, raises a plausible
inference that an automated system was used.  In short, therefore,
Gonzalez has raised at least a plausible claim of TCPA violation.

The Judge further finds that the only potentially economic injury
alleged is the claimed charges for calls.  The complaint does not
allege a specific dollar amount, and presumably such charges are
imposed only with certain types of cell phone plans.  That is, to
say the least, a slender thread on which to hang a Chapter 93A
claim.  Nonetheless, it is at least a plausible claim of economic
injury, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.  To the extent,
however, the complaint alleges other injuries, such as annoyance or
frustration, they are not legally cognizable under Chapter 93A, at
least in an action brought by a consumer.  Accordingly, Horizon
Solar's motion to dismiss will be denied as to the claim brought
under Chapter 93A, but the claim may proceed only on a theory of
economic injury, based on charges incurred for receiving the
calls.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Saylor denied the motion of
Defendant HOSOPO to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/s8RhI6 from Leagle.com.

Jeremiah Davila-Lynch, On behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich, Paronich
Law, P.C., Alex M. Washkowitz -- Alex@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law
Group, P.C., Edward A. Broderick, The Law Office of Edward A.
Broderick & Jeremy A. Cohen -- Jeremy@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law
Group, P.C.

William Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich,
Paronich Law, P.C.

HOSOPO Corporation, doing business as Horizon Solar Power,
Defendant, represented by Greil I. Roberts -- groberts@grsm.com --
Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas C. Blatchley -- tblatchley@grsm.com --
Gordon & Rees LLP, pro hac vice.

Flowmedia Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by John J.
O'Connor -- joconnor@peabodyarnold.com -- Peabody & Arnold LLP.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hernandez Files Suit Over Deadly Airbag Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HERNANDEZ & TAMMY TYLER, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, KIA MOTOR
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE
HOLDINGS CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00782 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2019) is a case presenting yet
another example of an airbag manufacturer and automakers conspiring
to conceal a deadly airbag defect, once again putting profits ahead
of safety.

According to the complaint, over the past five years, tens of
millions of U.S. consumers have seen their Takata-manufactured
airbags recalled for a deadly defect resulting in seven automakers
paying a collective $1.5 billion in class action settlements. In
this case, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
("NHTSA") estimates some 12.5 million vehicles may contain a
defective Airbag Control Unit ("ACU") designed and manufactured by
ZF-TRW and supplied to numerous vehicle manufacturers, including
Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Honda and Fiat Chrysler US
("FCA"). The defect in the ACU occurs because the
application-specific integrated circuit ("ASIC") becomes over
stressed by excess electrical energy generated during the crash.
This ASIC defect then causes a failure in the ACU and neither the
airbags nor  the seat belt pretensioners will deploy.

ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia became aware of the ACU defect as early as
2011, but did nothing to protect consumers or warn of the product
dangers until 2018, says the complaint. From 2011 through 2015,
ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia investigated airbag non-deployments in
several Kia and Hyundai vehicles but failed to inform NHTSA that
there was an issue until the end of 2015. Even after advising NHTSA
in 2015, each of these companies downplayed the severity and
frequency of these non-deployment crashes. It was not until
February and June of 2018 that Hyundai and Kia, respectively,
issued product recalls as to a small segment of their vehicles.
Throughout this nearly decade long period, unsuspecting U.S.
consumers purchased Class Vehicles with defective ACUs which
indisputably pose a grave safety risk.

As a result of this misconduct, Plaintiffs and members of the
proposed Classes were harmed and suffered actual damages.
Plaintiffs and the Classes did not receive the benefit of their
bargain; rather, they purchased or leased vehicles that are of a
lesser standard, grade, and quality than represented, and they did
not receive vehicles that met ordinary and reasonable consumer
expectations regarding safe and reliable operation, asserts the
complaint.

Purchasers or lessees of the Class Vehicles (refers to the: (a) Kia
Forte 2013; (b) Kia Forte Koup 2013; (c) Kia Optima 2013-2019; (d)
Kia Optima Hybrid 2012-2016; (e) Kia Sedona 2014; (f) Hyundai
Sonata 2013-2019; (g) Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 2013-2019) paid more,
either through a higher purchase price or higher lease payments,
than they would have had the ASIC Defect been disclosed. Plaintiffs
and the Classes were deprived of having a safe, defect-free airbag
installed in their vehicles, and ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia unjustly
benefited from their unconscionable delay in recalling its
defective products, as they avoided incurring the costs associated
with recalls and installing replacement parts for years, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs owned and purchased the Class Vehicles from Defendant.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. ("HMA") is a Delaware corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roland Tellis, Esq.
     David Fernandes, Esq.
     Elizabeth Smiley, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: (818) 839-2333
     Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
     Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
            dfernandes@baronbudd.com
            esmiley@baronbudd.com

          - and -

     Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq.
     Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery St., 29th Fl
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Phone: 415-956-1000
     Facsimile: 415-956-1008
     Email: ecabraser@lchb.com
            ndesai@lchb.com

          - and -

     David Stellings, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Fl
     New York, NY 10012
     Phone: 212-355-9500
     Facsimile: 212-355-9592
     Email: dstellings@lchb.com


INTERNATIONAL LASER: Alvarado's Bid to Certify Class Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on April 22, 2019, in the case
captioned Josue Alvarado v. International Laser Products, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07756 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages is
      granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to authorize notice pursuant to
      Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
      class certification is entered and continued for briefing;

   -- Response to be filed by or on May 13, 2019;

   -- Reply to be filed by or on May 20, 2019;

   -- Status hearing set for June 3, 2019, is stricken and
re−set
      to May 30, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.[CC]


INVENTION SUBMISSION: Claims in Amended Calhoun TCPA Suit Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ETTA CALHOUN, Plaintiff, v. INVENTION SUBMISSION
CORPORATION, et al., Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-1022 (W.D.
Pa.), Judge cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

The case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell
for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28
U.S.C. Sections 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rules 72.C and
72.G.  Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's putative Amended Class Action Complaint filed by two
groups of the Defendants: the InventHelp Defendants and the
Attorney Defendants.

The first Motion to Dismiss, which also contains a Motion to
Strike, was filed by Defendants Invention Submission Corp., doing
business as InventHelp, Western Invention Submission Corp, doing
busienss as Western InventHelp, Technosystems Consolidated Corp.,
Technosystems Service Corp., Universal Payment Corporation,
Intromark Inc., and Robert J. Susa ("InventHelp Defendants").

The second Motion to Dismiss was filed by Defendants Thomas Frost,
Thomas Frost, P.A., Kyle Fletcher, the Law Office of Kyle Fletcher,
P.C., and Kaufhold & Dix ("Attorney Defendants").

On Jan. 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendatio recommending that both Motions to Dismiss be granted
in part and denied in part.

On Jan. 17, 2019, the InventHelp Defendants filed timely Objections
to the Report, as did Defendants Thomas Frost and Thomas Frost,
P.A.  The Plaintiff timely opposed both the InventHelp Objections,
and the Frost Objections on Jan. 31, 2019.  On March 22, 2019, the
Frost Defendants filed a Motion to Leave to Supplement their
Objections, which the Court denied on March 26, 2019 after finding
that the Frost Defendants had waived the argument raised in their
proposed supplement concerning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b).

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the pleadings and
documents in the case, including the Report, the Defendants'
Objections and tge Plaintiff's Oppositions.

The InventHelp Defendants raise several objections to the Report,
arguing that: (1) the action is time-barred; (2) the Plaintiff has
failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a claim under the
American Inventors Protection Act ("AIPA"); (3) the Plaintiff has
failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a claim under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); and (4) the Report
misapplied the gist of the action doctrine and the parol evidence
rule in concluding that the Plaintiff's fraud and negligent
misrepresentation claims are sufficiently pleaded.

Judge Bissoon finds that although the limitations period for the
Plaintiff's tort claims is only two years, there is likewise no
indication on the face of the Amended Complaint that the Plaintiff
should have been aware of the Defendants' alleged scheme prior to
June 1, 2016.  She thus agrees with the Report's conclusion on this
point as well, and cannot conclude that these claims are
time-barred.

As to whether the Plaintiff's AIPA claims are sufficient under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Judge finds tha the
Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded an AIPA claim based on
materially false representations (or omissions) unrelated to the
AIPA-mandated disclosures, but she has not sufficiently pleaded an
AIPA claim related to the AIPA-mandated disclosures.

The Judge rejects the Report's recommendation as to TCPA claim
under Rule 12(b)(6), and grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the claim.  She finds that there are no other facts alleged in the
Complaint that would suggest the use of an ATDS, particularly given
the prior relationship the Plaintiff alleges she had with the
InventHelp Defendants.  While the Plaintiff does allege harassing
and unwanted contact over the phone from the Defendants, none of
her allegations imply to any degree that the people who called her
used an ATDS to do so.

The Judge agrees with the Report's conclusion that the parol
evidence rule does not bar the Plaintiff's tort claims at the
motion to dismiss stage under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard; the Court
may revisit the viability othe Plaintiff's tort claims at a later
stage if the Plaintiff fails to adduce evidence to support the
specific nature of her claims.  She agrees also with the Report's
analysis and conclusion concerning the gist of the action: the
primary nature of the duty that the Plaintiff alleges the
Defendants violated is a general societal duty not to defraud
others, which exists apart from any contract. As a result, the gist
of the action doctrine does not bar the Plaintiff's tort claims.

The Frost Defendants object to the Report on two grounds: (1) the
Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to give rise to specific
personal jurisdiction over the Frost Defendants in Pennsylvania;
and (2) all of the Plaintiff's claims against the Frost Defendants
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient
at this stage for the Court to exercise specific personal
jurisdiction over the Frost Defendants under the absent
co-conspirator doctrine; (ii) the Plaintiff makes her relevant
allegations against all the Defendants, and these allegations
include an allegation of a conspiracy involving all the Defendants;
(iii) the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded breach of contract
against the Frost Defendants as an alternative theory of liability;
(iv) the Plaintiff cannot plead breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing as a standalone claim, but has pleaded this claim
as part of her breach of contract claim; and (v) the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pleaded unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty
against the Frost Defendants as alternative theories of liability.

Accordingly, for the she reasons stated, Judge Bissoon adopted in
part, modified in part, and rejected in part, the Report.  She
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss as follows:

     a. The InventHelp Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is: (i)
granted to dismiss Robert J. Susa as a party; (ii) granted ith
respect to Counts II, III, VII, VIII, and IX of the Amended
Complaint; (iii) granted with respect to Count I insofar as that
Count rests on AIPA-mandated disclosures; (iv) denied with respect
to the remainder of Count I, as well as Counts IV, V and VI of the
Amended Complaint; and (v) denied as to the Motion to Strike.

     b. The Attorney Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is: (i) granted
to dismiss Kyle A. Fletcher, the Law Office of Kyle Fletcher, P.C.,
and Kaufhold & Dix as parties; (ii) denied as to Thomas Frost and
Thomas Frost, P.A.; (iii) granted as to Counts II and VII of the
Amended Complaint; and (iv) denied s to Counts IV, V, VI, VIII and
IX such that those Counts remain against Thomas Frost and Thomas
Frost, P.A.

All of the dismissals are without prejudice.  If the Plaintiff
wishes to file a second amended complaint to address any of the
pleading deficiencies identified, she may do so by April 30, 2019.
This will be Plaintiff's last and final opportunity to amend her
complaint.  If the Plaintiff does not file a second amended
complaint by April 30, 2019, all of the claims dismissed above will
be dismissed with prejudice.

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

ETTA CALHOUN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by Julie Pechersky Plitt , Oxman
Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice, Richard A. Levan , Klehr, Harrison,
Harvey, Branzberg & Ellers, Jon-Jorge Aras -- jjaras@levan.legal --
Levan Legal LLC, Marc S. Oxman -- moxman@oxmanlaw.com -- Oxman Law
Group, PLLC, pro hac vice & Stanley W. Greenfield, Greenfield and
Kraut.

INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION, doing business as INVENTHELP,
TECHNOSYSTEMS CONSOLIDATED CORP., TECHNOSYSTEMS SERVICE CORP.,
WESTERN INVENTION SUBMISSION CORP., UNIVERSAL PAYMENT CORPORATION,
INTROMARK INCORPORATED & ROBERT J. SUSA, Defendants, represented by
David J. Garraux -- dgarraux@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD
LLP.

THOMAS FROST, THOMAS FROST, P.A., LAW OFFICE OF KYLE FLETCHER,
P.C., KYLE A. FLETCHER & KAUFHOLD & DIX, Defendants, represented by
James W. Kraus -- JWK@Pietragallo.com -- Pietragallo Gordon Alfano
Bosick & Raspanti.


J-B WELD COMPANY: Faces Baum Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J-B Weld Company,
LLC. The case is assigned to FELIX BAUM, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J-B WELD COMPANY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01718-SK (N.D. Cal., April 3,
2019). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

J-B Weld Company, LLC manufactures cold weld products. J-B Weld
Company, LLC was founded in 1968 and is based in Sulphur Springs,
Texas, with an additional office in London, United Kingdom. It has
operations in the United States and internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia Nicole Syverson
          Manfred Patrick Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Carrie Ann Laliberte, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: claliberte@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          Todd Lawrence McLawhorn, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com
                  tmclawhorn@siprut.com


JAIL HILL INN: Knowles Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jail Hill Inn, Inc.
The case is styled as Carlton Knowles on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jail Hill Inn, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02913 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Jail Hill Inn is a member of the prestigious Select Registry
collection of inns. The organization represents 350 of the top inns
from around the country that offer the best service and
amenities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     CK Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group PLLC
     30 E 39th St-2nd Fl
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Dynamex Retroactively Applies to Franchisors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case captioned GERARDO VAZQUEZ, GLORIA ROMAN, and
JUAN AGUILAR, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 17-16096 (9th Cir.),
the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, was tasked with
having to decide the applicability of a recent decision by the high
court of California, Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 416
P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018) -- postdating the district court's decision.

This case dates back over a decade.  In 2008, a putative class
action was filed in the District of Massachusetts by a
Massachusetts plaintiff, Giovani Depianti, and two Pennsylvania
plaintiffs, against the Defendant-Appellee, Jan-Pro International
Franchising, Inc., a Georgia corporation.  By the end of that year,
there was an additional plaintiff from Massachusetts plus seven
more from other states, including the three individual
Plaintiffs-Appellants in this case, who are California residents.

They all had a common cause to pursue: that Jan-Pro, a major
international janitorial cleaning business, had developed a
sophisticated "three-tier" franchising model to avoid paying its
janitors minimum wages and overtime compensation by misclassifying
them as independent contractors.

Dynamex adopted the so-called "ABC test" for determining whether
workers are independent contractors or employees under California
wage order laws.  Jan-Pro principally argued that "the Dynamex
decision should not be applied retroactively," and that, in any
event, it should prevail under the doctrines of the law of the case
and res judicata.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the test does apply in this case,
vacated the lower court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the
complaint, and remanded this appeals case for further proceedings.
As Depianti-SJC explained, the ABC test applies to a dispute
between a putative employee and a hiring entity even if they are
not parties to the same contract. As long as the putative employee
was providing a service to the hiring entity even indirectly, the
hiring entity can fail the ABC test and be treated as an employer.


A copy of the Opinion filed May 2, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4qslftm from Leagle.com.

Shannon Liss-Riordan (argued), Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten
& Liss-Riordan P.C., Boston, Massachusetts, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jeffrey M. Rosin (argued), Esq. -- jrosin@ohaganmeyer.com --
O'Hagan Meyer PLLC, Boston, Massachusetts, for Defendant-Appellee.

Catherine K. Ruckelshaus and Najah A. Farley, National Employment
Law Project, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae National
Employment Law Project, Equal Rights Advocates, Dolores Street
Community Services, Legal Aid at Work, and Worksafe, Inc.

Norman M. Leon, Esq. -- norman.leon@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP,
Chicago, Illinois; Jonathan Solish, Esq. --
jonathan.solish@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica,
California; James F. Speyer, Esq. -- james.speyer@arnoldporter.com
-- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Los Angeles, California; for
Amicus Curiae The International Franchise Association.

JONATHAN NEIL: Court Dismisses Brown FDCA Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California dismissed with prejudice the
case, TERI BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

On Feb. 14, 2019, the parties joint motion for final approval of
the class action settlement was granted.  On Feb. 25, 2019, the
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the award of
attorney fees.  On March 12, 2019, the motion for reconsideration
was denied and the parties were ordered to file a stipulation for
dismissal of the action within 14 days.  On April 2, 2019, an order
issued requiring the parties to show cause why sanctions should not
issue for the failure to file dispositive documents in compliance
with the March 12, 2019 order.  On April 5, 2019, the parties filed
a response to the order to show cause and a proposed order for
final judgment.

The parties response to the order to show cause informs the Court
that an additional four class notices were returned after the final
approval order issued.  The class administrator was able to locate
addresses for these class members and the delay in filing
dispositive documents was due to the parties discussing how to
address these late returned notices.  The parties seek the Court's
advice on whether the class notices should be re-sent or the funds
should be donated to the cy press beneficiary.

An informal teleconference was held to address the late returned
notices on April 9, 2019.  Counsel Ari Marcus appeared for the
class and counsel Gnekow appeared for the Defendants.  At the
informal telephonic conference, the parties stated that the notices
that have been returned are from the second notices that were sent
after the original notice was returned.  New addresses have been
discovered for all four class members.

In granting the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement, the Court considered that notice
requirement under Rule 23 and found that the parties had proposed
the best notice practicable under the circumstances.  It also
addressed notice in the order approving the final settlement of the
matter.

Magistrate Judge Boone finds that each absent class member was
mailed a notice of the class action settlement.  Those notices that
were returned and for which updated addresses were discovered were
re-mailed.  Of the 23 notices that were re-mailed, four were
returned after final approval of the class action settlement was
granted.  In this instance, the time to opt-out of the settlement
has passed and final approval of the class action settlement has
been granted.  The four class members did not receive the class
action notice, but the class administrator has obtained new
addresses for them.  The Judge finds that the notice provided has
complied with the requirements of Rule 23 and the settlement checks
should be mailed to the four class members for whom the notice has
been returned.

Additionally, he finds that the matter has settled and the
settlement funds have been distributed to the class members.
Therefore, he will order the action dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Boone discharged the to show cause
filed April 2, 2019.  The class administrator will mail t he
settlement check to the four class members who have had their class
notice returned.  He dismissed the action withprejudice.  The Clerk
of the Court is directed to close the matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/N78n3Rs from Leagle.com.

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

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


KIA MOTORS: Cox Sues over Vehicle Design Defect
-----------------------------------------------
The case, RUTH COX, the Plaintiff, vs. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 19STCV14749
(Cal. Super. Ct.), seeks appropriate injunctive or declaratory
relief, including, without limitation, an Order that requires
Defendant to repair, recall, or replace the Class Vehicles and
extent the applicable warranties to a reasonable period of time or,
at a minimum, to provide Plaintiffs and Class members with
appropriate curative notice regarding the existence and cause of
the design Defect.

On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased a 2012 Kia Sorento
vehicle identification number 5XYKT3A64CG308937, which was
manufactured and/or distributed by the Defendant. The Subject
Vehicle was purchased or used primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes. The Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle
from a person or entity engaged in the business of manufacturing,
distributing, or selling consumer goods at retail.

In connection with the leased and/or purchase, the Plaintiff
received an express written warranty, including, a 5-year/60,000
mile express bumper to bumper warranty, a 10-year/100,000 mile
powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers the engine and
transmission, and 10-year/120,000 miles extended warranty on the
engine. Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or
performance of the Subject Vehicle or to provide compensation if
there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period
of time.

During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or
developed defects, including but not limited to, latent defects
causing oil flow to become restricted through vital areas of the
engine resulting in stalling while in operation; defects related to
the engine's rod bearings; defects related to the engine; defects
causing the Subject Vehicle to surge; defects causing the AC to
shut off and/or be inoperable; defects requiring performance of
Recall SC147, related to the engine; defects requiring performance
of Recall PI1803, related to the engine; defects requiring
reprogramming of the engine control unit (ECU); defects related to
the transmission; defects requiring performance of recall SC124;
defects requiring brake lamp bulb replacement; and/or any other
defects described in the repair history for the Subject The defects
substantially impair the use, value, or safety of theSubject
Vehicle, the lawsuit says.

Under the tolling rule articulated in Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v.
Utah, 414 U.S., the filing of a class action lawsuit in federal
court tolls the statute of limitations for the claims of unnamed
class members until the class certification issue is resolved. In
applying American Pipe tolling to California cases, the California
Supreme Court summarized the tolling rule derived from American
Pipe and stated that the statute of limitations is tolled from the
time of commencement of the suit to the time of denial of
certification for all purported members of the class.

KMA is engaged in the design, development, manufacture,
distribution, marketing, selling, leasing, warranting, servicing,
and repair of automobiles, including the Subject Vehicle. KMA is
responsible for the distribution, 15 service, repair, installation,
and decisions regarding the GDI engines and ultimately, the Engine
Defect, in Kia Vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Sean Crandall, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A Professional Corporation
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com
                  scrandall@slpattorney.com

KIA MOTORS: Ramos Sues over Sale of Defective GDI Engines
---------------------------------------------------------
DAISY RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV11677 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 3, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' vehicle and its
2.0 gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine were defective and
susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew
since 2009, if not earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011
­2019 KIA Sportage, 2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai
Sonata, and 2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0
or 2.4L engine, including the 2012 Kia Optima contained one or more
design and/or manufacturing defects in their engines that results
in the restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings,
as well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which
typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited
warranty period has expired -- will cause the KIA Vehicle to
experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation
and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all
due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often
causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a
knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a
fire.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
            & CARPENTER, LLP
         402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 756-6994
         Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
         E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

              - and -

         Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
            & CARPENTER, LLP
         1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 322-9243
         Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
         E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com


              - and -

         Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
         Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
         THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
         85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
         Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
         Telephone: (854) 705-9460
         Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
         E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 Gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

              - and -

         Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
         Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
         HALUNEN LAW
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 605-4098
         Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
         E-mail: Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                 boyle@halunenlaw.com

              - and -

         Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
         WALSH PLLC
         PO Box 7
         Bly, OR 97622
         Telephone: (541) 359-2827
         Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
         E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com


LAKE GROVE: Mendoza Seeks Damages Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Raymundo Martinez Mendoza, individually and on behalf of those
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lake Grove Ventures,
Inc., and Frank Buongervino, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02527
(E.D. N.Y., April 30, 2019) is an action seeking monetary damages,
declaratory relief, and affirmative relief based upon Defendants'
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Defendants' have decisions, policies, plans and common
policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and
rules willfully failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff overtime pay
at a rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in or around June 2007 as a
"laborer".

Defendant operates as a landscaping and masonry business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher K. Collotta, Esq.
     Rolando Delacruz, Esq.
     ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C.
     1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
     Bohemia, NY 11716
     Phone: (631) 589-7242
     Fax: (631) 563-7475
     Email: CCollorra@laborlawsny.com
            RDelacruz@laborlawsny.com



LYFT INC: Gupta, et al. Bring Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LYFT INC. ET AL. The
case is styled as NARENDRA GUPTA, LIANG XUE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. LYFT INC.,
ACADEMY SECURITIES INC, BLAYLOCK VAN LLC, C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES
INC, C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES INC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES L.P., COWEN
AND COMPANY LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES LLC (USA), DOES 1 TO 25,
INCLUSIVE, DREXEL HAMILTON LLC, EVERCORE GROUP LLC, EVERCORE GROUP
LLC, GREEN, LOGAN, HOROWITZ, BEN, JARRETT, VALERIE, JEFFERIES LLC,
JMP SECURITIES LLC, JP MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL
MARKETS INC., KKR CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, KKR CAPITAL MARKETS LLC,
LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MIKITANI, HIROSHI, MISCHLER FINANCIAL
GROUP INC., MIURA-KO, ANN, PENSERRA SECURITIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY &
CO., PRASHANT, AGGARWAL (SEAN), RAKUTEN, INC., RAYMOND JAMES &
ASSOCIATES, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC., SAMUEL A RAMIREZ &
COMPANY INC., SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO. LLC, STIFEL, NICHOLAUS &
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, T ESSLAUS & CO. LLC., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL
GROUP L.P., TIGRESS FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC,
WILDEROTTER, MARY AGNES (MAGGIE), ZIMMER, JOHN, Defendants, Case
No. CGC19575644 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 30,
2019).

The case type is stated as "Securities/Investments".

Lyft, Inc. operates a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand
ridesharing in the United States and Canada. It provides
Ridesharing Marketplace, which facilitates lead generation, billing
and settlement, support, and related activities to enable drivers
to provide their transportation services to riders.[BN]


MDL 2741: Bellanger Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled DAVID BELLANGER and BERNADETTE BELLANGER v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00547, was transferred on April
18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02060-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.

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

Plaintiffs David Bellanger and Bernadette Bellanger are represented
by:

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


MDL 2741: Gurley Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled RUTH GURLEY, Individually and as ADMINISTRATOR
of the Estate of DOUGLAS N. GURLEY v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN
DOES 1-50, Case No. 4:19-cv-00192, was transferred on April 18,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02048-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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


MDL 2741: Ludovicy Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled PETER LUDOVICY and MARY J. LUDOVICY v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 4:19-cv-00195, was transferred
on April 18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02051-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.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


MDL 2741: Mansfield Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Lit.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled PHILLIP MANSFIELD AND SCHARLENE MANSFIELD v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00332, was transferred on April
18, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02058-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.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Moore Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned MARJORIE MOORE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00279, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02055-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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Neill Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled RONALD L. NEILL and CONNIE NEILL v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00322, was transferred on April 18, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02057-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.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Oliver Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled RITA L. OLIVER and KEVIN OLIVER v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00321, was transferred on April 18, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02056-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.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Tebay Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled DORIS TEBAY AND RODNEY TEBAY v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00452, was transferred on April 18, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02059-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.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Ruiz FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Robert Ruiz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 623491/2018, was removed on April 18,
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.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02262 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating 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


MIDWAY RENT: Faces Machuca Labor Suit in Los Angeles California
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class-action lawsuit has been filed against
Midway Rent A Car, Inc. The case is captioned as CHRISTIAN MACHUCA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MIDWAY RENT A CAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19STCV11346 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 3, 2019). The
case is assigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Midway Rent-A-Car, Inc. provides car rental services in Los
Angeles. The company provides exotic, luxury and standard car
rentals. Midway Rent-A-Car, Inc. was founded in 1972 and is based
in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Roman Shkodnik, Esq.


MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: May 20 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (NYSE:MBT)
from March 19, 2014 through March 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important May 20, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in
the action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mobile
TeleSystems investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Mobile TeleSystems class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1531.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mobile TeleSystems
and its subsidiary were involved in a scheme to pay $420 million in
bribes in Uzbekistan; (2) consequently, Mobile TeleSystems knew or
should have known it would be forced to pay substantial fines to
the U.S. government after disclosing in 2014 that the U.S.
Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission were
investigating its Uzbekistan operations; (3) Mobile TeleSystems'
level of cooperation with the U.S. government and remediation was
lacking; (4) due to the aforementioned misconduct, Mobile
TeleSystems would be forced to pay approximately $850 million in
criminal penalties to the U.S. government; and (5) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 20,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1531.html

         Contact:
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


MODIS INC: Faces Victorio Suit over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------
DANILO VICTORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MODIS INC., d/b/a MODIS IT, Inc.; and MODIS
E&T, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01713-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 2,
2019) alleges that the Defendants routinely obtain consumer reports
from consumer reporting agencies in connection with their hiring
practices, and use those consumer reports as a basis to take
adverse action against job applicants and their employees, all
without complying with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Modis, Inc. provides information technology (IT) staffing services
to Fortune 1000, mid-market, and government entities in the United
States, Canada, and Europe. Modis, Inc. was formerly known as
Computer Professionals, Inc. and changed its name to Modis, Inc. in
December 1997. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered
in Jacksonville, Florida. It has locations in the United States,
Canada, and Europe. Modis, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Adecco
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Potter, Esq.
          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY LLP
          9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 375-7385
          Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
          E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
                  jimt@potterhandy.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Ashley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Helen Ashley, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01025 (E.D. Mo., April 29, 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: Austin Files Suit Over Roundup-related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA J. AUSTIN and GARY W. AUSTIN, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01034-PLC (E.D. Mo., April 29,
2019) is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of 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, containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Defendant discovered the herbicidal properties of glyphosate
during the 1970's and subsequently began to design, research,
manufacture, sell and distribute glyphosate based "Roundup" as a
broad-spectrum herbicide. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in
Roundup. Plaintiff maintains that Roundup 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. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to appropriately
and adequately test Roundup, Roundup's adjuvants and "inert"
ingredients, and/or the surfactant POEA to protect Plaintiff from
Roundup. Rather than performing appropriate tests, Defendant relied
upon flawed industry-supported studies designed to protect
Defendant's economic interests rather than Plaintiff and the
consuming public. Despite its knowledge that Roundup was
considerably more dangerous than glyphosate alone, Defendant
continued to promote Roundup as safe, the complaint relates.

Plaintiffs have been injured by direct exposure to Defendant's
products.

Defendant advertises and sells goods, specifically Roundup, in the
State of Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Ball Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, FRANK E. BALL, JR., the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01037-HEA (E.D. Mo., April 29,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Banker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as, ROBERT L. BANKER, SR., the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01039 (E.D. Mo.,
April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the
Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Binneboese Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Harold Binneboese, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01018 (E.D. Mo., April 29, 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: Brown Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Samuel Brown, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01036-JAR (E.D. Mo., April 29, 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: Holmes et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BARRY HOLMES; and PATRICIA HOLMES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00353,
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 2, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-01742 to the proceeding.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Ridner Suit Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARK RIDNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00351, was removed from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 5, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01740 to the proceeding.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


MOWI ASA: Schneider's Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA),
Marine Harvest USA, LLC, and others seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and other relief pursuant to the federal antitrust laws.
The suit arises from unlawful coordination of the prices charged to
direct purchasers of farm-raised salmon and salmon products derived
therefrom (such as salmon fillets or smoked salmon) that were sold
directly by the Defendants between July 1, 2015 and the present, in
violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, monopolistic behavior in the salmon
market has had and continues to have a significant impact on south
Florida. The National Marine Fisheries Services reports that,
between 2015 and 2019, approximately 895 million pounds of Atlantic
salmon were imported through the Port of Miami, with a value of
approximately
$4.217 billion. Of this total amount of imported salmon,
approximately 86% was farm-raised. During this same period, the
Defendants colluded to increase the price of farm-raised Atlantic
salmon to the expense of consumers, including many in south
Florida.

Moreover, unless and until the Court puts an end to Defendants'
anti-competitive behavior, the impacts on the market for
farm-raised Atlantic salmon in south Florida will continue to
increase. There can therefore be no doubt that each of the
Defendants have significant, ongoing contacts with the Southern
District of Florida and that their behavior negatively impacts the
local and national markets for farm-raised Atlantic salmon, the
lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as Schneider's Fish and Sea Food Corp., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC,
Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg
Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean
Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA
Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood
Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21652-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 29,
2019).[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  adams@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          R. Anthony Rupp, III, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC
          1600 Liberty Building, 424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 4202
          Telephone: (716) 854-3400
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
                  cercone@ruppbaase.com
                  rupp@ruppbaase.com

               - and -

          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          Jill M. Manning, Esq.
          D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
             ALVAREZ & SMITH, LLP
          235 Pine Street, 15 th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-3400
          E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
                  jmanning@steyerlaw.com
                  smacrae@steyerlaw.com

MUSE GALLERY: West Files ADA Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE MUSE GALLERY
GUESTHOUSE, LLC. The case is styled as Mary West on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MUSE
GALLERY GUESTHOUSE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00626-DEJ
(W.D. Wis., April 30, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Muse Gallery Guesthouse is a Bed and Breakfast/Vacation Rental
Home occupying a Victorian Style home built in 1889.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     CK Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group PLLC
     30 E 39th St-2nd Fl
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


NILKANTH PIZZA: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Burton Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sahara Burton, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Nilkanth Pizza, Inc., and Jenny Patel,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00307-SWW (E.D. Ark., April 29, 2019)
is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated as delivery drivers the legal minimum hourly wage and
overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated worked.

At times during the three years prior to the filing of this
lawsuit, Defendants required Plaintiff and other delivery drivers
to work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff or other delivery drivers an overtime premium
for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek; rather, Defendants
paid Plaintiff and other delivery drivers their regular rates of
pay for all hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for periods in 2016, 2017, 2018
and 2019, as an hourly paid delivery driver.

Defendants own and operate Papa John's pizza franchises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Carroll et al. Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orange County. The
case is captioned as SHAWN CARROLL; LAKOTA ARNELL; and MARK JUHL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ORANGE COUNTY; and ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICE
AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00614-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal., April
1, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge David O. Carter and
referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott.

Orange County is a region in Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol A Sobel, Esq.
          CAROL A SOBEL LAW OFFICES
          725 Arizona Avenue Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 393-3055
          Facsimile: (310) 451-3858
          E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Brooke Alyson Weitzman, Esq.
          William R Wise, Jr., Esq.
          ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
          1535 East 17th Street Suite 110
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (714) 617-5353
          E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org
                  bwise@eldrcenter.org

               - and -

          Catherine Elizabeth Sweetser, Esq.
          Colleen Marika Mullen, Esq.
          Paul L Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS AND HOFFMAN LLP
          11543 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: csweetser@sshhlaw.com
                  cmullen@sshhlaw.com
                  hoffpaul@aol.com

               - and -

          Monique Amanda Alarcon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CAROL SOBEL
          725 Arizona Avenue Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 393-3055
          Facsimile: (310) 451-3858
          E-mail: monique.alarcon8@gmail.com


PETLAND MALL: Faces Suit over Sale of Bacteria-Infected Puppies
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN SINGLETON, for and in behalf of Katie Singleton, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PETLAND MALL OF GEORGIA LLC; PETLAND INC. A/K/A SOLUTIONS PET; BRAD
PARKER; DEBRA PARKER; LAMAR PARKER; and KRISTEN PARKER, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-014777-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 2, 2019) alleges that
the puppies sold by the Defendants were infected with the
Campylobacter bacteria.

According to the complaint, the illnesses and congenital or
hereditary conditions suffered by the puppies the Defendants sold
to the Plaintiffs and class members were the result of substandard
housing conditions, a disregard for proper canine husbandry
practices, and irresponsible breeding practices. The particular
diseases and defects suffered by the Plaintiffs' and class members'
puppies -- including, but not limited to, parvovirus, hip
dysplasia, respiratory disease, hypoglycemia, heart conditions, and
compromised immune systems -- are typical of those found in dogs
bred in puppy mills and other substandard breeding facilities.

Petland, Inc. owns and operates retail pet stores. The company also
provides franchising services. Petland, Inc. was formerly known as
Petland of Chillicothe, Inc. and changed its name to Petland, Inc.
in February 1973. The company was founded in 1967 and is
headquartered in Chillicothe, Ohio. It has stores in the United
States, Japan, South Africa, China, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and El
Salvador. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Worley, Esq.
          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          Georgia Bar No. 707807
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          8100 A. Roswell Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                  jim@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          Irwin M. Ellerin, Esq.
          ELLERIN LAW FIRM
          1050 Crown Pointe Pkwy. #400
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (404) 239-9100
          E-mail: imellerin@ellerinlaw.com


PLYCEM USA: Harmel Sues over Sale of Defective Allura Siding
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW HARMEL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individual, Plaintiff v. PLYCEM USA, LLC; PLYCEM USA, INC.;
ELEMENTIA USA, INC.; and ELEMENTIA, S.A.B. DE C.V., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01476-CAP (N.D. Ga., April 2, 2019) alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, advertised, marketed, and sold
defective Allura fiber cement exterior siding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have marketed and
represented the siding as a durable, aesthetically pleasing, and
lasting exterior building product. The siding has not lived up to
the Defendants' representations, given the early and severe
failure, and given that the siding requires unexpected maintenance,
premature repair, and replacement within the first 5 years of its
service life. The siding prematurely fails, causing damage to the
underlying structures and other property of the Plaintiff and
members of the Class and lowers the value of the property.

Plycem USA, Inc. manufactures and sells fiber cement exterior trims
for construction projects in the United States and Costa Rica. Its
projects include sustainable concept houses, single family homes
and attached villas, and condominiums. The company serves
contractors. It offers its products through distributors. The
company was founded in 2008 and is based in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Plycem USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Elementia, S.A. de
C.V. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: harper@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com
                  dan@wbmllp.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Grants Bis to Dismiss Pozzuolo FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case, ROBERT J. POZZUOLO,
and All Others Similarly Situated, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-1797 (E.D. Pa.).

In the putative class action brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Court must determine whether the
Plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact necessary to confer standing.
The issue is whether one who has not suffered actual harm or was
not at risk of harm as a result of a procedural violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1692g has standing to assert a claim for that
violation.

Plaintiff Pozzuolo alleges that on March 30, 2018, the Defendant
debt collector, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC ("PRA"), sent
him an initial collection letter regarding a debt originally owed
to Capital One Bank (USA), N.A..  He alleges the letter violated
the validation notice requirement of Section 1692g.  The letter
advised him that he could dispute the debt by telephoning PRA even
though only a written dispute suffices to trigger the debt
collector's obligations under Section 1692g(b) to cease collection
and provide verification of the debt to the consumer.  

In moving to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12(b)(1), PRA argues that Pozzuolo does not have standing
because he has not suffered and was not at risk of suffering a
concrete injury.  It cites Pozzuolo's deposition testimony that he
merely skimmed the letter and had no intention to dispute the debt.
PRA also contends that there was no risk of harm because it treats
telephonic and written disputes the same. PRA maintains that the
validation notice informing Pozzuolo that he could dispute the debt
telephonically was a mere procedural violation of Section
1692g(a).

Judge Savage holds that PRA's letter to Pozzuolo constituted a
procedural violation of the FDCPA.  A debt collection letter, like
the one in the instant case that creates the impression that the
debtor can dispute the debt by calling the debt collector violates
Section 1692g.

Even though there was a violation of Section 1692g, Pozzuolo cannot
show actual harm or a material risk of harm.  By his own admission,
he was not hurt as a result of receiving the letter.  Indeed, he
merely scanned over the letter before forwarding it to the counsel.
Although the letter stated that he could call or write PRA to
dispute the letter, Pozzuolo did neither.  Nor did he dispute the
debt with any of the credit reporting agencies.  He had no reason
to do so.  He acknowledges the debt and the amount.  Thus, because
he never intended to dispute the debt, the violation did not harm
or present a material risk of harm to Pozzuolo.

Judge Savage concludes that Pozzuolo lacks standing.  Because he
never intended to dispute the debt, PRA's violation of Section
1692g by failing to inform him that only written disputes are
legally effective neither harmed him nor created a material risk of
harm.  Accordingly, he granted PRA's motion to dismiss.

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

ROBERT J. POZZUOLO, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff,
represented by CARY L. FLITTER -- cflitter@consumerslaw.com --
FLITTER MILZ, P.C. & ANDREW M. MILZ, FLITTER MILZ, P.C.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, represented by
LAUREN M. BURNETTE -- lburnette@messerstrickler.com -- MESSER
STRICKLER LTD, ADAM T. SIMONS -- asimons@mcguirewoods.com --
MCGUIREWOODS LLP & JARROD SHAW -- jshaw@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP.


POWER MACHINERY: Faces Meyers Labor Suit in Kern County
-------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Power Machinery Center. The case is captioned as LIAM MEYERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. POWER MACHINERY CENTER, Defendant, Case No.
BCV-19-100897 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., April 2, 2019). The case is
assigned to David R. Lampe.

Power Machinery Center sells power equipment for construction.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


PROMISED LAND: Underpays Medical Assistants, Thomas Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
LATORIA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROMISED LAND WOMEN'S CENTER INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01487-AT (N.D. Ga., April 2, 2019) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiff Thomas was employed by the Defendants as medical
assistant.

Promised Land Women's Center Incorporated is Georgia corporation
with its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia, at
550 Peachtree Street, Suite 1220, Atlanta, Georgia 30308.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 780-4880
          Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com


ROACH & MURTHA: Clute Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
KENDAHL CLUTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROACH & MURTHA ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00391-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Brenda K. Sannes and
referred to US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter.

Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C. is a law firm engaged as a
collection agent. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza-Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com

               - and -

          David Michael Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza-Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-4799
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Bid to Compel Discovery in Pontones Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division,
denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and sanctions in
the case, LAURA PONTONES, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOSE RESTAURANT
INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-CV-219-D (E.D.
N.C.).

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to pay her and the
other similarly situated employees the requisite minimum wage and
overtime compensation and unlawfully withheld a portion of her tips
in violation of state and federal wage and hour laws, specifically
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). She seeks to bring a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and a class action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23. Am. Compl.

The parties engaged in pre-certification discovery limited to the
factual circumstances underlying a potential motion for class
certification.  In the course of pre-certification discovery, the
Plaintiff served on the Defendants a First Set of Request for
Production of Documents and a First Set of Interrogatories.  The
Defendants produced written responses, including objections, and
later produced amended responses.

After unsuccessful attempts by the counsel to resolve the
Plaintiff's perceived deficiencies, the Plaintiff filed the instant
motion to compel, which asserts that the Defendants inadequately
responded to 14 interrogatories and 10 document requests.  In their
response, the Defendants endorsed some of their prior objections
and noted that the Plaintiff's meet-and-confer letter and
memorandum in support did not address several of the Defendants'
objections, but they also indicated they would supplement their
prior responses to a number of the Plaintiff's requests.

The Plaintiff then filed an amended memorandum in support of the
motion, which asserted that no additional information or documents
had been produced by the Defendants at that time.  The Court
ordered counsel for the parties to engage in further
meet-and-confer efforts regarding the matters raised in the
Plaintiff's motion and to file a status report with the Court
detailing which matters had been resolved and which remained in
dispute for the Court's determination.  The parties have now
informed the Court that there remain in dispute two
interrogatories, Nos. 3 and 13, and two document requests, Nos. 7
and 12.  The Court commends the counsel on their work in resolving
several of the issues originally presented.

In Interrogatory No. 3, the Plaintiff seeks information to identify
potential putative class members.  

     -- INTERROGATORY NO. 3: During the Relevant Time Period,
identify all putative plaintiffs/class members or current and/or
former employees who performed work for Defendants.  This includes,
but is not limited to, those individuals who were non-exempt, paid
a salary, or only received tips as wages, and/or were charged any
percentage of total sales from each table.  In so identifying these
individuals, include the individual's full name, last known
address, telephone number (including cell phone number) and e-mail
address.

Magistrate Judge Jones agrees with the Defendants that the
information sought is not relevant to the certification motion, and
Plaintiff has merely stated in a conclusory fashion that the
information is highly relevant to the certification issue, thus
failing to demonstrate with specificity how the identifying
information is necessary pre-certification.  The Defendants have
provided the Plaintiff with information relevant to the
certification question, including a sample of payroll and time
records, information related to the number of positions at each
restaurant, and information about which restaurants use a tip pool
and which do not.  Accordingly, it is not apparent how the
information Plaintiff seeks in Interrogatory No. 3 is necessary to
the conditional certification motion, and the motion to compel as
to this request is denied as premature.

In Interrogatory No. 13, the Plaintiff seeks information regarding
Defendants,' annual gross volume of sales.

      -- INTERROGATORY NO. 13: For each calendar year that falls
either wholly or partially within the Relevant Time Period, please
separately provide the annual gross volume of sales (including
charges or automatic gratuities for services provided) made or
provided by the Defendants in each of those same calendar years.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the FLSA applies to a business, or
enterprise, only if it has employees engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce, or has employees handling,
selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been
moved in or produced for commerce by any person; and its annual
gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than
$500,000.  The later requirement he says, known as enterprise
coverage, constitutes an element of an FLSA claim.  The Defendants
concede this element, and the Plaintiff has stated no other need
for the information.  Accordingly, the motion to compel as to this
request is denied.

In Document Request No. 7, the Plaintiff seeks correspondence and
other documents related to any investigation of any Defendant
related to Named Plaintiff, Opt-in, and the putative Plaintiffs'
claims.

     -- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce copies of all
correspondence and other documents sent to or received from the
U.S. Department of Labor, N.C. Department of Labor, U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, or any other governmental
bodies, concerning any investigation of any Defendant related to
Named Plaintiff, Opt-in, and putative Plaintiffs' claims.

The Magistrate finds it unclear that the requested subset of
investigation documents necessarily exists, and the Defendants
assert they are unaware of any such documents.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' response to the request as drafted appears sufficient,
and the, motion to compel as to this request is denied.

In Document Request No. 12, the Plaintiff seeks a variety of
financial documents that show, in part, the Defendants' annual
gross volume of sales.

     -- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: For each calendar year that
falls either wholly or partially in the four (4) years immediately
preceding the date on which this action was filed, in addition to
each calendar year from that period up to and including the date of
the instant set of Requests for Production, the profit and loss
statements, balance sheets, cash flow statements, statements of
changes in equity (if applicable), federal income tax return(s),
and all other applicable financial statements for each calendar
year or fiscal year falling in part or in whole in that same time
period, which show, in part, the annual gross volume of sales
(including charges for services provided) made or provided by the
Defendants and all related legal entities in each of those same
calendar years.

As explained with respect to Interrogatory No. 13, which sought
similar information, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Defendants
concede the enterprise coverage element, and the Plaintiff has
stated no other need for these documents in precertification
discovery.  Accordingly, the motion to compel as to this request is
denied.

The Plaintiff seeks sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 against the
Defendants for unjustifiably resisting discovery.  The Magistrate
finds that sanctions are not warranted where the court determined
further meet-and-confer efforts were required after the motion to
compel was filed; the Defendants subsequently supplemented their
discovery responses, resolving the majority of issues in dispute;
and the Defendants' responses to the issues remaining in dispute
were substantially justified.  

For the reasons he stated, Magistrate Judge Jones denied the motion
to compel and for sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IvF8xu from Leagle.com.

Laura Pontones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez, The Law
Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC.

San Jose Restaurant, Incorporated, San Jose Management, Inc, San
Jose Mexican Restaurant #2 of Lumberton, Inc., San Jose Mexican
Restaurant of Elizabethtown, Inc., San Jose Mexican Restaurant of
N.C. Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant of Oak Island, Inc, San Jose
Mexican Restaurant of Pembroke, NC, Inc., San Jose Mexican
Restaurant of Raleigh Inc, San Jose Mexican Restaurant of
Shallotte, Inc, San Jose of Rocky Mount #2 Inc, San Jose of
Zebulon, Inc, San Jose of Roanoke Rapids, Inc, Hector Flores,
Alberto Flores, Josue Flores, Jose Perez, Vicente Perez, Pablo
Meza, Edgardo Flores, Edgar Flores, San Jose Wakefield, Inc. &
Plaza Azteca Raleigh, Inc., Defendants, represented by James Larry
Stine -- jls@wimlaw.com -- Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider &
Stine, P.C., Henry W. Jones, Jr. -- HJones@jordanprice.com --
Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC & Lori Peoples Jones
-- LJones@jordanprice.com -- Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones &
Carlton, PLLC.


SCHRA LODI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lane Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHRA LODI, LP; NCBT, LLC; REDARHCS, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2019-4287
(Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., April 3, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.

Mr. Lane was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly
employee.

Redarhcs, Inc. owns and operates restaurants. The company is based
in Stockton, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com


SCHWEBEL PETROLEUM: Faces Gonzalez Labor Suit in Kern County
------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Schwebel Petroleum Co., Inc. The case is captioned as PASCUAL
GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHWEBEL PETROLEUM CO., INC., Defendant,
Case No. BCV-19-100934 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., April 3, 2019). The
case is assigned to Stephen D. Schuett.

Schwebel Petroleum Co., Inc. operates as an integrated oil
producer. The Company serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          SMITH & BENOWITZ, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818)839-7800
          Facsimile: (818)839-9700
          E-mail: louis@smithbenowitz.com


SECURE PARKING: Seeks Appellate Review of Order in Liotta Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Secure Parking Enforcement, LLC, filed an appeal from a
Court order dated March 25, 2019, entered in the lawsuit titled
MATT LIOTTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS v. SECURE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC, Case No. 16EV005868, in
the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

The appellate case is captioned as SECURE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC
v. MATT LIOTTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, Case No. A19I0217, in the Court of Appeals, State of
Georgia.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MATT LIOTTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS is represented by:

          Matthew Quinn Wetherington, Esq.
          WERNER WETHERINGTON, PC
          2860 Piedmont Rd. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 793-1693
          Facsimile: (855) 873-2090
          E-mail: Matt@WernerLaw.com

Defendant-Appellant SECURE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC, is represented
by:

          Frank C. Bedinger III, Esq.
          HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP
          303 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4000
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 614-7400
          Facsimile: (404) 614-7500
          E-mail: fbedinger@hpylaw.com


SERVICELINK FIELD: Collins Remanded to San Diego Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
the case, JOSEPH COLLINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SERVICELINK FIELD SERVICES, LLC, and DOES
1-50, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02142-L-MDD (S.D. Cal.), to the
San Diego Superior Court.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Collins and the members
of the proposed class are current and former employees of
erviceLink who worked as non-exempt residential inspectors.
ServiceLink dictated the inspection locations, the inspection
process, the proper procedure for meeting with the homeowners, and
the applicable deadlines for completing inspections.  After the
inspections were complete, inspectors were required to write and
upload detailed reports.

Collins alleges that he and over 300 class members were treated as
independent contractors by ServiceLink.  Collins typically received
$3 to $5 per inspection and alleges that ServiceLink did not
withhold money from these payments for tax purposes.  The
inspectors were not paid for travel time, work performed from home,
maintenance of personal vehicles used for work, time spent
interacting with vendors, or time spent reviewing work policy
changes.  When working over four hours in a day, the inspectors did
not receive paid rest breaks.  Inspectors were not reimbursed for
equipment costs or costs incurred when utilizing their own vehicles
or phones while on the job.  Neither Collins nor the proposed class
members were paid for time spent working for ServiceLink outside
actual residential inspections.  Collins and the class members also
did not receive: (1) premium pay for ServiceLink's alleged
noncompliance with rest and meal break requirements; (2)
communication regarding a meal break policy; (3) accurate and
itemized wage statements; (4) wages following voluntary or
involuntary employment separations; or (5) paid sick leave.

On Aug. 10, 2018, Collins, on behalf of himself and other members
of his class, brought an action against ServiceLink for: (1) unpaid
minimum wages; (2) failure to provide paid rest periods; (3)
failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide itemized
wage statements; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (6)
unpaid wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Section Code 2810.3; (7)
unfair competition; and (8) failure to provide paid sick leave.

On Sep. 14, 2018, ServiceLink filed a notice of removal to remove
the action from the San Diego Superior Court based on original and
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, 1446,
and 1453.  On Oct. 12, 2018, Collins filed an amended complaint and
a motion to remand alleging that ServiceLink improperly
overestimated the amount in controversy for Collins' individual
claims and the claims under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").

The dispositive questions presented are whether ServiceLink met its
burden to show that: (1) the amount in controversy as to Collins'
individual claims exceeds $75,000, (2) the amount in controversy as
to the claims under CAFA exceeds $5 million, and (3) it is allowed
to amend its original calculations via ServiceLink's opposition to
Collins' remand motion.  Collins argues that ServiceLink failed to
meet its burden, and therefore, this Court must remand for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  ServiceLink argues the opposite.
Collins does not dispute any other jurisdictional requirements.

Because the majority of ServiceLink's calculations involve
unreasonable assumptions that are unsupported by allegations in the
original state court complaint, Judge Lorenz holds that ServiceLink
did not meet its burden to show that the amount in controversy as
to Collins' individual claims is met.

ServiceLink offers various authority stating that the proper
benchmark multiplier for estimating attorneys' fees in class
actions is either 25% or 33%.  However, these amounts would be a
percentage of the total estimated class settlement, which, in this
case, would be the $53 million asserted by ServiceLink.  As
discussed, the settlement amount is unsupported by any
summary-judgment-type evidence and cannot be used to estimate an
accurate anticipation of attorneys' fees.

In the notice of removal, ServiceLink calculated the total amounts
in controversy for Collins' individual claims at approximately
$177,000 and for the CAFA claims at over $53 million, not including
attorneys' fees or the alleged unpaid sick time.  These
calculations assume that Collins incurred eight hours of unpaid
minimum wages and meal and rest period penalties on each possible
work day during the entire four-year liability period.  However,
ServiceLink offers new damage calculations in its opposition to
Collins' motion to remand.

In accordance with Gaus v. Miles, Inc., the Judge rejects federal
jurisdiction in light of the overwhelming doubt as to the right of
removal in the first instance.  He finds that the new calculations
reduce the original amount in controversy estimates by over $60
million.  This kind of drastic change more so reflects substantive
modification of prior allegations rather than a mere
clarification.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Lorenz granted the Plaintiff's
motion, and remanded the matter to the San Diego Superior Court.
He denied as moot the Defendant's pending motion to dismiss.

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

Joseph Collins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Dennis F. Moss -- dennisfmoss@yahoo.com
-- Moss Bollinger LLP & Jeremy F. Bollinger, Moss Bollinger LLP.

ServiceLink Field Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony
Gerald Ly -- aly@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Curtis Alan
Graham -- cagraham@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


SOFTWARE GUIDANCE: King Seeks Pay for Excess Worktime
-----------------------------------------------------
Walter King, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. Software Guidance & Assistance, Inc., and Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02417 (S.D.
N.Y., March 18, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The class action stems from the Defendants' policy and practice of
only paying the System Analysts/LAN Admins for up to the daily
scheduled work hours but refusing and failing to pay for work time
in excess of the scheduled hours.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County, New York. The
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid System
Analyst/LAN Admin from approximately November 2014 to July 6,
2018.

The Defendant Software Guidance specializes in providing
technology, engineering, and business resource solutions for an
established book of clients across the United States and maintains
its headquarters in 200 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591 and
supporting offices coast to coast.

The Defendant Consolidated Edison operates one of the world's
largest energy delivery systems and its electric, gas, and steam
service now provides energy for the 10 million people who live in
New York City and Westchester County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq.
      BROWN, LLC
      111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
      Jersey City, NJ 07310
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com


SOURCE CONSTRUCTION: Sastre Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL SASTRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SOURCE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING, INC, and
GERALD V CLACY, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02508 (E.D. N.Y., April 29, 2019) seeks to recover damages
for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Although Plaintiff GABRIEL SASTRE worked approximately 90 or more
hours per week during his employment by Defendants, Defendants did
not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, blatant
violation of a the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL, asserts the complaint.

Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL
and the FLSA. Upon information and belief, Defendants willfully
failed to keep accurate payroll records as required by both NYLL
and the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff GABRIEL SASTRE was employed by Defendants at SOURCE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING, INC from in or around October 2018 until
in or around March 2019.

SOURCE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING, INC. is a corporation organized
under the laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
     80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: 718-263-9591


SPRINT CORP: Baron Suit Alleges Customer Privacy Rights Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL BARON on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01255-JKB (D. Md., April 29, 2019) seeks to secure
redress against Sprint for its reckless and negligent violations of
customer privacy rights.

This action arises out of Defendant's collection of geolocation
data and the unauthorized dissemination to third-parties of the
geolocation data collected from its users' cell phones. Sprint
admittedly sells customer geolocation data to third-parties,
including but not limited to data aggregators, who in turn, are
able to use or resell the geolocation data with little or no
oversight by Sprint. This is an action seeking damages for Sprint's
gross failure to safeguard highly personal and private consumer
geolocation data in violation of federal law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff and Class Members are Sprint customers.

Sprint Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cory L. Zajdel, Esq.
     Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq.
     David M. Trojanowski, Esq.
     Z LAW, LLC
     2345 York Road, Ste. B-13
     Timonium, MD 21093
     Phone: (443) 213-1977
     Email: clz@zlawmaryland.com
            jct@zlawmaryland.com
            dmt@zlawmaryland.com



STARBUCKS CORP: Rosario FCRA Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rosario v. Starbucks Corporation,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01951, was transferred on April 18, 2019, from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta).

The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01730-CAP-CMS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.[BN]

Plaintiff Jonathan Santiago Rosario, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          1600 Market St., Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

Defendant Starbucks Corporation is represented by:

          James E. Howard, Esq.
          Lauren Burdette Rainwater, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
          950 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 757-8336
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: jimhoward@dwt.com
                  laurenrainwater@dwt.com


STATE FARM: Removes Palmer Suit to District of New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of FREEMAN J PALMER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY; and STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the State Court of New
Mexico (Case No. D-202-CV-2019-01228) to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico on April 2, 2019. The clerk of court
for the District of New Mexico assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00301-RB-KBM. The case is assigned to Sr. District Judge
Robert C. Brack and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provides various
insurance and financial services in the United States and Canada.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company was founded in 1922
and is based in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corbin Hildebrandt, Esq.
          CORBIN HILDEBRANDT, P.C.
          1400 Central Ave. S.E.
          Albuquerque, NM 87106
          Telephone: (505) 998-6626
          Facsimile: (505) 998-6628
          E-mail: corbin@hildebrandtlawnm.com

               - and -

          Kedar Bhasker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEDAR BHASKER, LLC
          1400 Central Avenue SE, Suite 2000
          Albuquerque, NM 87106
          Telephone: (505) 720-2113
          Facsimile: (505) 998-6628
          E-mail: kedar@bhaskerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Terry R. Guebert, Esq.
          GUEBERT BRUCKNER P.C.
          P.O. Box 93880
          Albuquerque, NM 87199-3880
          Telephone: (505) 823-2300
          Facsimile: (505) 823-9600
          E-mail: tguebert@guebertlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth M. Piazza, Esq.
          GUEBERT BRUCKNER PC
          6801 Jefferson Street NE, Suite 400
          Albuquerque, NM 87109
          Telephone: (505) 823-2300
          Facsimile: (505) 823-9600
          E-mail: epiazza@guebertlaw.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Thomas Suit Transferred to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, MARIAH D. THOMAS, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a
Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01155 (Filed March 1, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on April 29, 2019. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Troy L. Nunley.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for wrongful termination in violation
of public policy; wrongful termination in violation of California
constitution; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
unfair business practices. She seeks compensation for lost past and
future wages, earnings, bonuses, loss of job security, and other
employment benefits.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh, Esq.
          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          William P. Pao, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-5157
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5167
          E-mail: wpao@jenner.com

Attorneys for Target Corporation:

          Samantha C. Grant, Esq.
          Sami Hasan, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          A Limited Liability Partnership
          Including Professional Corporations
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: 310 228 3700
          Facsimile: 310 228 3701
          E-mail: SGrant@sheppardmullin.com
                  SHasan@sheppardmullin.com

TATE & KIRLIN: Shelton Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAWN SHELTON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-443 (M.D.N.C., April 29, 2019),
contends that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making calls to the Plaintiff and Class Members
using an "automatic telephone dialing system" as described in 47
U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), without the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' prior express consent within the meaning of the TCPA. The
Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief and statutory
damages to hold Defendant accountable for its illegal activities in
utilizing automatically dialed calls to solicit
payment from individuals it presumably (but wrongfully) believed to
be debtors.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Wesley S. White, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WESLEY S. WHITE
          2300 E. 7th Street, Suite 101
          Charlotte, NC 28204
          Telephone: (702) 824-1695
          E-mail: wes@weswhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: 312 283 3814
          Facsimile: 773 496 8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Ste. A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: 561.826.5477
          Facsimile: 561.961.5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

TITAN GAS: Frey Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
John Frey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Titan Gas, LLC d/b/a
Titan Gas and Power, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01843-MSG (E.D.
Pa., April 29, 2019) is  an action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), a federal statute enacted in
response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of
intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

The complaint relates that the Defendant made a pre-recorded
telemarking call to Plaintiff's residential telephone number, which
is prohibited by the TCPA. Plaintiff's telephone number is charged
per call and making an automated and telemarketing call to such
number is separately prohibited by the TCPA.

The complaint further notes that the Plaintiff never consented to
receive the call, which was placed to him for telemarketing
purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to
hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en
masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant.

Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident, and a resident of this
District.

Titan Gas, LLC d/b/a Titan Gas and Power is a Texas limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Houton,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
     MORROW & ARTIM, PC
     304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 281-1250
     Email: csm@consumerlaw365.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Popp Sues over Defaulted Consumer Debt
----------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Popp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Transworld Systems, Inc., a California
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01727-JMS-MPB (S.D.
Ind., April 29, 2019), seeks to recover statutory damages, costs,
and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from
whom Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt,
which was allegedly owed for a Reflex Mastercard account.

The Defendant is a California corporation that acts as a debt
collector.  It regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to
collect, or attempt to collect, defaulted consumer debts. The
Defendant operates a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state,
including consumers in the State of Indiana. In fact, Defendant
Transworld was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted
consumer debt it attempted to collect from the Paintiff.

According to the complaint, Ms. Popp fell behind on paying her
bills, and after she defaulted on one that she owed for a Reflex
brand credit card account, Defendant Transworld tried to collect it
by sending Ms. Popp an initial form collection letter, dated
December 25, 2018.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          SAWIN, SHEA & STEINKAMP, LLC
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 255-2600
          Facsimile: (317) 255-2905
          E-mail: john@sawinlaw.com

TRUMMER'S INC: Restaurant Workers Win Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Jillian Pettit, Plaintiff, v. Trummer's
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, No. CV-19-01227-PHX-DWL (D.
Ariz.), Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona conditionally certifies the matter as a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to
all current and former restaurant workers as described in the
Plaintiff's motion who worked for the Defendants at any time from
three years prior to February 22, 2019, and directed the Defendants
to provide the names, all known mailing addresses, last four digits
of social security numbers, and dates of employment for all
Collective Members.  The motion for conditional certification is
granted, except to the extent it seeks email addresses.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 2, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5yfos7y from Leagle.com.

Jillian Pettit, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Saul Barrat, Zoldan Law
Group PLLC & Michael David Zoldan, Zoldan Law Group PLLC.

Trummer's Incorporated, an Arizona corporation, Kimberly Troub, an
Arizona resident & Marty Troub, an Arizona resident, Defendants,
represented by John T. Gilbert, Radix Law PLC & Michelle Lynn
Swann, Radix Law PLC.


U.S. SECURITY: Scott Suit Removed to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned NICHELLE SCOTT, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES,
INC. d/b/a ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, was removed from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Westchester County to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on April 29, 2019, and assigned Case No. 7:19-cv-03817.

In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims under New York Labor
Law, alleging that U.S. Security failed to properly pay for uniform
maintenance ("Count One"), failed to reimburse for uniforms ("Count
Two"), and failed to properly pay overtime ("Count Three").In
support of Count Three, Plaintiff specifically alleges that U.S.
Security allocated worked hours to the incorrect week in order to
avoid paying overtime.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Riyaz G. Bhimani, Esq.
     Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
     10 Bank Street, Suite 700
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Phone: (914) 949-2909
     Email: rbhimani@eckertseamans.com

          - and -

     Evan S. Weiss, Esq.
     Elizabeth Bulat Turner, Esq.
     W. Brian Holladay, Esq.
     Martenson, Hartenson, Hasbrouck, & Simon LLP
     3379 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 400
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Phone: (404) 909-8100
     Facsimile: (404) 909-8120


UBER TECH: Dismissal of Anderson Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth M. Timothy of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division,
recommended the dismissal of the case, TIMOTHY ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17cv878/RV/EMT
(N.D. Fla.).

On Dec. 7, 2017, Anderson, who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a Class Action Complaint on behalf of himself, two
other individuals, and a Nationally Growing Class of Permitted
Hired Auto Drivers.  The Court entered an order directing the
United States Marshals Service to serve a copy of the complaint on
Anderson's behalf.  After the Court entered the order but before
service was effected, Anderson was arrested for the murder of an
Uber driver.  He is currently awaiting trial on capital murder
charges in Okaloosa County, Florida.

Prior to his arrest, Anderson was a taxi driver.  His claims stem
from his belief that Uber, and the competition it engendered, cost
him his livelihood.  Specifically, Anderson alleges Ubers rules
were different than the rules that applied to taxi.  According to
him, these rules gave Uber a competitive advantage in the taxi
market because they were able to charge less than the Plaintiffs
and had no permits.  He also claims that internet search engines,
primarily Google, cause persons who are searching for traditional
taxis and cabs (and who are using search terms such as "taxi" or
"cab") to be routed to Uber's "application" where they are
ultimately connected with an Uber driver instead of a taxi driver.
As a result, Anderson contends, permitted taxi drivers such as
himself were finding less people who needed rides and losing the
income they had the right to earn.  Anderson claims he and other
permitted hired auto drivers have been uniformly deprived of their
income (estimated $150 billion dollars) that was primarily
collected by Uber and distributed to drivers they recruited who
have not been permitted to operate a hired auto.

Anderson sets forth three counts in his complaint: (1) Violation of
15 U.S. Code Section 52 - Dissemination of False Advertisements
(Anderson claims that Uber, in efforts to avoid regulation,
purposely does not advertise as a "taxi" service but should); (2)
Violation of 15 U.S. Code Section 45 - Unfair Methods of
Competition; and (3) Violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1341 - FRAUD
- obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses.  As
relief Anderson seeks monetary damages and related relief aimed at
determining the amount of damages and how compensation should be
distributed among affected permitted drivers.

Magistrate Judge Timothy finds that Anderson has failed to state a
viable claim against Uber because none of the statutes he invokes
provides for a private cause of action.  A private individual may
bring suit under a federal statute only when Congress intended to
create, either expressly or by implication, a private right of
action for civil parties in the statute.  Anderson, a private
citizen, has thus failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted in Counts I and II of his complaint.

The same is true with regard to Count III.  As indicated, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1341 prohibits mail fraud.  Violations of the mail fraud
statute are criminal in nature and punishable by fines and
imprisonment.  Generally speaking, a private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in prosecution or non-prosecution of
another.  Because Anderson is a private citizen, he has failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted in Count III of his
complaint.

In summary, because Anderson has plainly failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted (and has not provided any legal
support as to why the cause should not be dismissed despite being
given the opportunity to do so, the action should be dismissed.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Timothy directed the Clerk of Court
to modify the docket to reflect that the Defendant in the case is
Uber Technologies, Inc.  She respectfully recommended that Uber's
Motion be granted, and the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The Clerk be directed to enter
judgment accordingly and close the file.

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be
filed within 14 days after being served a copy thereof.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order, Report and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/nOe9xZ from
Leagle.com.

TIMOTHY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, pro se.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Bauserman Timely Notice Ruling Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRANT BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS, and TEDDY BROE, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 156389 (Mich.), Judge Stephen Markman
of the Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed in part and reversed in
part the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the Plaintiffs'
claims accrued when they received the original redetermination
notices alleging fraudulent conduct and explaining the effect that
would have on their unemployment compensation.  

The case involves a narrow, but practically consequential, issue:
whether the Plaintiffs gave timely notice of their due-process
claims to Defendant, the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency,
and therefore are entitled to consideration of the merits of those
claims.  More specifically, the issue concerns whether the
Plaintiffs filed notices of intention to file their claims or the
claims themselves within six months following the happening of the
event giving rise to the cause of action.

The Plaintiffs are former recipients of unemployment compensation
benefits who allege that the Agency unlawfully seized their
property without affording due process of law.  Plaintiff Bauserman
received unemployment compensation from October 2013 through March
2014.  In October 2014, the Agency sent Bauserman and his former
employer, Eaton Aeroquip, a questionnaire regarding suspected
unreported earnings that Bauserman received while he was receiving
unemployment compensation.  Both Bauserman and Eaton responded that
Bauserman had not worked for Eaton at the time.

On Dec. 3, 2014, the Agency sent Bauserman two notices of
redetermination, one claiming that he had received unemployment
compensation for which he was ineligible and the other claiming
that he had intentionally misled the Agency or concealed
information from it to obtain compensation for which he was not
eligible.  As a result, the Agency informed Bauserman that he owed
$19,910 in overpayments, penalties, and interest.  The next day,
Bauserman submitted an online appeal through the Agency's website
regarding its assertion that he had committed fraud, but did not
submit a separate appeal regarding the Agency's determination that
he had received compensation for which he was not eligible.

From January 2015 through June 2015, the Agency sent Bauserman
multiple notices stating the amount he owed to the Agency,
informing him of missed payments on his debt, and raising the
possibility that his wages would be garnished or his tax refunds
seized.  Around this same time, Bauserman sent multiple letters to
the Agency attempting to explain the situation, two of which
included an attached letter from Eaton explaining that Bauserman
received one payment in 2014 for work performed in 2013 but was not
employed by Eaton during the time he was receiving unemployment
compensation.  Finally, on June 16, 2015, the Agency intercepted
Bauserman's state and federal income tax refunds.

On Sept. 9, 2015, Bauserman filed a putative class action against
the Agency in the Court of Claims, alleging that the Agency had
deprived him of his property without providing due process of law.
More specifically, he alleged that "Michigan's unemployment fraud
detection, collection, and seizure practices fail to comply with
minimum due process requirements.  On Sept. 30, 2015, the Agency
issued two new notices of redetermination, rendering its Dec. 3,
2014 redeterminations null and void," and the Agency has since
returned all monies seized from Bauserman.

On Oct. 19, 2015, Bauserman filed an amended complaint, which added
Teddy Broe and Karl Williams as named Plaintiffs to the class
action.  Broe had received unemployment compensation from April
2013 to August 2013, and he had initially been determined eligible
on the basis that he had been laid off by his employer, Fifth Third
Bank.  However, Fifth Third challenged that determination, alleging
that Broe voluntarily terminated his employment to attend school.

The Agency then sent requests for information to Broe regarding his
eligibility for compensation, and on July 15, 2014, it sent two
notices of redetermination to Broe, the first claiming that he had
received compensation for which he was ineligible because his
termination of employment at Fifth Third "was voluntary and not
attributable to the employer," and the second claiming that he had
intentionally misled the agency or concealed information from it to
obtain compensation that he was not eligible to receive.  As a
result, the Agency informed Broe that he owed $8,302 in
overpayments, penalties, and interest.

From August 2014 through April 2015, the Agency sent Broe multiple
notices stating the amount owed to the Agency, informing him of
missed payments on the debt and raising the possibility that his
wages would be garnished or his tax refunds seized.  Specifically,
on Sept. 2, 2014, the Agency sent Broe a notice of intent to
reduce/withhold federal income tax refund that was materially
identical to the notice provided to Bauserman.

In April 2015, Broe sent the Agency a letter appealing its
redeterminations and claiming that he had not received the Agency's
previous communications because they had been sent to him through
his online account with the Agency, which he no longer accessed
because he was reemployed and no longer seeking unemployment
compensation.  The Agency denied the appeal as untimely and, in May
2015, intercepted Broe's state and federal tax refunds.  On Nov. 4,
2015, the Agency issued two notices of redetermination, reversing
its July 15, 2014 redeterminations that Broe was ineligible for
compensation and had committed fraud.  The Agency has since
returned all monies seized from Broe.

Williams started working at Wingfoot Commercial Tire System in May
2011.  When his employment with Wingfoot began, Williams was
receiving unemployment compensation from a previous employer.
Williams alleges that he advised the Agency that he was now
receiving wages from Wingfoot, yet his unemployment compensation
had not been altered; Williams believed that he was still entitled
to unemployment compensation because his wages from Wingfoot were
less than 1 1/2 times his weekly compensation.

The Agency sent Williams a request to provide information regarding
his employment with Wingfoot.  On June 22, 2012, the Agency issued
redeterminations that (1) terminated Williams's receipt of future
unemployment compensation, (2) asserted that he had already
received compensation for which he was ineligible due to his
employment with Wingfoot, and (3) alleged that he had intentionally
misled the Agency or concealed information from it to obtain
compensation for which he was not eligible.

On Oct. 29, 2013, the Agency sent Williams a "notice of
garnishment" stating that, if the amount owed was not provided to
the Agency within 30 days, his employer would be required to deduct
and send to the Agency up to 25% of his disposable earnings each
pay period until the debt is paid in full.   Williams' wages were
first garnished, at the latest, on May 16, 2014,1 and on May 27,
2014, the Agency sent Williams a notice of intent to
reduce/withhold federal income tax refund that was materially
identical to the notices provided to Bauserman and Broe.

Williams sent a letter appealing the Agency's redeterminations on
May 22, 2014.  The Agency denied Williams's appeal as untimely, as
did an administrative law judge.  Finally, on Feb. 19, 2015, the
Agency seized Williams's federal income tax refund and continues to
collect his debt by this means.

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that the Agency violated
the class members' due-process rights by (1) depriving them of
property without providing adequate notice and an opportunity to be
heard and (2) engaging in unlawful collection practices by, among
other things: (a) imposing a higher level of interest than
permitted, (b) collecting interest on penalties, and (c) employing
wage garnishments.

The Agency moved for summary disposition on a number of grounds,
including that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the notice
provision of MCL 600.6431(3) because they had not filed the
complaint within six months following the happening of the event
giving rise to the cause of action.  

The Court of Claims denied the Agency's motion, concluding that the
Plaintiffs' claims accrued when they received the Agency's
redetermination notices that rendered its previous fraud findings
null and void and that the Plaintiffs' claims had been filed within
six months of that event.  

The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the Plaintiffs'
claims accrued when they received the original redetermination
notices alleging fraudulent conduct and explaining the effect that
would have on their unemployment compensation.  It reasoned that
the hallmark of a due-process claim is inadequate process and
therefore that was the "actionable harm" for the purposes of
accrual; the subsequent seizing of the Plaintiffs' property merely
reflected the damage resulting from that deprivation and did not
establish the date of accrual.

The Plaintiffs thereafter filed an application for leave to appeal
in the Court, and it scheduled oral argument on the application,
instructing the parties to address whether the happening of the
event giving rise to the Appellants' cause of action for the
deprivation of property without due process occurred when the
appellee issued its allegedly wrongful notice of redetermination,
or when the Appellee actually seized the Appellants' property.

Judge Markman holds that the "happening of the event giving rise to
the cause of action" for a claim seeking monetary relief is when
the claim accrues, and a procedural-due-process claim seeking
monetary relief accrues when the deprivation of life, liberty, or
property has occurred.  In the instant case, the Plaintiffs were
deprived of their property when their tax refunds were seized or
their wages garnished.  

He concludes that it is yet to be determined whether the Plaintiffs
will succeed on their claims against the Agency.  However,
Plaintiffs Bauserman and Broe did timely comply with the notice
requirements of MCL 600.6431(3) and therefore are not procedurally
barred on that basis from the substantive consideration of their
claims.  The Judge thus affirmed in part and reversed in part the
judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded to that court for
further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

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

KEVIN M. CARLSON -- kevin@kevincarlsonlaw.com -- for GRANT
BAUSERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee.

DEBBIE K. TAYLOR, for UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY,
Defendant-Appellant.


UNITED RENTALS: Court Denies Bid to Remand Elizarraz Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMON ELIZARRAZ, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
UNITED RENTALS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-09533-ODW (JC) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand.

The Plaintiff brought the putative class action against the
Defendant.  He filed his Complaint on Oct. 9, 2018 in Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging eight causes of action: (1) Unpaid
Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Period
Premiums; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely
Paid; (6) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (7) Unreimbursed Business
Expenses; and (8) Unfair Competition/Unfair Business Practices.

The Plaintiff brought the class action against the Defendant on
behalf of himself and the class he seeks to represent.  The Class
consists of all current and former California-based hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees employed by Defendant within the State of
California at any time during the period from four years preceding
the filing of the Complaint to final judgment in the case

The Plaintiff is a citizen of California.  The Defendant is a
Delaware Corporation.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
hired Plaintiff and the other class members and classified them as
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them
for all hours worked, missed meal periods, and/or missed breaks.
The Plaintiff does not allege a specific number of violations, nor
a specific amount of damages, but he alleges that the aggregate
claims are below the $5 million threshold for federal
jurisdiction.

On Nov. 9, 2018, the Defendant removed the case, claiming federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

The parties do not dispute that the Plaintiff Class is made of more
than 100 individuals and that the parties are minimally diverse as
required by CAFA.  Thus, the only issue is whether the Defendant
has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount
in controversy ("AIC") is greater than $5 million.

The Defendant calculated the amount owed in penalties for missed
meal and rest period violations at $16,131,402, which is based on a
violation rate of 50% for missed meal periods and 25% for missed
rest breaks.  In other words, it assumed the Plaintiff Class missed
2.5 out of 5 meal periods per week and 2.5 out of 10 missed rest
periods per week.  The Plaintiff contests this calculation and
argues that the Court should calculate the amount of damages in
terms of the number of workdays per workweek an employee is
deprived of meal and rest breaks.

Judge Wright finds that the Defendant used the Plaintiff's
allegations of a "pattern and practice" to assume violation rates
of 50% for the meal period claim and 25% for the rest period claim.
Courts have found violation rates of 50% proper with language such
as "policy and practice."  In light of the Plaintiff's allegations
of a "pattern and practice" of meal and rest period violations, and
the calculations of Cary Elliott, the Judge finds a violation rate
of 50% for the meal period claim and 25% for the rest period claim
reasonable.  Since these claims alone put the AIC over the
jurisdictional threshold, he declines to analyze whether the rest
of the Plaintiff's claims satisfy the AIC.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright concludes that jurisdiction
exists under CAFA and denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/M7oFM6 from Leagle.com.

Ramon Elizarraz, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation,
Arsine Grigoryan, Justice Law Corporation, Daniel J. Park, Justice
Law Corporation & Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh --
statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation.

United Rentals North America, Inc., Erroneously Sued As United
Rentals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul Rodriguez --
paulrodriguez@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Julie M.
Capell -- juliecapell@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.


UNITED STATES: Acadiana et al. Hit Bankruptcy Fees
--------------------------------------------------
The case, ACADIANA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; ALBUQUERQUE-AMG SPECIALTY
HOSPITAL, LLC; CENTRAL INDIANA-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC; LTAC
HOSPITAL OF EDMOND, LLC; HOUMA-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC; LTAC OF
LOUISIANA, LLC; and LAS VEGAS-AMG SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No.
19-496C (Fed. Cl., April 3, 2019) alleges that the increased
quarterly fees charged to the Plaintiffs are unconstitutional.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are seven reorganized
debtors whose Chapter 11 cases were filed in June 2017 (before the
2017 Act was signed into law), whose joint plan was confirmed in
February 2018 (after the 2017 Act was signed into law), and whose
joint plan was effective in May 2018.

The Plaintiffs' Chapter 11 cases were closed in June 2018 with a
final decree. Plaintiffs' cases were pending in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana, which is
part of Region 5 of the USTP. As such, the Plaintiffs paid first
and second quarter fees in 2018. Plaintiffs paid $216,784.69 more
in quarterly fees than they would have paid if their cases were
pending in Alabama or North Carolina.

Given the non-uniformity of fees charged to Chapter 11 debtors, the
Defendant has implemented a non-uniform bankruptcy law in violation
of the Constitution of the United States.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs allege that the increased quarterly
fees charged to them are unconstitutional as applied to them due to
retroactive application of the increased quarterly fees to cases
filed prior to the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017. The
Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, ask the Court to find 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1930(a)(6)(B)
unconstitutional as applied to Chapter 11 debtors whose cases were
filed before October 26, 2017, and who paid the increased quarterly
fee, and to award them a judgment in the amount of the increased
quarterly fees paid, based on a cause of action for illegal
exaction under the Tucker Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley L. Drell, Esq.
          Heather M. Mathews, Esq.
          Chelsea M. Tanner, Esq.
          Lauren LaRavia, Esq.
          GOLD WEEMS BRUSER SUES & RUNDELL, APLC
          2001 MacArthur Drive
          Alexandria, LA 71307-6118
          Telephone: (318) 445-6471
          Facsimile: (318) 445-6476
          E-mail: bdrell@goldweems.com

               - and -

          August Rantz, IV, Esq.
          RANTZ IV, LLC
          101 La Rue France, Ste. 500
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 269-9566
          Facsimile: (337) 269-6375


UNITED STATES: Bid for Attorneys' Fees in McCarty Suit Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAN McCARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 14-316L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Mary Ellen Coster
Williams of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

The rails-to-trails takings case comes before the Court on the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.  The
Plaintiffs, 66 landowners, settled the merits of their Fifth
Amendment taking claims for $957,273 including interest.  They
request fees of $2,092,464 and expenses of $232,994.  Their
counsel, Arent Fox LLP, worked a total of 3,855.1 hours over the
course of the litigation claiming hourly rates ranging from $285
for paralegals to $855 for their most senior partner.

The Defendant contends that the hours claimed and fees requested
are excessive and requests that the Court reduces both the billing
rates and the number of hours to be reimbursed.

Judge Williams finds that the record as a whole, in particular the
Plaintiffs' persuasive evidence that the disparity between their
firm's D.C. rates and St. Louis rates is 15%, does not show that
there is a "very significant difference" between St. Louis rates
and the forum rate warranting application of the Davis County
locality-rate exception.

Upon considering the Kavanaugh Matrix and the USAO Matrix, the
Judge is persuaded that the USAO Matrix is more appropriate, as
that matrix is based on changes in prices for goods and services,
including legal services in Washington, D.C. and is applying that
forum rate.  The Defendant will reimburse the Plaintiffs' counsel
their hourly forum rates determined according to the USAO Matrix.
The Plaintiffs' rates will be calculated based upon historic, not
current, rates.

Next, the Judge agrees with the Defendant that a reduction is
warranted, but not to the extent requested.  She reduces the 214.9
hours spent on the Plaintiffs' fee application by 50%, and awards
reimbursement for 107.5 hours.  Such a reduction takes into account
the fact that work done in the case was duplicative of work
performed in Biery, Campbell, and Whispell.

The Judge holds it was reasonable for the Plaintiffs' counsel to
treat a Rails-to-Trails case initially involving over 200
properties and 66 Plaintiffs as a candidate for a class action.
The fact that such procedure ultimately became untenable as the
litigation ran its course is not reason to deny fees.  The 54 hours
expended on class certification and decertification are
reimbursable.

The Judge grants reimbursement for the 31.5 hours the Defendant
challenges exclusively on grounds of client development.  She
denied the Defendant's challenge to the remaining 297.8 hours on
the unsupported ground that these hours "include" client
development activities.

The Judge reduces by 25% the 1,110.5 hours claimed in 205 of the
Plaintiffs' counsel's billing entries on grounds of block billing.
The Court therefore deducts 277.6 hours, awarding the Plaintiffs'
counsel reimbursement for 832.9 hours the Defendant attributed to
block billing.

Finally, as a condition of settlement, the Government agreed to pay
the landowners before the end of October 2016, but did not pay the
landowners until January 2017, which required additional work by
the Plaintiffs' counsel and involvement of the Court.

Judge Williams granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses.  She awarded the Plaintiffs
reimbursement for 2,821.9 hours of attorneys' fees and adjusted in
accordance with the USAO Matrix.  The Plaintiffs are awarded their
requested costs in the amount of $232,994.

The Plaintiffs will submit a revised fee application to Defendant
consistent with the Opinion within 30 days, and the Defendant will
promptly consider and process such request.  The parties will file
a notice with the Court once the fees and costs have been paid.

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

DAN McCARTY, JEAN McCARTY, GARY O McPHERSON, VICKI McPHERSON, HIRAM
SANDERS, PATRICIA S SANDERS, ALAN THORP, STEVEN THORP, CHRISTOPHER
AMSTUTZ, SHERRY AMSTUTZ, ROBERT DILLON, as power of attorney for
Mary L. Baker, ROMA BATEMAN, JUSTIN BLACKWELL, LANA BLACKWELL, JEFF
D. BLEVINS, CAROL E. BLEVINS, FRAN O. BOND, RAY E. CHENAULT, LYNDA
G. CHENAULT, WILLIAM MATTHEW, ROSE ANN BRENNER, NANCY ELLEN BROCK,
GARY L. BULLOCK, PATSY J. BULLOCK & ROSELYN JEAN WILLIAMS,
Administratix of the Estate of Beulah Margaret Armstrong,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II --
thor@larsonobrienlaw.com -- Larson O'Brien, LLP.

DAVID PARKER, Plaintiff, pro se.

MICHAEL CHASTAIN, Plaintiff, pro se.

SUSAN CHASTAIN, Plaintiff, pro se.

USA, Defendant, represented by David Allen Harrington, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Manley Suit Transferred to W.D. Ark.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEBORAH MANLEY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE
CO.; UMR, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE OF ARKANSAS; JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH 10; AND JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1 THROUGH 10, Case
No. 5:19-cv-05078-PKH (Filed on March 13, 2019), was transferred
from Washington County Circuit Court, State of Arkansas, to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
on April 17, 2019. In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks declaratory
and other relief under Arkansas law in connection with alleged
enforcement of subrogation and reimbursement clauses within various
health insurance plans in which Plaintiff and a purported class of
individuals participated. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants collected reimbursement or subrogation from an insured's
or a covered person's settlement with a third party tortfeasor,
prior to reaching an agreement or receiving a judicial
determination that the insured or covered person was made whole.

UnitedHealth Group provides health care coverage and insurance
benefits services in the United States. It was founded in 1974 and
is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

     Eva C. Madison, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     217 E. Dickson Street, Suite 204
     Fayetteville, AR 72701
     Telephone: (479) 582-6100
     Facsimile: (479) 582-6111
     E-mail: emadison@littler.com


UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: 3d Cir. Restores 2 Counts in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case styled JENNIFER SWEDA; BENJAMIN A. WIGGINS;
ROBERT L. YOUNG; FAITH PICKERING; PUSHKAR SOHONI; REBECCA N. TONER,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Matching
Plan, Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE; JACK HEUER, No. 17-3244 (3rd Cir.), the United States
Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, reversed the District Court's
dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claims at Counts III and
V only and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Sweda, Benjamin Wiggins, Robert Young, Faith
Pickering, Pushkar Sohoni, and Rebecca Toner, representing a class
of participants in the University of Pennsylvania's 403(b) defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan,
sued Defendants, the University of Pennsylvania and its appointed
fiduciaries, for breach of fiduciary duty, prohibited transactions,
and failure to monitor fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants, among other things, failed
to use prudent and loyal decision making processes regarding
investments and administration, overpaid certain fees by up to
600%, and failed to remove underperforming options from the
retirement plan's offerings. The District Court dismissed Sweda's
complaint in its entirety.

The Third Circuit finds that Sweda plausibly alleged breach of
fiduciary duty. Sweda's factual allegations are not merely
"unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]." They
are numerous and specific factual allegations that Penn did not
perform its fiduciary duties with the level of care, skill,
prudence, and diligence to which Plan participants are statutorily
entitled under Section 1104(a)(1). Sweda offered specific
comparisons between returns on Plan investment options and readily
available alternatives, as well as practices of similarly situated
fiduciaries to show what plan administrators "acting in a like
capacity and familiar with such matters would [do] in the conduct
of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims."  The
allegations plausibly allege that Penn failed to "defray[]
reasonable expenses of administering the plan" and otherwise failed
to "discharge [its] duties" according to the prudent man standard
of care.

The Third Circuit further held that in dismissing the claims in
Counts III and V, the District Court erred by "ignor[ing]
reasonable inferences supported by the facts alleged," and by
drawing "inferences in [Defendants'] favor, faulting [Plaintiffs]
for failing to plead facts tending to contradict those inferences."
While Sweda may not have directly alleged how Penn mismanaged the
Plan, she provided substantial circumstantial evidence from which
the District Court could "reasonably infer" that a breach had
occurred. Based on her allegations, the claims in Counts III and V
should not have been dismissed.

Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. -- aschlichter@uselaws.com -- Sean E.
Soyars, Esq. -- ssoyars@uselaws.com -- Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. --
kstruckhoff@uselaws.com -- Michael A. Wolff, Esq. [ARGUED] --
mwolff@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard & Denton, 100 South 4th
Street, Suite 1200, St. Louis, MO 63102, Counsel for Appellants.

Brian T. Ortelere [ARGUED], Esq. -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103.

Christopher J. Boran, Esq. -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com --
Matthew A. Russell, Esq. -- matthew.russell@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

Michael E. Kenneally, Esq. -- michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800
North, Washington, DC 20004, Counsel for Appellees.

Brian T. Burgess, Jaime A. Santos, Goodwin Procter, 901 New York
Avenue, NW, Suite 900 East, Washington, DC 20001.

Alison V. Douglass, James O. Fleckner, Goodwin Procter, 100
Northern Avenue, Boston, MA 02210, Counsel for Chamber of Commerce
of The United, States of America and American Benefits Council,
Amicus, Appellees.

Brian D. Netter, Mayer Brown, 1999 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20006, Counsel for American Association of State Colleges, and
Universities, American Council on Education, Association of
American Universities, Association of, Community College Trustees,
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, College and
University, Professional Association For Human Resources, Council
of, Independent Colleges, National Association of Independent,
Colleges and Universities, Amicus Appellees.

Lori A. Martin, WilmerHale, 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich
Street, New York, NY 10007.

Seth P. Waxman, Paul R. Wolfson, WilmerHale, 1875 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Teachers Insurance
& Annuity, Association of America, Amicus Appellee.


VARSITY PRODUCED: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VARSITY PRODUCED,
INC. ET AL. The case is styled as RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff
v. VARSITY PRODUCED, INC., A BUSINESS FORM UNKNOWN, VARSITY PRODUCE
SALES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MA MEDINA FARM LABOR
SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
BCV-19-101198 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 30, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Complaint - Civil Unlimited".

Varsity Produce Inc. is a privately held company in Bakersfield, CA
and is a Single Location business, categorized under Fresh
Fruits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by MATTHEW J MATERN, ESQ.


VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE: Bid to Enforce Steamer Suit Settlement Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to enforce the
settlement in the case, JULIE STEAMER, individually on behalf of
herself and the plaintiff class, Plaintiff, v. VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE
USA, INC., and VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE, SA, Defendants, Case No.
18-CV-10739 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.).

The putative class action was dismissed when the parties reported
that they had reached a settlement in principle, but was reopened
when Plaintiff Steamer reported that the parties had failed to
memorialize the terms of their settlement.  Thereafter, the
Defendants filed a motion to enforce the parties' purported
settlement.  

In evaluating whether parties to a lawsuit intended to be bound by
a settlement agreement in the absence of a mutually executed
document, courts (applying federal or New York law) consider the
following factors: (1) whether there has been an express
reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed
writing; (2) whether there has been partial performance of the
contract; (3) whether all of the terms of the alleged contract have
been agreed upon; and (4) whether the agreement at issue is the
type of contract that is usually committed to writing.

Applying those factors in the case, Judge Furman denief the
Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement.  First, although
there was no express reservation of the right not to be bound
absent a written agreement, the counsel's communications throughout
the settlement process -- including submissions to this Court, both
before and after the agreement in principle -- made clear that both
parties expected a written settlement agreement.

With respect to the second factor, the Defendants provide no
evidence of partial performance of the settlement agreement, which
weighs against enforcement.  With respect to the third, although
the counsel appeared to believe that they had agreed to material
terms of a settlement in emails dated January 17 and 18, the
subsequent arguments about the differences between the Plaintiff's
and the Defendants' draft agreements reveal that they did not.
Finally, as to the fourth factor, settlement agreements --
particularly those with "numerous provisions that will apply into
perpetuity" -- are generally required to be in writing, and in the
case, the drafted settlement agreements included provisions
applying into perpetuity.  All together, because each factor weighs
against finding that the parties intended to be bound to a
settlement without a written contract, the parties' purported
settlement is not enforceable.

That said, the Judge holds that the materials submitted in
connection with the Defendants' motion reveal that the parties
agree on much more than they disagree and, in the Court's view,
suggest that they can and should resolve their disagreements
without the need for further litigation, whether in the Court or
elsewhere.  To that end, by separate Order to be entered today, the
Judge is referring the case to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman
for settlement purposes.

He ordered the parties to conduct an in-person settlement
conference with Magistrate Judge Freeman no later than May 24,
2019.  Additionally, the parties are ordered to submit a joint
status letter by no later than one week after the settlement
conference occurs.  He will defer ruling on the Defendants' other
pending motion -- to compel arbitration -- until it receives the
joint status letter.  

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 22.

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

Julie Steamer, individually on behalf of herself and the plaintiff
class, Plaintiff, represented by Hendrick Vandamme, Vandamme Law
Firm. P.C. & Steven Altman, Altman & Company P.C.

Vestiaire Collective USA, INC. & Vestiaire Collective SA,
Defendants, represented by John Edward MacDonald --
jmacdonald@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks & Smith, L.L.C..


WHOLE FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Scott Suit under NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, DWAYNE J. SCOTT and DERRELL J. MEYNARD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
18-CV-0086 (SJF) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The named Plaintiffs commenced the diversity, putative class action
against the Defendant Whole Foods, asserting a single claim for
failure to timely pay wages pursuant to New York Labor Law
("NYLL").  The Plaintiffs worked at the Whole Foods location in
Manhasset, New York.  Scott was employed from approximately July
2011 until December 2015, and Meynard worked there between June 24,
2010 and July 13, 2013.  Each of the Plaintiff claims to have spent
at least 25% of his time engaged in physical labor, claims to be a
"manual worker," and alleges that he was paid on a bi-weekly basis
during his entire employment.

Prior to Dec. 11, 2011, Whole Foods had a uniform, national
practice of paying all its employees every two weeks.  The
Plaintiffs allege that at some time prior to Dec. 22, 2011, Whole
Foods became aware NYLL Section 191 required that manual workers be
paid on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after
the end of the week in which the wages are earned.  The statute
further provides that an employer may obtain authorization from the
commissioner of labor to pay manual workers in accordance with the
agreed terms of employment, but not less frequently than
semi-monthly.  Until April 27, 2012, Whole Foods was not authorized
to pay manual workers, including the Plaintiffs, on a bi-weekly
basis and thus was required to pay them weekly.

The Plaintiffs seek to bring the action on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all manual workers employed by Whole Foods at
any time from Dec. 11, 2011 until April 27, 2012.   They claim that
as of Dec. 11, 2011, Whole Foods employed approximately 3,300
people in New York state, and that the "overwhelming majority" of
those employees were manual workers.

The Plaintiffs filed the complaint on Jan. 5, 2018, alleging
violations of NYLL Sections 191 and 198 for Whole Foods's willful
failure to pay manual workers, including the Plaintiffs, on a
weekly basis as required. They claim they are "entitled to recover
from the Defendant liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The Defendant has moved for dismissal, arguing inter alia, that
there is no private right of action under New York law for the
relief sought.

Judge Feuerstein finds that while the New York Court of Appeals
does not appear to have directly addressed the issue of whether an
employee has a private right of action under Section 191
redressable under Section 198, it has addressed an unrelated issue
on such a claim without expressing any concern as to the right of
the employee to assert it.  

In Bynog v. Cipriani Grp., Inc., the contested legal issue was
whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors.
The Appellate Division found that the plaintiffs were employees,
and reinstated the cause of action under Labor Law Section 191 and
the associated claim for costs and fees under Labor Law Section
198.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs
were independent contractors not employees, and on that basis,
dismissed the cause of action under Labor Law Section 191 and the
associated claim under Labor Law Section 198. Significantly,
neither the Second Department nor the Court of Appeals suggested,
let alone held, that the plaintiffs did not have a right to bring a
claim under Section 191 in the first instance.

The Judge also finds that there is nothing in the statutory scheme
authorizing the Commissioner of Labor to take action that suggests
that a private action is barred or would otherwise run counter to
the legislative scheme.  To the contrary, Section 198 refers to
civil actions brought by the commissioner, the employee, or both,
and states that the remedies provided by this article may be
enforced simultaneously or consecutively so far as not inconsistent
with each other.  The discretionary nature of the Commissioner's
authority coupled with the references to employee actions in
Section 198 compels the conclusion that a private action under
Section 191 is consistent with the legislative scheme.

Moreover, the interpretation urged by Whole Foods leaves an
aggrieved employee with no recourse, but rather allows an employer
to perpetually violate Section 191 simply by paying the employee,
in full, after a delay beyond the one-week period set by statute.
Permitting an employer to flout the requirements of Section 191
with impunity, so long as it eventually pays its employee the wages
owed, is inconsistent with the stated purposes of the NYLL.

Finally, in its reply, Whole Foods argues for the first time that
there can be no class action that seeks liquidated damages alone.
The Judge explains that it is well-established that arguments may
not be made for the first time in a reply brief.  If a party does
so, the Court may choose not to consider those arguments.  As the
Defendant's challenge was first raised in its reply, depriving the
Plaintiffs of the opportunity to respond, the Judge declines to
address it.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Feuerstein denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.

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

Dwayne J. Scott & Derell J. Meynard, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Steven
John Moser -- smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com -- Moser Law Firm PC.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Michael Pardo, Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP
& Michael James Slocum -- slocumm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.


WISCONSIN: King Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landreman, Steven et
al. The case is styled as Carlos King, Thaddeus Karow, James Price,
Craig Alan Sussek, Victoriano Heredia, On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Steven Landreman As
Acting Chairperson and Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole
Commission, Danielle LaCost As Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole
Commission, Douglas Drankiewicz As Commissioner of the Wisconsin
Parole Commission, Kevin Carr As Secretary-Designee of the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Mark Heise As Director of the
Bureau of Classification and Movement, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00338-jdp (W.D. Wis., April 30, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Steven Landreman is an acting Chairperson and Commissioner of the
Wisconsin Parole Commission.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Asma Imtiazali Kadri, Esq.
     American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation
     207 E. Buffalo Street Suite 325
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: (414) 272-4032
     Email: akadri@aclu-wi.org

          - and -

     Avery Gilbert, Esq.
     15 Shatzell Avenue, Suite 232
     Rhinecliff, NY 12574
     Phone: (845) 380-6265
     Email: avery@agilbertlaw.com

          - and -

     Carly S. Conway, Esq.
     Quarles & Brady
     P.O. Box 2113
     33 East Main St, Ste 900
     Madison, WI 53701
     Phone: (608) 251-5000
     Email: carly.levin@quarles.com

          - and -

     Emma Smith Shakeshaft, Esq.
     ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc.
     207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: (414) 272-4032 x230
     Fax: (414) 272-0182
     Email: eshakeshaft@aclu-wi.org

          - and -

     Gregory T. Everts, Esq.
     Quarles & Brady
     P.O. Box 2113
     33 East Main St, Ste 900
     Madison, WI 53701
     Phone: (608) 283-2460
     Fax: (608) 294-4911
     Email: greg.everts@quarles.com

          - and -

     Heather Holden Brooks, Esq.
     Foley & Lardner LLP
     777 East Wisconsin Avenue
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: (414) 297-5711
     Fax: (414) 297-4900
     Email: hbrooks@foley.com

          - and -

     Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Esq.
     Yale Law School
     127 Wall St.
     New Haven, CT 06511
     Phone: (347) 856-6376
     Email: issa.kohler-hausmann@yale.edu

          - and -

     Joseph R. Santeler, Esq.
     Quarles & Brady
     411 E Wisconsin Ave
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: (414) 277-5281
     Email: Joseph.Santeler@quarles.com

          - and -

     Laurence J. Dupuis, Esq.
     Aclu of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc.
     207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: (414) 272-4032 ext 212
     Fax: (414) 272-0182
     Email: ldupuis@aclu-wi.org

          - and -

     Maria Lyon, Esq.
     Foley & Lardner
     150 East Gilman St.
     P.O. Box 1497
     Madison, WI 53701
     Phone: (608) 258-4235
     Fax: (608) 258-4258
     Email: mlyon@foley.com

          - and -

     Martha Jahn Snyder, Esq.
     Quarles & Brady
     P.O. Box 2113
     33 East Main St, Ste 900
     Madison, WI 53701
     Phone: (608) 283-2429
     Fax: (608) 251-5000
     Email: mjahn@quarles.com

          - and -

     Patrick John Proctor-Brown, Esq.
     Quarles & Brady LLP
     411 East Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2350
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: (414) 277-5000
     Email: patrick.proctor-brown@quarles.com

          - and -

     R Timothy Muth, Esq.
     Aclu of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc.
     207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: (414) 272-4032 x222
     Fax: (414) 272-0182
     Email: tmuth@aclu-wi.org


WM. BOLTHOUSE: Carrillo Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS,
INC. ET AL. The case is styled as RHINA BEATRIZ CARRILLO,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff
v. WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, BOLTHOUSE
FARMS, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS FORM, BOLTHHOUSE FARMS CUYAMA CUYAMA, AN
UNKNOWN BUSINESS FORM, BOLTHHOUSE FARMS KERN COUNTY, AN UNKNOWN
BUSINESS FORM, MA MEDINA FARM LABOR SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101199 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Kern Cty., April 30, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Complaint - Civil Unlimited".

Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. produces fresh produce and
beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by MATTHEW J MATERN, ESQ.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 200+ Teachers Died From Asbestos in UK
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ellis, writing for Mirror.co.uk, reported that more than 200
teachers have died in the past 10 years from the effects of being
exposed to asbestos.

And for each teacher fatality, nine ex-pupils can also be expected
to fall victim to the silent killer, a study claims -- an average
of almost 200 per year.

Breathing in asbestos fibres can lead to mesothelioma, a cancer
that develops in the lining of the lungs and can strike years or
even decades after exposure.

Dr Mary Bousted of the National Education Union said: "These
figures are shocking. No one should have to suffer an early death
because the building they work in contains asbestos.

"Education staff are at risk but of even greater concern are
children, who are more vulnerable to developing mesothelioma if
exposed at a young age.

"The only certain way to prevent future deaths is to rid our
educational buildings of this deadly material."

Some 86% of schools contain asbestos, a study found in 2015. The
material was typically used in buildings between the 1940s and
1970s.

Experts say it is a greater health risk as it gets older and starts
to degrade.

A total of 211 teachers died of mesothelioma in 10 years, figures
from the Office for National Statistics show. Of these, 128 died
after the retirement age of 65 -- showing the delayed effect.

Teachers' unions have called on the Government to pay for asbestos
to be safely removed from school buildings.

The Mirror's Asbestos Timebomb campaign for a national audit of all
23,000 schools in England has been backed by Britain's biggest
unions.

Mesothelioma claims 2,400 lives across the country every year. In
2016 an inquest heard primary school teacher Sue Stephens, 68, died
from mesothelioma after teaching at schools in Buckinghamshire. The
coroner said she had likely suffered fatal exposure to asbestos
during building work at one of them.

And Michele Reed, 63, of St Helens, Merseyside, died of
mesothelioma in 2017 after teaching in the North West.

A study last year by the American Environmental Protection Agency
estimated that for each school staff member lost to mesothelioma,
nine former pupils can be also expected to die.

The Department for Education said: "Since 2015, we've allocated
more than £7.4billion to maintain and improve the school estate,
including removing asbestos when it is the safest course of action.
Asbestos is a factor in choosing which schools to re-build through
the Priority School Building Programme."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arcata Bowl Owner's Family Awarded $4.4MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Lost Coast Outpost reported that in recent years the nondescript
Ten Pin Building, located at 793 K Street in Arcata, has been
primarily utilized as the North Coast Co-op's warehouse. But
longtime locals will remember the meaning behind the building's
name: For decades the location was home to Arcata Bowl, a bowling
alley that closed way back in 2000 and, for a time, apparently
unknowingly handled countless deadly, industrial waste-filled
bowling balls.

A jury in Los Angeles County ruled against asbestos supplier
Honeywell International Inc. and awarded $4.4 million to the family
of the late Donald Vanni who co-owned Arcata Bowl from 1957 to
1986.  Donald died in 2013, the result of mesothelioma caused by
years drilling out custom-sized finger holes in asbestos-filled
bowling balls.

Here's the story, courtesy a celebratory press release issued by
the Vanni family's legal team at law firm Waters Kraus & Paul:

Donald worked at the bowling alley seven days a week trading off
opening and closing shifts with his brother. One of Donald's
responsibilities was drilling custom-fit finger holes in the
bowling balls that the Arcata Bowl sold.

Asbestos, used as a filler in plastic Ebonite bowling balls, was
supplied by Honeywell in the form of discarded brake lining dust.
The brake dust was the waste product of Honeywell's Bendix brake
manufacturing plant in Troy, New York. In the late 1960s, documents
show that the Bendix plant was generating 15 tons of asbestos-laden
brake dust each day. But, rather than pay money to safely dispose
of this asbestos-laden waste, Honeywell opted to sell it as a
filler in commercial products, including Ebonite bowling balls.

Ebonite was one of the most popular balls in the 1960s and 1970s,
including at the Arcata Bowl, and was endorsed by professional
bowlers such as Don Carter and Earl Anthony. Donald Vanni routinely
drilled Ebonite balls in a small room, with no protection, for
years. No one ever told the Vannis that the Ebonite balls contained
asbestos.

Donald was in good health until he was diagnosed with pericardial
mesothelioma in 2012. He and his wife had lived an active
lifestyle. They would regularly go fishing, golf, and were active
members in their Church. The Vannis also enjoyed sporting and
entertainment events, and visiting their grandchildren. Donald died
of mesothelioma in 2013, leaving behind two adult sons and his wife
of 55 years.

The jury found that Honeywell's asbestos waste presented "a danger
to persons using the products as intended." They said that
Defendant Honeywell failed to adequately warn of the potential
risks and Honeywell's negligence was a substantial contributor to
Donald's mesothelioma.

"This was completely preventable," said Sam Iola, an attorney at
Waters Kraus & Paul who represented the Vannis family. "The Vanni
family should not have lost Don nine years early due to Honeywell's
greed. Asbestos brake dust should have never gone into a single
bowling ball."

"Honeywell refused to take responsibility here, and we held them
accountable," said another WKP attorney, Peter Kraus, in the
release. "I am so happy for the Vanni family."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Durham Gas Explosion
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Maslow, writing for Legal Scoops, reported that
asbestos-containing materials were found at the site of a gas
explosion in downtown Durham, North Carolina. State health
officials warn that first responders may have been exposed to the
material during the explosion, and may be at minimal risk of
developing lung cancer or other asbestos-related diseases.

The explosion occurred on April 10 when a gas leak triggered the
blaze on North Duke Street. Two people were killed and two dozen
injured in the incident.

The NC Division of Public Health said in a statement that they
"cannot know for sure" whether any person was exposed to asbestos.
The department added that the potential for public exposure was
minimal based on their test results.

Officials put air-quality monitors in place before workers removed
debris from the site on Wednesday. Rubble piles were soaked with
water to minimize the amount of dust stirred up by the debris that
was loaded.

Few people will become ill after short-term exposure to asbestos
fibers, the NC Division of Public Health said in its statement.
Problems typically occur in people are regularly exposed to the
material at work.

In the UK, for example, more than 200 teachers have died in the
last decade due to asbestos exposure. For every teacher fatality,
nine former students can expect to be diagnosed with
asbestos-related diseases, the study found.

Approximately 86% of the schools in the UK contain asbestos,
according to a study from 2015. The material was commonly used in
buildings from the 1940s through the 1970s.

Over the last decade, 211 teachers died from mesothelioma in the
UK, according to the Office for National Statistics. Among these,
128 died after retirement age, demonstrating the delayed effect of
the disease.

Teachers' unions are calling on the government to have the deadly
substance removed from school buildings.

Mesothelioma kills 2,400 people in the UK each year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blue Mountains Council Sued Over Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Ray Hadley, writing for 2GB.com, reported that Safework NSW has
launched legal action against the disgraced Blue Mountains City
Council over asbestos mismanagement.

Ray Hadley first exposed the council's extensive failings in
November 2017 and has continued to reveal further incidents over
the past 18 months.

One such case saw council staff forced to dig up soil at the Lawson
Mechanic's Institute, despite council allegedly knowing it was
contaminated with asbestos.

At the time, council claimed, "a person or persons are actively
engaged" in framing the council by planting asbestos.

Safework NSW jas launched legal action in relation to "eight
breaches of the asbestos provisions of the Work Health and Safety
Regulation" act.

A whistleblower has leaked an all-staff email from Blue Mountains
City Council General Manager Rosemary Dillion sent yesterday.

In it, Ms Dillion claims council "worked tirelessly to address all
asbestos management issues . . . .".

The council has repeatedly fought claims it mismanaged asbestos,
costing taxpayers more than $1 million of ratepayers' money.

The commissioner overseeing the inquiry says the cost seems
excessive… but isn't investigating it because he hasn't received
any complaints from the public.

Well, Blue Mountains residents, all you just have to do is email
your complaint to this address
bluemountainspublicinquiry@olg.nsw.gov.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City of Eau Claire, Contractor Could be Fined
--------------------------------------------------------------
WQOW.com reported that the City of Eau Claire and its contractor
could be fined up to $75,000 for violating air pollution control
laws during the city hall renovation.

According to the DNR, Brack Thermal Systems Incorporated was hired
in November to handle asbestos found during the renovation.

The DNR claims the company mishandled the asbestos removal and
returned to work one day before the state-required waiting period
was scheduled to end.

According to the City Risk Manager Colleen Schian, the city was not
informed about violations until the middle of April.

She said the investigation is still in the preliminary stages and
the city is working with Brack Thermal Systems to gather more
information. They will discuss the violations at an enforcement
conference with the DNR. That meeting was originally scheduled for
May 8 but was postponed.

Schian told News 18 that if the city is found to be in violation,
they expect to hold the contractor responsible. Brack Thermal
Systems declined comment to News 18, other than to say they are
waiting more information from the DNR.

Schian said the issue is not expected to impact the city hall
renovation which is scheduled to be complete by Labor Day.

The Wisconsin DNR provided News 18 the following statement:

"The department confirms that an inspection was conducted at the
City of Eau Claire City Hall associated with asbestos removal
operations being conducted by Brack Thermal Systems.  Results of
the inspection found potential concerns.  The department is
currently in discussion with the City of Eau Claire and Brack
Thermal Systems to evaluate the data and determine next appropriate
steps."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Disregarded Experts in Issuing Asbestos Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Friedman, writing for The New York Times, reported that senior
officials at the Environmental Protection Agency disregarded the
advice of their own scientists and lawyers in April when the agency
issued a rule that restricted but did not ban asbestos, according
to two internal memos.

Because of its fiber strength and resistance to heat, asbestos has
long been used in insulation and construction materials. It is also
is a known carcinogen. April's rule kept open a way for
manufacturers to adopt new uses for asbestos, or return to certain
older uses, but only with E.P.A. approval.

Andrew Wheeler, the E.P.A. administrator, said when the rule was
issued that it would significantly strengthen public health
protections. But in the memos, dated Aug. 10, more than a dozen of
E.P.A.'s own experts urged the agency to ban asbestos outright, as
do most other industrialized nations.

"Rather than allow for (even with restrictions) any new uses for
asbestos, E.P.A. should seek to ban all new uses of asbestos
because the extreme harm from this chemical substance outweighs any
benefit -- and because there are adequate alternatives to
asbestos," staff members wrote.

It was not the first time administration has sidelined government
scientists. Under President Trump, the E.P.A. has rolled back
environmental protections and come under criticism for relaxing
rules on toxic chemicals.

In April, the agency weakened a proposed standard for cleaning up
groundwater pollution caused by toxic chemicals. In March, it
scaled back a proposed ban on a deadly chemical in paint strippers.
And it has rejected a proposed ban on the use of chlorpyrifos, a
pesticide that has sickened farm workers and been linked to
developmental disabilities in their children.

Even so, one former E.P.A. official said, disregarding the advice
of career scientists on an issue as complex as asbestos risk was
still unusual.

"It's really unprecedented for political leaders to fail to pay
attention to any of the scientists in either regional offices or
headquarters," said Betsy Southerland, former director of science
and technology in the E.P.A. department responsible for water.

Michael Abboud, an E.P.A. spokesman, declined to address why the
Trump administration had acted against the advice of the agency's
in-house experts, saying in a statement, "We don't comment on
deliberative intra-agency comments." He referred The New York Times
to the agency's news release about the rule.

Asbestos production in the United States stopped in 2002 but it is
still imported to produce chemicals used in manufacturing items
like household bleach, bulletproof vests and electrical insulation.
Inhaling asbestos fibers, even in small amounts, is the primary
cause of a cancer called malignant mesothelioma.

Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at
the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said his
organization objected to any effort to impose a ban before the
completion of a separate, congressionally mandated evaluation of
asbestos. The conclusions of that review, due by December, could
help determine if there will be further regulation or a ban.

He said the industries that still used asbestos in the United
States operated under strict safety regulations. "The risks of
asbestos can be managed," Mr. Walls said. "We ought not to be
imposing regulation simply on the basis of hazard."

The internal memos show that E.P.A. staff members considered the
agency's review process and the rule itself seriously flawed. They
were first obtained by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization,
an advocacy group, and shared with The New York Times. Their
authenticity was confirmed by people inside the E.P.A.

Specifically, agency experts criticized the evaluation for studying
only six fibers of asbestos, a scientific approach they said was
"decades old," and said the process had disregarded other fiber
types that are known to be harmful. They also criticized the review
for considering only lung cancer and mesothelioma as possible
harmful effects of asbestos exposure.

Of greatest concern, they wrote, was the fact that the evaluation
excluded the so-called legacy effects from the mishandling of
asbestos. For example, the staff members pointed to a $45 million
cleanup of a former Marine barracks in Oregon that was contaminated
with asbestos when old buildings were improperly demolished.

"Regulated industries contact E.P.A. when they have been surprised
to find out that their buildings and other facilities were
constructed with asbestos, when they had been assuming asbestos had
been banned a long time before. If asbestos was banned, then these
surprises would not continue to take place," the staff members
wrote.

On Wednesday the E.P.A. assistant administrator for chemical
safety, Alexandra Dunn, testified before the House Energy and
Commerce Committee against legislation that aims to ban asbestos.
She said the agency must be allowed to finish the congressionally
mandated review before taking further action in the matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Bord na Mona Worker Dies from Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RTE.ie reported that an inquest into the death of a former Bord na
Mona employee, who died from an asbestos-related cancer, heard
claims today the deceased was exposed to asbestos while working at
one of the company's briquette factories over 50 years ago.

Jim O'Dwyer, 80, was diagnosed with an asbestos-related tumour last
August. The father of six died last October.

Mr O'Dwyer, from Shannon, Co Clare, was employed as an electrical
maintenance worker at Bord na Mona's briquette factory at
Derrinlough, Co Offaly, from 1960-1965.

His family claimed during the inquest hearing at Limerick Coroner's
Court that he was exposed to asbestos at the Offaly plant and that
he was also exposed to asbestos while working in the UK around the
same time.

One of Mr O'Dwyer's relatives claimed in the hearing that Mr
O'Dwyer told him he had been exposed to asbestos while "mixing the
asbestos by hand and forming it into lagging pipes".

The deceased started showing symptoms 30 years after, his family
said.

The results of Mr O'Dwyer's post mortem showed he died from
Mesothelioma, an "aggressive form of cancer", which the inquest
heard is specifically associated with asbestos exposure.

Limerick City Corner John McNamara said: "Mesothelioma is an
aggressive form of cancer, and it is a marker for asbestos
exposure. It is a dormant killer that manifests itself many years
later."

Mr McNamara pondered during the hearing, whether or not others, who
worked at the Offaly plant could potentially have been exposed to
asbestos.

The jury's findings were that Mr O'Dwyer's death was "due to
occupational hazard" involving "asbestos".

As a "rider" linked to its verdict, the jury foreman called on the
coroner to contact Bord na Mona to investigate if there was any
present potential asbestos-related safety matters at the plant.

Mr McNamara said the jury's verdict of "occupational related death"
was an "appropriate one".

"The findings are in accordance with the medial evidence that James
died as a result of exposure to asbestos. I will contact Bord na
Mona in Co Offaly, advising them of James's case, and the fact it
was felt he was exposed to asbestos while he worked in their
plant," Mr McNamara said.

"I will ask them to confirm, if they haven't already, that they
have commenced an investigation to confirm there is no further risk
to members of the public or employees of Bord na Mona at their
plant in Co Offaly.

"I'm assuming at this stage that any asbestos-related issue has
been removed from the factory...because it is over 50 years ago,"
Mr McNamara added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces Suit on Bendix Claims Accounting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is defending itself in a putative
class action alleging violations of securities law over prior
accounting matters on asbestos claims related to Bendix Friction
Materials business, 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, "On September 13, 2018, following completion of
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of
Corporation Finance's review of our prior accounting for
liabilities for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC
Division of Enforcement advised that it has opened an investigation
related to this matter.  Honeywell intends to provide requested
information and otherwise fully cooperate with the SEC staff.  On
October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior
accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.  We believe the complaint
has no merit."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rZqoZL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.6BB Bendix Liabilities at Mar.31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1,594 million at March 31,
2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company
Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, 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 also disclosed that it had 6,214 unresolved Bendix-related
claims at March 31.

The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings
that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.
Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to
asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize
in the future.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of the
financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos
claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend such
asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred.  We have valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years.  We update the resolution values used to estimate the
cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth
quarter each year.

"Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims.  Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims
reflects coverage which 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.  Based on
our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims.  This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our
consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our
insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rZqoZL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $1.4MM for Lawsuits in 1Q 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. has recorded US$1.4 million expense, net
of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future
asbestos-related litigation for the three months ended 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, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses.  Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits,
based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts
known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of our products.  We have never manufactured asbestos
and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our
products for several decades.  A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other
forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.  The
remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that
are not material, individually or in the aggregate.  Our defense
costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by
insurance; however, our insurance coverage for settlements and
judgments for asbestos-related claims varies depending on several
factors and are subject to policy limits, so we may have greater
financial exposure for future settlements and judgments.

"For the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, expense for
asbestos-related litigation was US$1.4 million and US$2.1 million,
respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and
future asbestos-related litigation and is recorded in Losses
(gains) and other expenses, net in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FaZsMV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Faces PI Suits at April 12
---------------------------------------------------------
Parsons Corporation disclosed in its Form S-1 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2019, that it been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a
result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites.

Parsons Corporation states, "The Company is subject to various
lawsuits, claims and assessments which are routine to the nature of
its business.  Additionally, the Company has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of
contact with asbestos products at various project sites.  The
Company believes that any significant costs relating to these
claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance.  Although there
can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably,
management believes that their ultimate resolution will not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.  The Company
accrues a liability when management believes it is both probable
that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated.  The Company records a corresponding
receivable for costs covered under the insurance policies."

A full-text copy of the Form S-1 is available at
https://is.gd/a1IrqI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Researcher Says Asbestos in Baby Powder
--------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon, writing for Northern California Record, reported that
a microscope researcher called by attorneys representing plaintiff
Patricia Schmitz said he found asbestos in Johnson & Johnson talc
powder samples while Schmitz's relatives told a jury how
mesothelioma had robbed the woman of her quality of life.

"Did you evaluate 16 samples of Shower to Shower?" asked Schmitz's
attorney, Joseph Satterley.

"Yes," responded Lee Poye, a Houston-based microscope researcher
who runs an independent testing analytics lab called J3 Resources.
"I was able to detect asbestos in 11 samples."

"Did the samples come from Johnson & Johnson?"

"That is correct."

Shower to Shower is an after-shower product marketed for adults by
Johnson & Johnson in addition to the company's baby powder.

The trial in the Alameda Superior Court is being streamed live
courtesy of Courtroom View Network.

Alameda County has been the origin of lawsuits against Johnson &
Johnson, but this is only the second case to go to trial in the
area. Most past asbestos trials have been held in Los Angeles
courts.

Schmitz is suing Johnson & Johnson for its baby powder and
Colgate-Palmolive for a product called Cashmere Bouquet (bath bar
soap), claiming the products caused her to develop mesothelioma, a
rare cancer of the linings of the lungs.

Johnson & Johnson is based in New Jersey and Colgate-Palmolive in
New York.

Schmitz, a former teacher and Alameda resident, reportedly used the
J&J baby powder beginning as an infant powdered by her mother and
continuing for 40 years as an adult.

During witness testimony Schmitz's older sister Joanne Tylant told
the jury she (Schmitz) had used both J&J baby powder and the
Cashmere Bouquet products.

Plaintiff attorney Denise Clancy displayed family photos of Schmitz
and asked Tylant what mesothelioma had done to her sister's
vitality.

"She has lost a lot of energy," Tylant said. "The chemotherapy
really made her sick. She quit teaching. She can't eat. She's
skinny, now she's bones. She's fighting hard but she's not the
same."

Schmitz's younger sister Susan Bader also testified. She was asked
if she had seen warning labels on Johnson & Johnson baby powder
bottles.

"I did not," Bader said.

"Were you aware that Johnson & Johnson baby powder could contain
asbestos fibers?" Clancy asked.

"No," Bader answered.

Bader, describing how Schmitz had devoted her life to teaching and
how her students loved her, wept during her testimony.

"She is less than half the size she was," Bader said of Schmitz.
"She's gotten frail. She was such an independent person and now she
has to ask people to do simple things for her."

Bader said her sister has gone through four rounds of chemotherapy
treatments.

"She is incredibly sick, she spends 14 hours in bed, she can't get
up the stairs at home and has to stop and catch her breath. She
cried on the phone and apologized for breaking down. I'm getting
married on May 4 and she can't make it to the wedding.

"She tries to be stoic," Bader added.

During his testimony Poye was asked by Satterley how many samples
his firm had tested for possible contaminant substances.

"Hundreds of thousands," Poye answered.

Poye said he was experienced in microscope analysis using
instruments such as the analytical transmission microscope (ATM).
His firm also used the transmission electron microscope (TEM) and
X-ray diffraction techniques.

Satterley asked Poye to explain the "concentration method," a way
of pre-screening talc powder before examining it under a
microscope, developed during the 1970s. Johnson & Johnson officials
declined to use the method claiming it was ineffective; however
critics of the company have contended in this and other asbestos
trials that it should have been used.

Poye said the method uses a heavy liquid substance with the same
density as talc fibers and spins it in a tube separating the talc
from heavier materials such as iron or asbestos which sink to the
bottom. Using a filter the bottom materials can be analyzed for
identification.

"You get rid of the talc plates," Poye explained.

Poye was asked by Satterley if asbestos had been found in the
Shower to Shower products.

"There's no doubt in my mind," Poye said.

He said he was being paid $500 per hour to testify.

Under cross examination defense attorneys questioned Poye about his
expertise.

"You are not a PLM analyst?" he was asked.

"Correct," Poye responded.

Poye said his expertise was with the ATM microscope.

"You're not a geologist, or mineralogist?"

Poye agreed.

"You didn't go to school to study asbestos?"

"Correct."

"You haven't published any (scientific) papers in relation to
cosmetic talc?"

"I believe so," Poye responded.

"You're not a medical doctor?"

"Correct."

Poye agreed that the rise of asbestos-related court cases was an
opportunity for a lucrative market analyzing substances.

"The bread and butter of your business is asbestos?"

"I would agree with that," Poye said.

Poye was asked if he had designed his testing methods for the case
based on directives from Satterley. He said as with all clients he
had held a consultation and determined the best methods to use.
Poye added that the liquid concentration technique was not
effective in spotting one form of asbestos called chrysotile.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that "currently there are a few
thousand claimants" in asbestos-related lawsuits that name the
Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs.  However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007.  We are also responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
our former Rockwell International Corporation's divested
measurement and flow control business.  But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants.  We
defend those cases vigorously.  Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to
claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to
Allen-Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008
with both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining
liability and has been released from further insurance obligations
to Allen-Bradley.  Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement
with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  We believe that
this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos liabilities
relating to the divested measurement and flow control business.
Following litigation against several insurers to pursue coverage
for these claims, we entered into separate agreements with the
insurers that resulted in both lump sum payments and
coverage-in-place agreements.  We believe these arrangements will
provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs
for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of asbestos
liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings
or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based on
our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In some instances
the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities
if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and Rockwell Collins
avionics and communications business, the spun-off companies have
agreed to indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities
related to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dEKfzs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofer's Mesothelioma Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that when
roofer Stephen Jackson was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in
January of 2017, he immediately knew that his asbestos exposure
came from his longtime work with asbestos-contaminated roofing
materials. He filed a lawsuit against CertainTeed Corporation in
February and died in December of that same year. Recently,
CertainTeed attempted to have the case dismissed, asserting that
they had stopped using asbestos in their products years earlier,
but Judge Manuel J. Mendez of the New York Asbestos Litigation
Court determined that the case should proceed.

Asbestos roofing company's products blamed for mesothelioma death

According to testimony Mr. Jackson provide prior to his
mesothelioma death, he had worked with CertainTeed roofing products
throughout his roofing and construction career, in large part
because he found its roof coating more to his liking. He testified
that he believed that the company’s shingles exposed him to
asbestos through the dust that was generate when they were cut, as
well as from having ripped off existing shingles before installing
new roofs.

Testimony submitted about use of older roofing products

Based on the years that Mr. Jackson described working, CertainTeed
moved to have the case dismissed, claiming that during the years
described the company's products no longer contained asbestos. But
part of Mr. Jackson's testimony described years-long projects for
which the products had been purchased earlier, as well as that
almost 100 cans of old roof coating that had remained at one of his
jobs were used for other jobs throughout the years. Based on this
testimony, as well as the stringent requirements that need to be
met for a case to be dismissed, the judge determined that the case
should go to a jury, and Mr. Jackson's family will be able to
pursue justice for their lost loved one.

Asbestos has caused countless tragic losses for families like the
Jacksons, whose loved ones have died of malignant mesothelioma,
asbestosis, and other asbestos-related diseases.  To learn more
about the resources that are available to asbestos victims, contact
the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at 1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swindon Records 248 Mesothelioma Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------
Swindon Reporter reported that almost 250 people in Swindon have
died since 1981 from exposure to asbestos, figures show.

The death toll was labelled a terrible legacy of the use of the
material in workplaces.

In Swindon, many of those who have died from mesothelioma, a form
of cancer linked to exposure to asbestos, worked in the GWR Works.
Across the south west, 5,000 people have lost their lives to
mesothelioma, according to Health and Safety Executive figures.

Speaking ahead of Workers' Memorial Day on Sunday, asbestos lawyer
Virginia Chalmers of firm Irwin Mitchell said: “The reality is
thousands of people are dying due to asbestos exposure in the past.
The majority of those were exposed at work, and were completely
unaware of the dangers of the hazardous material.

"There has also been a rise in the past five years of people
becoming ill who simply washed the clothes of workers decades ago
as the harmful asbestos fibres were thrown into the air."

For more information about asbestos, visit www.mesothelioma.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Shakes Take Home Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reported that Union Carbide Corp. escaped liability
in a couple's suit alleging the wife developed mesothelioma from
exposure to asbestos-containing products associated with multiple
defendants.

Jane and Douglas Rowland failed to show Jane Rowland was exposed to
products containing Union Carbide asbestos fiber, the Delaware
Superior Court said.

Rowland alleged she was exposed while laundering her husband’s
clothing and participating in the clean-up of certain home
renovation projects in Ohio during the 1970s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers, Students Exposed to Shed 26 Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bension Siebert, writing for InDaily.com, reported that CFMEU
national assistant secretary Andrew Sutherland told InDaily union
officials this morning found broken up suspected asbestos, some of
which had been swept up and some placed in a bucket inside historic
Shed 26 on the Port Adelaide dock.

He said the worker or workers who swept it up have likely been
exposed to asbestos, the fibres of which can cause lung cancer,
mesothelioma and asbestosis if inhaled.

Sutherland said it was also possible that his officials and others
in the area -- including children in nearby Le Fevre Peninsula
Primary School -- had been exposed to asbestos.

CFMEU footage obtained by InDaily appears to show workers sweeping
the floor of the building.

"What we've already found is broken pieces of suspected asbestos on
the floor, in piles that have been swept up," Sutherland told
InDaily.

"It's been disturbed not once but twice.

"(Workers have been) potentially exposed to asbestos … it
potentially just shortened their life by 30 years."

Sutherland said the video was shot during the union's inspection of
the site this morning.

UPDATE: SafeWork SA this afternoon confirmed it is attending the
site today, is aware of the CFMEU's issues and will be assessing
work safety and legal compliance at Shed 26.

In a statement, a spokesperson said:

"SafeWork SA is aware of the issues raised by the CFMEU and have
inspectors attending the site today.

Methodology of demolition, safe systems of work and compliance with
the WHS legislation will be the focus".

The contractor on the site is Old Red Brick Co.

A letter, supplied by the union, signed by Old Red Brick Co
director Charles Jeffries and addressed to Le Fevre Peninsula
Primary School says the type of asbestos on the site is "relatively
safe" but that workers will take precautions including the use of
respirators and coveralls.

The video, supplied by the CFMEU, shows workers not wearing
respirators or coveralls.

"The type of asbestos to be removed is referred to as bonded or
non-friable … this type of asbestos does not readily become
airborne and is relatively safe," Jeffries' letter to the school
reads.

"However given the risks associated with this material, we still
take all the necessary precautions during its removal including the
use of respirators, coveralls and air-monitoring to detect high
reading levels.

The letter says works on the site are expected to run between 1 May
and 24 May this year.

"Relevant approvals have been obtained and the works will be
undertaken in accordance with all current staturory requirements
and under our SafeWork SA Asbestos Removal Licence No 690141," it
reads.

Developer Cedar Woods said in a statement this morning that Old Red
Brick Co is a licensed asbestos removalist with more than 20 years
experience in the safe removal of asbestos, and that all works are
being carried out according to the law.

"All works are being carried out according to regulations under the
control of an Asbestos Removal Control Plan which governs all
safety procedures and precautions for the site," a spokesperson for
the company said.

"All the asbestos removal is being undertaken with air-monitoring
set up and monitored by an independent hygienist.

"Last week, Cedar Woods also invited SafeWork SA to attend the site
and inspect the works, and a scheduled visit had been pre-arranged
for tomorrow (May 8)."

The letter says consultancy Dems Environmental was conducting air
monitoring on the site.

A representative for the firm declined to comment when contacted by
InDaily.

The CFMEU is part of a community protest against demolition of the
building.

Sutherland said that the suspected asbestos discovery could delay
the demolition by weeks.

But he said the stop-work was "not about that … it's about saving
people's lives".

He said the suspected fibres of the suspected asbestos "could've
been blown in any direction … potentially the local kids across
the road have been exposed to asbestos."

He said work had stopped on the site and SafeWork SA was expected
to attend today.

"We aren't going to stand by and let workers be exposed to
asbestos," said Sutherland.

There's no signage to say there's asbestos there

"The workplace is unsafe . . . there is no way they should be in
there doing any kind of work.

"There are people being exposed . . . this is about saving people's
lives."

Sutherland said the site clearly breached work safety legislation
requiring signage to warn of the asbestos and requiring that all
asbestos be logged and registered.

"There's no signage to say there's asbestos there," he said.

"There's no emergency plan.

"It's nothing like a (compliant) worksite."

In its statement, Cedar Woods also said CFMEU representatives had
entered the Shed 26 site "without notice or authority".

"The demolition contractors escorted the union officials around
Shed 26 to allow them to view the works being undertaken," the
developer's spokesperson said.

"Work on the demolition ceased while the union officials were on
site. It was then decided that because of the disruption and
imminent rain that work would cease for the day."

InDaily contacted SafeWork SA for comment but has yet to receive a
response. We also contacted Old Red Brick Co.

The planned demolition of Shed 26 has been controversial, with
heritage advocates and a Port Adelaide community campaign arguing
its destruction would erase irreplaceable local history.

Cedar Woods has said there is no "viable" way to keep the shed.

The development involves 500 architecturally-designed houses,
waterfront promenade parks, refurbishment of the original
Fletcher's Slip slipway and the refurbishment of existing State
Heritage-listed buildings.



                            *********

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 ***