CAR_Public/190513.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 13, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 95

                            Headlines

AAA TREE SERVICE: Torres Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
ABBVIE INC: Louisiana Health Sues Over Humira Price Manipulation
AKORN INC: Juan Files Securities Class Action in Illinois
ALIBI NAIL + BEAUTY BAR: Schamy Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
ALL STAR: Cheng Files Suit Under TCPA Over Unauthorized Calls

ALLERGAN: Australian Women Mull Class Action Over Breast Implants
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Cuellar Sues Over Autodialed Collection Calls
ALLIED PILOTS: Krakowski Appeals E.D. Missouri Ruling to 8th Cir.
ALLSTATE CORP: Abramson Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
AMERICAN GENERAL: Bid for Sanctions in Moriarty Suit Partly Granted

AMERICAN MODERN: Amended Francese Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
AMYRIS INC: June 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ANTHEM INC: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action for $23.65MM
ARKANSAS TOTAL: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Hatch Suit
ASSET RECOVERY: Settlement in Sandri FDCPA Suit Has Prelim Approval

ATBCOIN: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Hackel Suit Transferred to Mass. Dist. Ct.
BANK OF AMERICA: Field Appeals Ruling in Degamo Suit to 9th Cir.
BAYER AG: Loses Bid to Toss Claims in Essure Class Action Suit
BEACON HOME: Personal Care Provider Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

BELL TRANS: Settlement in Oliver FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
BLUE CROSS: Court Denies UPMC's Bid to Intervene in Conway Suit
BOEING COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bid to Dismiss CheckMate-026 Suit Pending
BROOKLYN HISTORICAL: Cartagena Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA

CALIFORNIA BANQUET: Antonio Files Wage-and-Hour Case in Calif.
CALIFORNIA: Pregnant Correctional Officers File Class Action
CAMDEN COUNTY, GA: $7.75MM Settlement in Agnone Has Final Approval
CANADIAN SOLAR: Trial in Ontario Class Suit Set for Oct. 2019
CEMEX SAB: Environmental Class Action in Philippines Ongoing

CEMEX SAB: Still Defends Securities Suit in New York
CEMEX SAB: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Israel
CHICAGO, IL: Davis Suit Challenges City's Impound Program
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Underway
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Kelly Class Suit

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Settlement Reached in Data Security-Related Suits
CLARION HOTEL: Must Face Housekeepers' Overtime Pay Class Action
COMCAST CABLE: Hoffman Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration Completion
COMHAR GROUP: Valencia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit

CREDICO (USA): 2d Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Vasto Labor Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Beardsall Appeals Summary Judgment to 7th Circuit
DANBURY, CT: Silva Has 45 Days to File 2nd Amended Complaint
DELTA AIR: Leighton Files ERISA Class Action Over Pension Plan
DETROIT, MI: ACLU Files Class Action Over Unfair Bail System

ELEVATED LOGISTICS: Anglin Files FLSA Suit in Texas
ELLIOTT SECURITY: Security Guards Hit Illegal Deductions
ELVIS TOWING: Bid for Writ of Certiorari in Diamond Suit Granted
EMPIRE SHOE REPAIRING: Tovar Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fonseca Sues Over Vague Collection Letter

ESKOM: Responds to Load Shedding Class Action
EXAMONE WORLD WIDE: Yip Seeks OT Pay for Mobile Examiners
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Etengoff Suit Asserts Unfair Business Practices
FALCON TRANSPORT: Chavez Suit Asserts WARN Act Breach
FAT CAT BOATWORKS: Ross, Hogan Seek Overtime Premium Pay

FBL FINANCIAL: Chavez Moves to Certify Class of Insurance Agents
FEDEX GROUND: Johnson, Belardino Seek OT Pay for Drivers
FIAT CHRYSLER: Koopmann Securities Suit Deal Has Prelim Approval
FIAT CHRYSLER: Settles Investors' Class Action for $110MM
FIRST DATA: Cooley Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

FITBIT INC: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
FLEX LTD: June 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FLOORIT FINANCIAL: Faces Icon Servicing Suit for Illegal Conversion
FLORIDA FARM BUREAU: Yoder et al. Seek Overtime Pay
FLORIDA PET RETAILERS: Fenwick Suit Asserts TCPA Violation

FRANCOIS RISHA: Cashiola Seeks Damages, Back-pay
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Class Action Over Fukushima Fallout Tossed
GETTY: Faces Copyright Class Action in Washington
GILDARDO GARCIA: Waitresses File Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
GREENBRIER INT'L: Costal Bay Mint Contains Toxins, Suit Claims

HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
HEALTH CARE: $22K Settlement in Sawyer FLSA Suit Has Approval
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
HILL'S PET: Protective Order Bid in Jubinville Suit Partly Granted
HOME POINT: Settlement in Noroma FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval

HONEYWELL INT'L: 11th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Santiago Suit
HYDROCHEM LLC: Parham Seeks OT Pay for Project Managers
HYUNDAI: Vehicle Owners Report Shattering Sunroofs Amid Lawsuits
ILLINOIS: Kolton Renews Bid for to Certify Property Owners Class
INFI LLC: Field Techs Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay

INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Class Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
JENNY CRAIG: Basile Sues Over Unauthorized Text Messages
JIMENEZ & SONS: Flores Pulido Files RICO Class Action in Illinois
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dahl Suit Remanded to California Superior Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Daigle Suit Remanded to California Superior Ct.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Acker Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ackerman Talc Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Dapp Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Florida
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ferreira Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Fla.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Michini Talc Injury Suit to D. Del.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Poole Talc Injury Suit to D. Delaware
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Powell Talc Injury Suit to D. Delaware
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Shook Talc Injury Suit to W.D. Penn.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Zambrano Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JPMORGAN CHASE: August 8 ADR FX Settlement Approval Hearing Set

JUST BORN: California Woman Leads Class Suit Over Candy Boxes
KADLEC REGIONAL: Bradford Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
LAMB WESTON: California Court Narrows Claims in Kennard Suit
LARIO OIL & GAS CO: Hancock Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
LAZARD ASSET: Sullivan Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site

LIBERTY TIRE: Denial of Manning Class Certification Affirmed
M/A/R/C RESEARCH: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Exclusively Cats Says
MAYAS FOOD: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
MB FINANCIAL: Boone Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees Dismissed
MCNEIL GROUP: Accused by Harbour Suit of Not Paying OT Under FLSA

MDL 2672: Court Denies Bids to Remand Vodonick Clean Diesel Suit
MDL 2741: Albert Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Baehr Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Barnett Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Brand Suit Consolidated in Roundup Sales Litigation

MDL 2741: Browning Suit Included in Roundup Sales Litigation
MDL 2741: Cohen Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Cupp Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Delsuc Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Fohne Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation

MDL 2741: Fruits Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Hignett Suit Included in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Lawary Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Musselman Suit Included in Roundup Sales Litigation
MDL 2741: Ott Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation

MDL 2741: Simmons Suit Included in Roundup Product Litigation
MDL 2741: Vereugo Suit Included in Roundup Sales Litigation
MDL 2884: 3 Suits by Anacor Pharma Transferred to Delaware
MDL 2886: Luongo Suit Consolidated in Allura Product Litigation
MICHIGAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Unemployment Case

MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid for Summary Judgment in Adkins FDCA Suit Denied
MIDLAND FUNDING: Dismissal of Schellenger's Counterclaim Affirmed
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Suit
MONSANTO CO: California RoundUp Cases Raise Concerns

MONSANTO CO: Farmer Awareness Increasing Over Roundup Cases
MONSANTO CO: Hall Seeks Damages for Roundup-related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Newble Seeks Damages for Roundup-related Injuries
MONSANTO COMPANY: Castillo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Clifton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Colbert Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Gillson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mikels Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mullahy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Payne Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MOUNT IDA: Seeks Dismissal of Students' Class Action
NATIONAL PRODUCTION: Dean Files ERISA Class Action in Illinois
NCAA: Approval of Settlement & Fee Award in Antitrust Suit Affirmed
NCAA: Faces Hastedt Class Action Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
NCAA: Neglected Health and Safety of CHC Athletes, Lee Says

NIO INC: Says U.S. Shareholder Class Actions "Meritless"
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Mislabeled Hydraulic Fluid, Sevy et al. Say
OHIO NATIONAL: Advisor Files Class Suit Over Cut Commissions
ONTARIO PC PARTY: Sued for Canceling Guaranteed Income
P.F. CHANG'S: Denial of Class Certification Bid in Gammella Flipped

PARKING REIT: May not Answer Sipda Until Lead Plaintiff is Named
PENN CREDIT: Gurzi Files Suit Over Robocalls
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Pa. Cmmw. Affirms Dismissal of Thornton Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit in Brazil vs. Unit Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: City of Westland, Shareholder Suits Consolidated

PHILIP MORRIS: Class Cert. Hearing in Ringer Suit in Sept. 2019
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Gilchrist Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Narrows Decision in Letourneau Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Court of Appeals Narrows Decision in Blais Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Suit Ongoing

PHILIP MORRIS: Natan Class Action in Israel Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Rubenstahl Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
PILOT CORPORATION: Appeals Decision in Taylor Suit to 6th Circuit
PIONEER WELL SERVICES: Nugent Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
PNC BANK: Dan-Harry Appeals D.R.I. Decision to 1st Circuit

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Field Files Suit to Recoup Unpaid Wages, Costs
PORTARO GROUP: Griffin Stayed Pending Arbitration Ruling in Lamps
PRIME LEAD: Shapiro Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
PROTECTIVE INDUSTRIES: Arciniega Hits Missing OT Pay, Pay Slips
PURDUE PHARMA: Agrees $270MM Opioid Settlement with Oklahoma

RAG & BONE: Gabriyelian Says Website not Blind-Friendly
RAINBOW DISPOSAL: Class of Participants Certified in Hurtado Suit
ROBERT PEARCE: Fabbrocini Sues for Gender Inequality at Work
SANTANDER: Lawyers Prepare Class Action Over Film Tax Schemes
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Faces Snodgrass Suit over Invasion of Privacy

SHAW'S SUPERMARKETS: Faces Suit over Pay Insurance Policy Payment
SK FOODS: Ingomar Packing Junked as Defendant in Bruce Foods Suit
SK FOODS: Ingomar Packing Junked as Defendant in Cliffstar Suit
SK FOODS: Ingomar, et al., Junked as Defendants in Diversified Suit
SPERIAN ENERGY: Pa. Court Dismisses Corsale Suit

ST. PAUL FIRE: 11th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
STATE FARM: Arnold Seeks Certification of Policyholders Class
STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Rent Increase
SUPREME SERVICES: Davila Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SYNERGIES3 TEC: Jackson Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA

T BAR MANAGEMENT: Aguilar Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TALKING RAIN: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Augustine Suit
TEREX CORP: July 29 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TEXAS: Court Denies Lumsden's Bids to Certify Class and for TRO
TEZOS: Judge Taps Runner-Up as Lead Plaintiff in ICO Class Action

TICKETMASTER: "Scalpergate" Class Action Heads to Arbitration
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Bartel Class Suit
TRIPLE S: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Martinez FCRA Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 5,550 Aussie Taxi Drivers Sign On for Class Suit
ULTIMATE WELLNESS: Faces Braunshtein Labor Suit in Calif.

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Matlock Stayed Pending Issuance of New FCC Rules
UNITED STATES STEEL: Sold Shares at Artificially Inflated Prices
UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Trump Travel Ban Pending
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Rhodes Suit
UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Settles Warcraft Text Class Action for $19.2MM

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Faces Gender Reassignment Bias Class Suit
USA GYMNASTICS: M. Doe Files Sexual Assault Case v. Coaches, et al.
UXIN LIMITED: Buckley Files Securities Class Action Over IPO
VAN DELL JEWELERS: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Leal Suit Says
VIRGINIA: Decision Pending in Drunkard Label Law Class Action

WABCO HOLDINGS: Kent Files Securities Class Action Over ZF Merger
WAUKEGAN HOUSING: Manor Tenants Class Certified in Phillips Suit
WELLINGTON MANOR: Residents File Class Action Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in McDonald Suit
WESLEY HOWELL: Payton et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Operators

WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Palma Must Renew Bid to Certify by July 29
WESTCONNEX: Dentons Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Tunnelling
WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Action
[*] Australian PM Calls for Class Action Against Vegan Activism
[*] Borden Ladner Discusses Issue Over Languishing Class Actions

[*] West Virginia No Longer on "Judicial Hellhole" List
[*] White & Case Discusses Stock Market Class Action Initiative

                            *********

AAA TREE SERVICE: Torres Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
---------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
FOSCO Industries, doing business as AAA Tree Service, and Greg
Foster for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Maryland Wage Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection
Law. The case is captioned JOSE FRANCISCO MUNOZ TORRES 7806
Americana Circle, Apt. 103 Glen Burnie, Maryland 21060, On Behalf
of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, v. FOSCO
INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a AAA TREE SERVICE PO Box 10103 Alexandria,
Virginia 22310 SERVE: Greg Foster 5400 Oakwood Road PO Box 10103
Alexandria, Virginia 22310 SERVE: Greg Foster 5400 Oakwood Road PO
Box 101103 Alexandria, Virginia 22310 And Greg Foster 5400 Oakwood
Road PO Box 10103 Alexandria, Virginia 22310, DEFENDANTS, Case No.
1:19-cv-00467 (E.D. Va., April 17, 2019). At all times during
Plaintiff's employment, Defendants have never paid Plaintiff at the
rate of one-and-one half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for
overtime worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff also
alleges that Defendants have violated the unlawful retaliation
provision of the FLSA for engaging in a series of shocking and
deliberate actions after they received his pre-litigation FLSA
overtime wage demand.

AAA Tree Service offers tree-trimming, tree removal, and related
services in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland,
and the District of Columbia. The company is a corporation formed
under the laws of Commonwealth of Virginia with its principal place
of business in Fairfax County, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Telephone: (301) 587-9373
     Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
     E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


ABBVIE INC: Louisiana Health Sues Over Humira Price Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, D/B/A BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, AND HMO LOUISIANA, INC. on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABBVIE
INC., ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD, and AMGEN INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02904 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2019) seeks to recover
overcharges for the plaintiffs and all similarly situated.

AbbVie's rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira has been the best-selling
drug in the United States for six consecutive years, bringing in
more than $13.6 billion in sales in the U.S. in 2018 and nearly $20
billion worldwide. Approved in the U.S. in 2002, Humira's sales
have been on the increase since the beginning. But the original
patent on Humira, a biologic drug, would expire in late 2016,
leading to competition for Humira prescriptions from manufacturers
of biosimilar drugs. Biologics and their biosimilars are relatively
new but in many respects, they are similar to traditional brand
drugs and their generics. The effect of competition on brand drugs
by their generics is, of course, well established: once competition
enters, brand sales fall rapidly as the market shifts toward
less-expensive generic competitor products. Generics quickly erode
the sales of the corresponding brand drug by pricing at a discount,
with generic discounts increasing as more generic sellers enter the
market. If history and economics are any guide, a similar reduction
in Humira's market share and a substantial drop in revenues from
the drug would follow entry by Humira biosimilars.

According to the complaint, Humira's sales have kept AbbVie afloat
since 2013, generating approximately half of the company's
revenues. AbbVie has other drugs in the pipeline, but sales of
those drugs would not start until 2019 or beyond, potentially
leaving a gaping hole to fill if competition for Humira began in
late 2016. So, AbbVie found an ingenious way to bridge the gap.

First, AbbVie would create a virtually impenetrable patent
thicket--an "absolute minefield of IP"--to snare and mire down any
potential competitor. The more patents, valid or not, to contend
with, the longer AbbVie could keep competition for Humira at bay
and thus the longer Humira could command supra competitive prices.
AbbVie now has more than 100 (and maybe as many as 130 or more)
patents. AbbVie used the patent system to make the costs to any
potential competitor so high that the would-be competitor would not
become an actual competitor. Despite the patents' weaknesses, and
despite the fact that AbbVie frequently asserted patents that it
had no basis to believe were infringed, the sheer volume of patents
and claims in AbbVie's patent thicket frustrated biosimilar
companies' efforts to come to market, the complaint relates.

Second, AbbVie paid a potential competitor to delay entry even
further. At least nine companies have indicated an intent to market
biosimilars to compete with Humira. Three currently have approval
from the FDA, but none have launched. Instead, AbbVie entered into
deals with each to delay their entry until various dates in 2023.
Not everyone has the same 2023 entry date, though. Amgen was the
first biosimilar competitor to receive FDA approval, but under the
regulatory framework, was not entitled to any period of exclusivity
during which it would be the only biosimilar on the market, notes
the complaint.

In exchange for Amgen dropping its challenges to AbbVie's patents
and agreeing not to launch its biosimilar product until January
2023, however, AbbVie provided Amgen with a de facto exclusivity by
agreeing not to allow other biosimilars to enter the market within
five months of Amgen. Amgen thus will have five months as the only
biosimilar on the market, enabling it to charge higher prices and
realize hundreds of millions of dollars in higher profits than it
would if it faced competition during this period. This
pay-for-delay deal between AbbVie and Amgen was anticompetitive and
unlawful, says the complaint.

Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, d/b/a Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Louisiana ("BCBSLA") provides and manages health
benefits to more than 1 million participants, members, and
beneficiaries primarily in the state of Louisiana, as well as
throughout the United States.

AbbVie Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: (708) 628-4949
     Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
     Email: beth@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Phone: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     Email:tom@hbsslaw.com
           lauren@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
     David S. Scalia, Esq.
     THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
     One Canal Place, Suite 1000
     365 Canal Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-648-0180
     Fax: 866-328-7670
     Email:jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
           dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
           dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
           bonnie@dugan-lawfirm.com

AKORN INC: Juan Files Securities Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE JUAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AKORN, INC., RAJAT RAI, and DUANE A. PORTWOOD, Case No.
1:19-cv-02720 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating securities laws.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company's
Decatur, Illinois facility exhibited severe manufacturing
violations; and the Company repeatedly failed to correct
manufacturing violations at its Decatur, Illinois facility, among
other things.

Akorn, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of Louisiana with its
principal executive offices located in Lake Forest, Illinois.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Akorn purports to develop, manufacture, and market specialized
generic and branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug
products, and animal health products in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell B. Goldberg, Esq.
          John S. Monical, Esq.
          Peter E. Cooper, Esq.
          LAWRENCE KAMIN, LLC
          300 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 372-1947
          Facsimile: (312) 372-2389
          E-mail: mgoldberg@lawrencekaminlaw.com
                  jmonical@lawrencekaminlaw.com
                  pcooper@lawrencekaminlaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


ALIBI NAIL + BEAUTY BAR: Schamy Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Alibi Nail + Beauty
Bar for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The case is captioned BRENDA SCHAMY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. MCGHEE MCAULIFFE
INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A ALIBI NAIL + BEAUTY BAR, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21497-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., April 18, 2019). Plaintiff Brenda Schamy alleges that
Defendant Alibi engages in unsolicited telemarketing practices to
promote its services. On or about Jan. 31, 2019, Defendant sent a
telemarketing text message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in 5331. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant
with her express written consent to be contacted using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS). The impersonal and generic nature
of Defendant's text message demonstrates that Defendant utilized an
ATDS in transmitting the messages.

Alibi Nail + Beauty Bar is a Florida limited liability company
whose principal office is located at 601 NE 36th Street, Apt. 3201,
Miami, FL. It provides nail care and beauty services in Midtown,
Miami. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: 305-975-3320
     E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
             utanski@edelsberglaw.com


ALL STAR: Cheng Files Suit Under TCPA Over Unauthorized Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNA CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. ALL STAR GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a
California Corporation, d/b/a STONEWOODINSURANCE.COM, FREEWAY
INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, SACRAMENTO AUTO
INSURANCE CENTER, INC., a California corporation, FIRST HEALTH
GROUP CORP, a Delaware corporation, DENTALSOURCE HOLDINGS, INC., a
New Mexico corporation, MANAGED CARE, INC. d/b/a GALAXY HEALTH
NETWORK, an unknown business entity, and DATA PARTNERSHIP GROUP,
LP, a Georgia limited partnership, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-02352-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2019) seeks to stop
Defendants' illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that play
prerecorded voice messages to the telephones of consumers
nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.

As a primary part of their marketing efforts, Defendants and their
agents placed thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded
voice message to consumers' cell phones nationwide. Unfortunately,
Defendants did not obtain consent prior to placing these calls and,
therefore, are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").

Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to stop its
unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and statutory
fines to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff is a natural person and is a citizen of the Northern
District of California.

Defendants sell and provide insurance policies to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
     Javitch Law Office
     480 S. Ellsworth Ave
     San Mateo, CA 94401
     Phone: 650-781-8000
     Facsimile: 650-648-0705
     Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


ALLERGAN: Australian Women Mull Class Action Over Breast Implants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Branley, writing for ABC, reports that a group of women who
underwent mastectomies following breast cancer is considering legal
action after having reconstructions with a brand of implant that's
now been linked to a rare type of lymphoma.

It comes as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) calls an
emergency meeting to decide whether to follow the lead of French
regulators, who decided to ban textured breast implants.

There are more than 13,300 breast implant procedures in Australia
each year, mostly for cosmetic reasons.

Among those closely watching the outcome of the TGA meeting is
professional ballet dancer Lily Bones.

She was diagnosed with breast cancer after finding a lump at the
age of 29.

"For me at the time, it seemed very out of the blue, quite a
surprise," she said.

"You feel like a bit of a leper, it's quite lonely, especially in a
ballet company."

Wanting to get back to work as quickly as possible, Ms Bones took
part in a clinical trial where she had a double mastectomy and
breast implants in one surgery.

"We didn't talk a lot about implant choices. Basically, I was just
told what would be involved," she said.

"I was told that my implants wouldn't rupture, I remember that
quite distinctly."

A decade on, the Allergan implants she was given have started to
rupture.

Now the mother of a two-year-old, she is concerned about the
continuing threat that leaking silicone and the risk of lymphoma
pose.

"I've got enough to worry about. I don't need other issues to be
playing on my mind," she said.

"I'll be very interested to know what they [the TGA] decide
obviously since Europe's already rejected them. That really just
raises alarm bells in my mind as to the safety of having those
implants in my body.

"I think that they should put women's health first."

The safety of medical implants has been under the spotlight after
the ABC and the International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists revealed women around the world were suffering
significant health problems after regulators failed to the detect
the threat from receiving textured breast implants.

Regulator to consider total ban
The TGA meeting, scheduled to be held on April 8, would consider
whether the risk of developing Breast-Implant-Associated Anaplastic
Large Cell Lymphoma, or BIA ALCL, warrants a total ban.

France banned implants made by six manufacturers, including
Allergan.

(The Allergan brand has also gone by the name of Natrelle and
McGhan prior to company takeovers.)

Australian surgeon Professor Anand Deva sits on the TGA expert
panel and is hoping for swift action.

He said his latest research showed for women with highly textured
implants, the risk of developing the cancer was around 1 in 2,800.

"We would be hoping that the TGA makes a decision sooner rather
than later," he said.

Australian women are particularly affected by the health scandal
because doctors here are much more likely to use textured rather
than smooth implants.

Are textured implants still used in Australia?
Late last year, the TGA followed the European regulators lead and
removed the approval of any textured implants with a European stamp
of approval, prior to December 17.

But it meant that technically, any existing implants in warehouses
or on hospital shelves with approval prior to that date could be
used.

The Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons told the ABC they
understood that its surgeons were no longer using the Allergan
textured implants.

But the ABC has received anecdotal reports from patients of
surgeons continuing to offer the products early in 2019.

A number of Australian women who received Allergan implants after
mastectomies are now considering a class action.

The law firm Slater and Gordon has also been contacted by a number
of women and they are currently looking at their cases.

President of the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons, Professor
Mark Ashton said surgeons always had a discussion with patients
about the risk of BIA ALCL and textured implants.

"The Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons would support the TGA
should it decide to ban Allergan textured implants," he said.

He said they would also support banning of a second newer type of
implant made from polyurethane, which has also been linked to the
lymphoma.

How long have authorities known about the link?
US health authorities began investigating the link between the
textured breast implants and the risk of developing BIA ALCL, a
form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, in 2011.

A spokesman for the Food and Drug Administration said in most
cases, BIA ALCL was found in the scar tissue and fluid near the
implant, but in some cases it could spread throughout the body.

The FDA held two days of meetings to discuss the long term risks of
textured implants and cancer.

It did not issue any recommendations after the meeting, and instead
called for more data.

In the past, the FDA has not recommended that surgeons stop using
the implants, or that they be removed

"Because it has generally only been identified in patients with
symptoms such as pain, lumps, swelling, or asymmetry that occur
after the surgical incision has fully healed, breast implant
removal in patients without symptoms or other abnormality is not
recommended" the FDA website said.

As of September 30, 2018, the FDA had received a total of 660
medical device reports (MDRs) of BIA ALCL worldwide, including the
death of nine patients.

In Australia and New Zealand, 90 patients have been identified,
including four who have died.

Manufacturers say they are safe
The makers of Allergan textured implants defend the product, saying
its safety was supported by extensive data.

Mark Marmur, from Allergan, said patient safety and product quality
were the company's highest priorities.

"There is more than a decade of successful European and US clinical
use as well as a large number of peer-reviewed and published
studies," he said.

He said the company strongly disagreed with the French decision to
restrict the use of highly textured implants 'because this decision
was made without any new safety information".

Women left high and dry
Ms Bones' concerns have been compounded by the lack of services in
the health system for women in her position.

She faced extensive delays in the public system but after having
breast cancer, she does not have the funds to get scans in the
private system.

She has mild rupturing of her implants, not severe enough to
qualify for a Medicare funded MRI.

"I need to pay $500 for an MRI every time I need to monitor the
state of the implants," she said.

"The reality is I have a chronic illness which I have to live with
and I have to manage along with the trying to maintain normality,
which is very much expected of me." [GN]


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Cuellar Sues Over Autodialed Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Cuellar and Emma Stewart, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Interstate, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00922, (S.D. Tex., March 13, 2019), seeks
damages and remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Cuellar and Stewart are current or former customers of Synchrony
Bank and incurred balances on their Walmart credit card. They
explicitly requested not to receive autodialed collection calls on
their cellular phone but continued to receive them despite their
request. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Alexander Kruzyk, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com


ALLIED PILOTS: Krakowski Appeals E.D. Missouri Ruling to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Krakowski filed an appeal from the District Court's
opinion, memorandum and order, and judgment, both entered on March
22, 2019, in the lawsuit titled John Krakowski v. Allied Pilots
Association, Case No. 4:17-cv-01527-HEA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit (assigned Case No. 17SL-CC01399) was filed in the
Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, and was later removed to
the District Court.

The Allied Pilots Association is the labor union representing
American Airlines pilots.  APA was founded in 1963 by a group of
American Airlines pilots, who broke away from the Air Line Pilots
Association.

The appellate case is captioned as John Krakowski v. Allied Pilots
Association, Case No. 19-1816, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on May 29, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant John Krakowski is due on May 29, 2019;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

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

          Allen P. Press, Esq.
          JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C.
          168 N Meramec Ave., Suite 150
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899-9789
          Facsimile: (314) 899-0282
          E-mail: press@archcitylawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee Allied Pilots Association is represented by:

          Steven K. Hoffman, Esq.
          Alice C. Hwang, Esq.
          JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
          1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 950
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 496-0500
          E-mail: skhoffman@jamhoff.com
                  achwang@jamhoff.com

               - and -

          George Suggs, Esq.
          SCHUCHAT, COOK & WERNER
          250 Shell Building
          1221 Locust Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63103-2364
          Telephone: (314) 621-2626
          Facsimile: (314) 621-2378
          E-mail: gos@schuchatcw.com


ALLSTATE CORP: Abramson Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Stewart Abramson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Chicago Insurance Agency Inc. dba Connected Leads, The
Prossen Agency, LLC, and The Allstate Corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-01819 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Allstate Corporation offers its services through a series of
captive insurance agents, such as the Defendant The Prossen Agency,
LLC. Prossen Agency hired Chicago Insurance Agency, Inc. dba
Connected Leads, who made a telemarketing call to a cellular
telephone number of Mr. Abramson for the purposes of advertising
Allstate goods and services using an automated dialing system,
which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff never consented to
receive the call, which was placed to him for telemarketing
purposes.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania.

The Defendant Allstate Corporation is a corporate entity registered
in Illinois. Allstate provides various insurance services to its
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 488-0400
      Fax: (614) 488-0401
      E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com


AMERICAN GENERAL: Bid for Sanctions in Moriarty Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, et al., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-CV-1709-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions.

Moriarty brought the putative class action alleging that the
Defendant failed to properly apply California Insurance Code
Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 ("Subject Statutes"), which became
effective Jan. 1, 2013.  The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did
not apply the standards set forth in the subject statutes
retroactively to policies issued before Jan. 1, 2013.
Additionally, she alleges that the Defendant continues to breach
the express terms of policies that were issued prior to Jan. 1,
2013 and are presently in effect by continuing to violate, inter
alia, the subject statutes.

On Nov. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff noticed the deposition of the
Defendant's representative pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), providing
numerous topic categories.  Category 43 sought the Defendant's
testimony regarding its implementation and application of the
provisions of Cal. Ins. Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72.  The
Defendant objected to Category 43, as well as other categories in
the deposition notice, on the grounds that it sought information
protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product
doctrine, was vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
disproportionate to the needs of the case, and sought proprietary
information.  This issue came before the Court and after
considering both parties' briefing and hearing oral argument, the
Court issued an order on Dec. 12, 2018 overruling each of the
Defendant's objections and ordered it to provide a witness or
witnesses sufficient to testify on the identified categories.

On Dec. 17, 2018, the Defendant moved for a protective order that
would prohibit or limit a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the so-called
`implementation and application' of the statutes at issue in the
case as described in Category 43.  It again argued such a
deposition would be cumulative and duplicative, unduly burdensome,
and would seek privileged information.  On Dec. 31, 2018, the Court
denied the Defendant's motion for a protective order because it was
nothing more than a thinly veiled motion for reconsideration.

On Jan. 3, 2019, the Defendant produced Ms. Michelle Miller as its
designated witness pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6).

On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff served on the Defendant her
request for production of documents set 2.  On April 24, 2018, the
Defendant served its initial privilege log that identified 87
documents.  Two documents, log ID 68 and 70, are identified as
"Legal memorandum re: CA AB 1747 (attachment to Privilege Log ID
67/69)" and were withheld on the basis of attorney-client
privilege.  On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the
Defendant objecting to the privilege log because it did not provide
sufficient detail to determine whether the documents referenced had
been appropriately withheld on the basis of the claimed privilege.
The 2012 Memo was listed as Log ID 68 and 70 with and further
described as an attachment to email regarding California Market
Conduct Exam audit responses.  On May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff sent
a letter now objecting only to Log ID Nos. 1 and 2.  She raised no
objection to any other entry on the privilege log and requested
Defendant confirm that the privilege log was exhaustive of all
withheld documents.

On Jan. 10, 2019, the Defendant served on the Plaintiff an amended
privilege log that identified that the 2012 Memo was drafted on
Oct. 18, 2012, was authored by David Kumatz, an attorney employed
by the Defendant, and indicated it was sent to 28 different people.


On Jan. 23, 2019, the parties jointly notified the Court of a
discovery dispute regarding the deposition of Miller as well as the
production of the 2012 Memo.  The Plaintiff sought leave to file a
motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37, which the Court granted.
On Jan. 31, 2019, the Plaintiff timely filed her motion seeking
relief pursuant to Rule 37(b)(1), (b)(2)(B), and (d)(1).  The
Defendant timely filed its Opposition on Feb. 8, 2019.  The Court
held a hearing on March 22, 2019 and submitted the Motion for
consideration thereafter.

The Plaintiff contends that Michelle Miller, the Defendant's
designated PMK witness is a "non-managerial employee of the
Defendant, whose sole involvement was to reprogram its computer
programs to address technical specifics of how the subject statutes
were implemented.  The Plaintiff now seeks an order precluding the
Defendant from using evidence regarding the questions posed or, in
the alternative, an order requiring it provide a fully competent
witness to answer all questions posed at the deposition.

The Defendant argues it sufficiently complied with Rule 30(b)(6) by
presenting a 40-year veteran of the company who was on the
implementation project team to testify about its Defendant's
implementation and application of the Subject Statutes.  It is the
Defendant's contention that any questioning beyond the actual
implementation and application, as it defines those terms, of the
Subject Statutes into a Defendant's system is beyond the scope of
the notice.

Magistrate Judge Gallo recognizes that Miller was able to testify
about certain areas discussed by the Plaintiff's counsel.  However,
it remains clear Miller was unable to answer some of the most basic
questions asked by the Plaintiff's counsel.  Miller was a sham
witness who was offered by the Defendant in a last ditch desperate
attempt to avoid its unmistakable obligation to provide a 30(b)(6)
witness on Category 43 as contemplated by the Plaintiff, and
certainly well understood by the Defendant.  Given the extensive
background of the 30(b)(6) witness topic and the actions of the
Defendant to date, the Judge finds that the Defendant selected
Miller as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness in bad faith.

Given the Court's conclusion that the scope of Category 43 was not
as restricted as Defendant now argues, all objections made by the
Defendant as to scope are overruled.  The Judge holds that Rule 37
mandates the offending party pay reasonable fees and costs "unless
the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make
an award of expenses unjust" notwithstanding that the Plaintiff has
not moved for such a sanction.  He finds that an award of fees and
costs is warranted.  The Defendant's present argument that the
topic was suddenly narrow, rendering Miller an appropriate
deponent, falls woefully short of substantial justification.  The
Judge is also unaware of any circumstance that would render a
sanction of attorney's fees and costs unjust.  Thus, he orders the
Defendant pay for the Plaintiff's "reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, caused by the failure" to appear as ordered.

The Plaintiff argues the Defendant has waived any privilege that
may be asserted over the 2012 Memo because it is utilizing reliance
of counsel as a defense to her bad faith claims, citing State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court.  The Defendant argues that
the Plaintiff has waived any objection she may have to its
privilege claims regarding the 2012 Memo because her time to do so
has long passed.

The Magistrate finds that the portion of the transcript provided to
the Court merely demonstrates that Mr. Kumatz was aware of the 2012
Memo and when it was created.  The cited testimony does not, in any
way, demonstrate that Defendant has asserted an advice of counsel
defense.  Without substantially more evidence demonstrating that
the Defendant is attempting to assert the advice of counsel
defense, the Judge cannot so find.  Accordingly, he denied the
Plaintiff's motion to compel production of the 2012 Memo.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Gallo granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion.  Accordingly, he ordered
that (1) the Defendant is bound to all testimony offered by Miller
during her deposition as a 30(b)(6) witness; (2) the Defendant is
barred from offering any contradictory or alternative evidence to
any testimony offered by Miller; (3) on April 17, 2019, the
Plaintiff will file an accounting of all fees and costs associated
with the Miller deposition; and (4) the Defendant may file an
objection to the Plaintiff's fees and costs on April 24, 2019.

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

Michelle L. Moriarty, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to
Heron D. Moriarty, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Heron D.
Moriarty, and on Behalf of the Class, Plaintiff, represented by
Alex M. Tomasevic, Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie
Nicholas -- alex@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic, Georg
Capielo -- gcapielo@einsurelaw.com -- Jack B. Winters, Jr., Law
Offices of Winters and Associates, Sarah D. Ball --
sball@einsurelaw.com -- Winters and Associates & Shaun A. Markley
-- smarkley@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP.

American General Life Insurance Company, a Texas Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Michael D. Mulvaney --
mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com -- pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Boos --
nboos@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale LLP, Tara L. Blake
-- Tara.Blake@butlersnow.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, LLC, Thomas
J. Butler, Maynard Cooper & Gale, pro hac vice, Christopher Charles
Frost, Maynard Cooper & Gale & David J. Noonan --
dnoonan@noonanlance.com -- Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP.

Bayside Insurance Associates, Inc., a California Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Mark Byer -- jbyer@sllbv.com --
Sandler Lasry Laube Byer and Valdez.


AMERICAN MODERN: Amended Francese Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIGI FRANCESE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AM. MODERN INS. GRP., INC., et
al., Defendants, Civ. No. 2:17-2246 (D. N.J.), Judge William P.
Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss Francese's amended class
action complaint.

The matter comes before the Court upon Defendants American Modern
Insurance Group, Inc.'s and American Modern Home Insurance Co.'s
("AMIG")'s, Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. ("RCS")'s,
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC ("SLS")'s, Southwest Business Corp.
("SWBC")'s, and American Security Insurance Co. ("ASIC")'s motions
to dismiss.

Francese owns real property in New Jersey, for which he signed a
mortgage loan.  RCS originally serviced the Mortgage, and then in
2016, SLS took over as the loan servicer.  Francese alleges his
mortgage loan servicers, RCS and SLS; and insurers, AMIG, SWBC, and
ASIC, charged borrowers for "kickbacks" when buying force-placed or
lender-placed hazard insurance policies ("LPIs").  He also asserts
RCS, SWBC, and AMIG together undervalued losses on LPI-covered
properties and that, when his Property suffered damage,
misappropriated the insurance proceeds

Francese's amended class action complaint arises out of the forced
placement of hazard insurance on his Property.  First, he contends
the Defendants manipulated the LPI market through collusive
agreements involving kickback arrangements and other forms of
improper compensation.  Specifically, in exchange for buying LPI
policies, insurers (e.g., AMIG and ASIC) paid lenders and loan
servicers (e.g., RCS and SLS) kickbacks, often euphemistically
termed commissions, as a percentage of the force-placed charges
ultimately imposed on borrowers.  Second, RCS and AMIG also engaged
in a scheme to materially undervalue insurance claims made on
property insured by an LPI policy and to delay unreasonably or deny
entirely the release of insurance monies in order to make necessary
repairs and restoration to the property.

Francese asserts 12 causes of action on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated (unless otherwise noted):

     - Count I: Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act for
the LPI Kickback Scheme against SLS and ASIC.  He alleges the same
in his individual capacity only against RCS, SWBC, and AMIG;

     - Count II: Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
against RCS, SWBC, and AMIG for the Insurance Benefits Scheme;

     - Counts III and IV: Violations of the Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and New Jersey
Civil RICO, against SLS and ASIC for the LPI Kickback Scheme;

     - Counts V and VI: Breach of Contract and the Implied Covenant
of Good Faith and Fair Dealing against RCS and SLS for the LPI
Kickback Scheme;

     - Count VII: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing against RCS for the Insurance Benefits Scheme;

     - Count VIII: Tortious Interference with a Business
Relationship against ASIC, SWBC, and AMIG for the LPI Kickback
Scheme;

     - Count IX: Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship
against AMIG and SWBC for the Insurance Benefits Scheme;

     - Count X: Unjust Enrichment against RCS and SLS for the
Insurance Benefits Scheme;

     - Count XI: Civil Conspiracy against Defendants for the LPI
Kickback Scheme and against RCS, SWBC, and AMIG for the Insurance
Benefits Scheme; and

     - Count XII: Violations of the Truth in Lending Act against
SLS and in his individual capacity only against RCS for the LPI
Kickback Scheme.

The Defendants LPI kickback claim arguments fall into two broad
categories.  First, the filed rate doctrine bars the claims.
Second, even if the doctrine does not apply, the allegations miss
the plausibility mark.  As to the insurance benefits claims, RCS,
SWBC, and AMIG contend Francese has failed to allege sufficient
facts showing he was entitled to recover the insurance proceeds.

First, Judge Martini opines that the filed rate doctrine bars
Francese's LPI kickback claims.  The filed rate doctrine's
nonjusticiability strand barred wrongful conduct claims involving
kickbacks because deciding what should have been a reasonable title
insurance rate in the past is a function that regulatory agencies
are more competent to perform.  Francese's LPI kickback
allegations-- that the Defendants acted collectively to inflate
premiums -- represent attacks on the Defendants' underlying
conduct, implicating both the nonjusticiability and
nondiscrimination principles.  As to the nonjusticiability issue,
the complaint is replete with allegations challenging the
reasonableness of the LPI premiums charged.  Because the
nonjusticiability principle applies, Francese cannot plausibly
plead the LPI kickback claims.

Next, the Judge opines that RCS, SWBC, and AMIG conducted a regular
business transaction authorized under both the Mortgage's terms and
LPI policies.  Therefore, Francese has no right to recover the
insurance proceeds arising under the LPI policies and thus cannot
sufficiently plead the claims tied to the Insurance Benefits
Scheme.

Finally, he opines that no amendment could cure the deficient LPI
kickback and insurance benefits claims.  As to the LPI kickback
claims, the filed rate doctrine bars the Court from meddling with
DOBI's regulatory authority over insurance rates.  And no
repleading could make the insurance benefits claims plausible
because Francese has no established right to receive the insurance
proceeds stemming from the LPI policies.  Therefore, amendment
would be futile and leave to amend is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Martini granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  Francese's Second Amended Complaint is
dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.  An appropriate order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/2Y77IL7 from Leagle.com.

LUIGI FRANCESE, Plaintiff, represented by CATHERINE E. ANDERSON --
canderson@gslawny.com -- GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP, FREDERIC
AURELIEN, THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERIC AURELIEN & ROOSEVELT N.
NESMITH -- roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N.
NESMITH, LLC.

AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY & AMERICAN MODERN INSURANCE
GROUP, INC., Defendants, represented by JEFFREY MATTHEW BRENNER --
jbrenner@postschell.com -- POST & SCHELL PC & STEVEN SCHILDT --
ssschildt@postschell.com -- POST & SCHELL, PC.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Defendant, represented by ASHLEY R.
NEWMAN -- anewman@mcglinchey.com -- MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, JONATHAN
E. SAMON, MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD & VICTOR L. MATTHEWS, MCGLINCHEY
STAFFORD.

RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, represented by JOY
HARMON SPERLING -- jsperling@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP, PAUL
J. HALASZ -- phalasz@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP & MICHAEL J.
FITZPATRICK -- mfitzpatrick@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP.

SOUTHWEST BUSINESS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DIANA C.
MANNING, BRESSLER, AMERY, & ROSS & BENJAMIN JAMES DILORENZO,
BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS.

AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
KATHERINE LEIGH VILLANUEVA, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP & ROBERT
WAGNER DIUBALDO, CARLTON FIELDS.


AMYRIS INC: June 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on April 8 disclosed that on April 3, 2019, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Amyris, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AMRS). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is March 15, 2018 through
March 19, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Amyris, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than Monday, June 3, 2019 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

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

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

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


ANTHEM INC: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action for $23.65MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Anthem Inc.
will pay $23.65 million to resolve a class action claiming the
company's $5.1 billion 401(k) plan offered high-fee mutual fund
share classes and paid excessive record-keeping fees to Vanguard
Group Inc.

The deal requires Anthem to give employees more information about
the risks tied to certain plan investments and hire an outside
investment consultant to advise on the plan's investment lineup.
Anthem also agreed to consider hiring a new plan record keeper,
according to court papers filed April. [GN]


ARKANSAS TOTAL: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Hatch Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James M. Moody, Jr., granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, for approval
and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact
information in the lawsuit entitled TAQUILLA HATCH, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ARKANSAS TOTAL CARE,
INC., CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMET COMPANY, LLC, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00580-JM (E.D. Ark.).

The class consists of:

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

Taquilla Hatch brings this lawsuit on behalf of all former and
current Care Coordinators of the Defendants to recover overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The form of notice proposed by the Plaintiff is approved.  The
Court orders the Defendant to provide to counsel for the Plaintiff
the names and addresses of all persons, who were employed by them
as Care Coordinators during the specific time within 14 days from
the entry of this Order.  The Defendant shall provide the
information in electronic format only if it is currently maintained
in electronic format.

The Court authorizes a 90-day opt-in period from the date the
notice is mailed.

The lawyers for the Plaintiff are authorized to issue the notice
and consent forms by mail.  They are also authorized to send a
reminder postcard 30 days after the initial notice is mailed.

The Plaintiff's request to provide notice via electronic mailing or
text message is denied.[CC]


ASSET RECOVERY: Settlement in Sandri FDCPA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN SANDRI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, an
Illinois limited liability company; et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01182-WCG (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green
Bay Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the Class Action Settlement.

The Judge adopted the Class, as is set forth in the Agreement, of
all persons to whom Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC mailed an initial
written communication to an address in the State of Wisconsin,
during the period of Aug. 1, 2017 through Aug. 22, 2018, which made
a settlement offer for a debt owed to Bureaus Investment Group
Portfolio No. 15 LLC, and which stated should you choose not to
accept this offer, the account balance may periodically increase
due to the addition of accrued interest as provided in your
agreement with the original creditor.

He defined the Class Claims as those FDCPA claims arising from
Asset Recovery's collection letter in the form of Exhibit A to the
Plaintiff's Complaint.

The Judge appointed (i) the Plaintiff as the Class Representative;
(ii) STERN*THOMASSON LLP as the Class Counsel; and (iii)
Class-Settlement.com as the Settlement Administrator.

He approved the form of Class Notice, and directed the Settlement
Administrator to mail it to the last known address of the Class
Members as shown in Asset Recovery's business records.  The
Settlement Administrator will cause the Class Notice to be mailed
to Class Members by May 3, 2019 (21 days from the date of the
Order).  The Settlement Administrator will send the notice by any
form of U.S. Mail providing forwarding addresses.  The Class
Members will have until June 17, 2019, to exclude themselves from,
or object to, the Settlement.

If not already filed, Asset Recovery shall, within seven days of
the Order, file with the Court proof of compliance with the notice
requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

5. A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the
Agreement and whether final approval will be given to it and the
requests for fees and expenses by the Class Counsel will be held on
July 26, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/YMjhNV from Leagle.com.

John Sandri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis R. Greene --
francis@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern
-- philip@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP & Andrew T.
Thomasson -- Andrew@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP.

Asset Recovery Solutions LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Douglas A. Albritton --
doug.albritton@actuatelaw.com -- Actuate Law LLC & Jeffrey M.
Hansen -- jeff.hansen@actuatelaw.com -- Actuate Law LLC.


ATBCOIN: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Fluhr, Esq. -- michael.fluhr@squirepb.com -- Matthew
Miller, Esq. -- matthew.miller@squirepb.com -- and Coates Lear,
Esq. -- coates.lear@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that the
wake of the SEC's guidance on classification of digital assets
(here) and no-action letter to digital token issuer TurnKey Jet,
Inc. (here), many may have forgotten or ignored that the final
arbiter of the definition of "security" under federal law is not
the SEC; it is the federal judiciary.  On March 31, 2019, Judge
Vernon Broderick of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York weighed in, denying a motion by
digital token issuers to dismiss a class action securities lawsuit
and holding that, at least as alleged, the token at issue
constituted a security.

Summary
Defendants allegedly conducted a public sale of an unregistered
token that was promised to work with a future blockchain and
provide purchasers with a return on the investment.  Defendants
never completed the blockchain, the token plummeted in value, and
Plaintiff sued in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
putative class of investors, alleging Defendants had conducted an
unregistered sale of securities.

Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the
token did not constitute a security.  The court rejected this
argument and denied the motion, reasoning that Defendants had
marketed the tokens as an investment that depended nearly wholly on
the creation of the new blockchain.

One question that arises is how to square this decision with the
SEC's position that pure cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin) do not
constitute securities, as many pure cryptocurrencies were also sold
or distributed to investors, in some cases as an investment, and
depended on a new blockchain.  The likely reconciliation is that
the pure cryptocurrency blockchains existed at the time of
distribution, were not to be created with the sale proceeds, and
were subsequently run by a distributed network, not the issuer.

Facts
According to the class action complaint, Defendants Edward Ng and
Herbert Hoover are co-founders and officers of Defendant ATBCOIN
LLC ("ATB"), a tech start-up aimed at facilitating rapid, low-cost
digital financial transactions through blockchain technology.  In
2017, Defendants conducted an initial coin offering, through which
ATB offered ATB Coins to the public in exchange for other digital
assets (specifically Bitcoin, Ether, and Litecoin).  Defendants did
not file a registration statement for the sale with the SEC.
According to the complaint, the primary purpose of the sale was to
raise capital to enable Defendants to create and launch a new
blockchain on which ATB Coins would operate.  Defendants made a
wide range of vague promises about their technology, for instance,
that it would be "an innovating decentralized cryptocurrency
incorporating the advanced technologies that tailor the needs of
primary market players".  Defendants issued a range of promotional
materials touting the ICO as an investment opportunity.
Ultimately, ATB raised over $20M from thousands of investors,
including Plaintiff Raymond Balestra.  As of several months after
the close of the sale, ATB had failed to provide working versions
of the promised technology, and the value of Balestra's coins had
decreased by more than 85%.

Proceedings
Balestra, individually and on behalf of a class of other
purchasers, filed suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against ATBCOIN LLC, Ng, and Hoover,
alleging that they violated the Securities Act by selling
unregistered securities.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule 12(b)(2) and for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6).  With respect
to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Defendants argued that the allegations
fail to state a claim for sale of an unregistered security because
the ATB tokens did not meet the definition of a "security."

Court Ruling and Opinion
Southern District Judge Vernon Broderick denied the motion, holding
that under the facts as alleged ATB Coins constitute securities.
Both parties agreed that the well-known Howey test controlled the
analysis, but Defendants claimed that ATB Coins did not satisfy the
test because ATB did not meet the requirements of a common
enterprise and because Plaintiff did not seek profits derived
solely from the efforts of others.

Judge Broderick disagreed.  Regarding the common enterprise
element, Judge Broderick noted that the element may be met where
the fortunes of each investor are tied to each other and to the
success of the overall venture.  Here, Judge Broderick found this
element satisfied because the complaint alleged that the goal of
the ICO was to raise capital to create a new blockchain, the
success of which would increase the ATB Coin value for all
purchasers.  Regarding the element requiring profit derived from
effort of others, Judge Broderick noted that courts determine this
by considering whether the enterprise was marketed as an
investment.  Judge Broderick easily found this the case, noting
that ATB extensively marketed the coins as an investment, the
success of which depended entirely on launch of the ATB
blockchain.

Analysis
In our view, ATB is one of the more nuanced digital asset opinions
from a federal court.  On its face, ATB seems like many other
issuers hit with unregistered offering charges by the SEC or
investors: It promised a digital product, sold a freely tradeable
token that derived value via use of the product, encouraged
purchase for investment, and didn't register.  But the product
ostensibly comprised only the underlying blockchain, not an
application separate from the underlying blockchain (like, say,
Munchee).  If the product comprises only the blockchain, ATB Coin
may look a lot like pure cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin or
Ether, which the SEC has stated do not constitute securities
because, among other reasons, the distributed ledger networks don't
constitute a "common enterprise" (see the SEC's recently published
digital asset guidelines).

Can we square this?  Probably.  The differences between ATB and the
pure cryptocurrencies likely lie in the facts that the money raised
from the ATB sale was intended to fund the creation of a future
blockchain; this was not true in the case of the initial Ether sale
or initial Bitcoin distribution, since both worked on blockchains
existing at the distribution.  In holding that ATB satisfies the
common enterprise element of Howey, Judge Broderick took note that
the proceeds were intended to fund the blockchain creation.  And
the SEC's newly issued digital asset guidelines state that relevant
considerations in the Howey analysis include whether "the
distributed ledger network and digital asset are fully developed
and operational" and whether "holders of the digital asset are
immediately able to use it."  It may also be relevant whether the
ATB blockchain would have been a private blockchain run by ATB or
run by distributed nodes like the Bitcoin or Ethereum blockchains;
in its guidelines, the SEC recently stated that Howey is more
likely to be satisfied when the network is run by a central
provider, rather than a decentralized network.  But the ATB court's
opinion did not address this potential distinction.

In any event, the opinion marks only the end of the beginning for
the case, which will now likely proceed to discovery.  Perhaps by
the time ATB reaches summary judgment or class certification, other
courts will have weighed in and provided additional clarity on the
Howey analysis as applied to digital assets. [GN]


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Hackel Suit Transferred to Mass. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HACKEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MICHAEL BAILEY, MATTHEW
DALLAS, and KEITH S. EHRLICH, Case No. 1:19-cv-01722, was
transferred on April 22, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston).

The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-10783-JCB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired AVEO securities between August 4,
2016 through January 31, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover 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 against the Company and certain of its top
officials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Field Appeals Ruling in Degamo Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Real-parties-in-interest Dane S. Field and Elizabeth A. Kane filed
an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Milagros
Degamo, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-00141-JAO-KJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii, Honolulu.

The lawsuit arises from foreclosure-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Milagros Degamo, et al. v. Bank
of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 19-15826, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 16, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 14, 2019;

   -- Appellants Dane S. Field and Elizabeth A. Kane's opening
      brief is due on July 25, 2019;

   -- Appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s answering brief is due on
      August 26, 2019; and

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

Real-parties-in-interest-Appellants DANE S. FIELD, Trustee, and
ELIZABETH A. KANE, Trustee, are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Van-Alan H. Shima, Esq.
          VAN-ALAN SHIMA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1188 Bishop Street, Suite 3408
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 545-4600
          Telephone: (808) 545-4600
          E-mail: vshima@affinitylaw.com

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

          Mark A. Lackner, Esq.
          David S. Reidy, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-9944
          E-mail: mlackner@mcguirewoods.com
                  dreidy@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

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


BAYER AG: Loses Bid to Toss Claims in Essure Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Crotti, writing for Mass Device, reports that a federal judge
in Philadelphia will allow six women who are suing Bayer (ETR:BAYN)
over its Essure sterilization implant to proceed with their
personal injury claims and three others to pursue their
breach-of-warranty claims. One woman who became pregnant following
implantation with Essure will be able to pursue her claim that
Bayer fraudulently concealed the risk of pregnancy, the judge
ruled.

Bayer had filed a motion for partial summary judgment on all 12
plaintiffs' claims in the class action suit, citing statutes of
limitations. Judge John Padova of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted Bayer's motion for summary judgment on the
personal injury claims of six of the women and on some or all of
the breach-of-warranty claims of nine women.

The women had the Essure coils implanted in their fallopian tubes
between 2006 and 2013 and claimed they suffered a variety of
ailments afterward, including pain, bleeding and autoimmune
disorders. Two became pregnant.

Under Pennsylvania law, the women had two years to file claims
seeking damages for personal injury and four years to file claims
for breach of warranty. Bayer and some of the women differed on
when the clock began to run, based on when the women -- or their
doctors -- connected their health problems to Essure and when they
filed suit.

Padova heard the arguments on Bayer's motion on February 11. Bayer
took Essure off the market in the United States in December 2018.
In April of 2018, the FDA put restrictions on U.S. sales of Essure,
a small metal coil that's placed in the fallopian tubes via
catheter, after concluding that some patients were not adequately
warned of its risks. [GN]


BEACON HOME: Personal Care Provider Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARINA FLAKE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated individuals and on behalf of the Proposed Rule 23 Class,
Plaintiff, v. BEACON HOME CARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01254
(D. Colo., April 30, 2019) seeks 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") and the Colorado Wage Act ("CWA") and Colorado Minimum
Wage Order ("MWO").

During her employment, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours a week in the homes of her employers' clients. Defendant, at
all times during her employment, paid Plaintiff only at straight
time, with no premium for overtime, despite her working well over
40 hours a week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff has been directly employed by Defendant as an hourly paid
Personal Care Provider/Homemaker from December 2018 to Present.

Defendant is a healthcare services company that employs home health
care workers to provide its customers with in-home personal care
and management and/or treatment of a variety of medical and
nonmedical conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Conlon, 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
            nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


BELL TRANS: Settlement in Oliver FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMERON E. OLIVER, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BELL TRANS, a Nevada
Corporation, and BRENT J. BELL, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-0305-JAD-PAL (D. Nev.), Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted (i) the
parties' joint motion for final approval of the class action
settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Counsel's unopposed motion for
Class Representative Service Award, for a Fee Award and Expense
Award for Plaintiff's Counsel.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and the FLSA, the Judge grants
final approval of the settlement.  

She confirmed the appointment of Leon Greenberg and Dana Sniegocki
of Leon Greenberg Professional Corp. as the class counsel for the
settlement class and approved their requests for attorneys' fees of
$46,500 and an expenses payment of $4,600 from the Settlement Fund
for their services on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Class.  She
also finds that Simpluris, as the Claims Administrator, will be
paid an award for Administration Costs of $10,528 for administering
the Settlement in the matter.

The Judge confirmed the appointment of Cameron Oliver as the Class
Representative.  She also approves and directs the payment of
$5,000 to him, to be paid from the Settlement Fund, as a Class
Representative Service Award for prosecuting the case successfully
and securing the recovery for the Class and such awards will be so
paid as set forth in the Stipulation.

Upon entry of the Order, the case will have resulted in a Final
Judgment in respect to all claims and all parties and the Complaint
will be dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/b1Nohj from Leagle.com.

Cameron E. Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Sniegocki --
dana@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg & Leon Marc Greenberg --
leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Bell Trans & Brent J. Bell, Defendants, represented by Anthony L.
Hall -- ahall@hollandhart.com -- Holland and Hart LLP, Rico Cordova
-- rncordova@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP & Peter D.
Navarro, Holland & Hart LLP.


BLUE CROSS: Court Denies UPMC's Bid to Intervene in Conway Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JERRY L. CONWAY, D.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:12-cv-02532-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Judge R. David Proctor of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, denied the Verified Motion to Intervene for the Limited
Purpose of Seeking a Preliminary Injunction filed by Certain
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hospitals ("UPMC").

UPMC is the dominant provider of health care services in western
Pennsylvania.  In 2002, UPMC entered into a 10-year provider
agreement' with Highmark under which it furnished health care
services on an in-patient or out-patient basis to subscribers of
Highmark's commercial insurance plans and billed Highmark for those
services at specified, negotiated rates."

In the Spring of 2011, UPMC announced it would not agree to renew
or renegotiate these provider agreements with Highmark, the
majority of which were set to expire on June 30, 2012.  UPMC cited
as its reason Highmark's proposed affiliation with the West Penn
Allegheny Health System, which would create another integrated
health care delivery system in competition with the UPMC system.  

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania considered the expiration of these
agreements as having deleterious consequences for members of
Highmark's health insurance plans because, according to the
Commonwealth, these members would be subjected to significantly
higher out-of-network charges for their health care needs unless
they either switched their health care provider away from UPMC or
their health plan away from Highmark to one of the health insurers
with which UPMC had contracted, albeit at higher prices.

In May 2012, following a mediation organized by the Commonwealth,
UPMC and Highmark entered into an agreement that extended certain
of the entities' provider agreements until Dec. 31, 2014.  Also in
May 2012, UPMC filed a lawsuit against Highmark and West Penn in
federal court in Pennsylvania challenging, in part, the Blues'
exclusive service areas and Licensing Agreements.

On Aug. 8, 2012, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association ("BCBSA")
moved to intervene in the Western District of Pennsylvania case,
ostensibly to defend its licenses of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
service names and marks.  After BCBSA designated the case for tag
along treatment in the MDL, UPMC amended its Complaint to remove
allegations regarding the illegality of the exclusive service
areas.  Thereafter, BCBSA withdrew its Motion to Intervene.

In May 2014, on at least two occasions, UPMC sent letters to
various non-Highmark Blue Plans, seeking to contract directly with
them.  BCBSA responded to UPMC's letters stating that BCBSA grants
Blue Plans the right to use the Blue trademarks only in their
respective service areas and thus the non-Highmark Blue Plans could
not accept UPMC's offer to contract.

In June 2014, after unsuccessful attempts by the Pennsylvania
Office of Attorney General ("OAG") to mediate a new agreement
between Highmark and UPMC, the OAG filed a petition for review in
the Commonwealth Court.  Shortly thereafter, on June 27, 2014, UPMC
and Highmark entered into separate, nearly identical, reciprocal
Consent Decrees with the OAG.  The 2014 Consent Decrees ran for a
term of five years and are set to expire on June 30, 2019.

In April 2018, after the court's April 5, 2018 Standard of Review
opinion was issued, UPMC renewed its offer to contract directly
with the other Blues and was again rebuffed because of the License
Agreements.

After unsuccessful attempts by the OAG to negotiate modifications
to extend the Consent Decrees, which Highmark (but not UPMC) was
willing to accept, on Feb. 7, 2019, the OAG filed a Petition to
Modify the Consent Decree governing the relationship between UPMC
and Highmark.  That petition is pending in the Commonwealth Court
of Pennsylvania, Case No. 334 M.D. 2014.

On Feb. 21, 2019, the same day it filed its Motion to Intervene in
the case, certain UPMC entities filed a class action Complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against Joshua D. Shapiro, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.  That case challenges efforts by Shapiro to impose
new obligations on Pennsylvania nonprofit entities.

UPMC is a putative Provider class member in MDL 2406 and, as such,
is represented by Co-Lead Class Counsel, Edith M. Kallas and Joe R.
Whatley, Jr., who also represent UPMC in the matter.

In its Motion, UPMC seeks to intervene in the case to pursue a
preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of (or
compliance with) the exclusive service areas provided for in the
License Agreements between BCBSA and the Blue Plans.  It argues
that it satisfies the requirements of both intervention of right
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), and permissive
intervention under Rule 24(b).  Alternatively, UPMC seeks
permissive intervention.

Judge Proctor finds that UPMC is a Pennsylvania non-profit
charitable organization.  In 2014, the Pennsylvania OAG filed a
petition against UPMC in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and
ultimately secured the Consent Decrees which are set to expire in
June.  The OAG had an interest in the matter because of the
potential effects on the healthcare of millions of Pennsylvania
citizens, and the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance and
Department of Health is also a signatory to the Consent Decrees.
The Consent Decree provides that the Commonwealth Court is to
retain jurisdiction, for the duration of its existence, to enable
any party to apply to the Commonwealth Court for such further
orders and directions as may be necessary and appropriate for the
interpretation, modification, and enforcement of this Consent
Decree.  President Judge Pellegrini of the Commonwealth Court
entered both decrees as orders of court on July 2, 2014, and they
remain in effect until July 2, 2019.  The OAG's petition to modify
the Consent Decrees is currently pending before the Commonwealth
Court.

Therefore, the Judge finds that there are in fact unusual
circumstances that militate against intervention.  Allowing UPMC's
belated intervention -- and in essence inserting an Alabama federal
court into what is clearly a significant Pennsylvania conundrum --
would interfere with those state judicial proceedings, potentially
prejudice Pennsylvania's efforts to provide healthcare to its
citizens, and improperly inject a federal court in another state
into important matters implicating Pennsylvania's interests.

Considering all of the relevant factors, the Judge concludes that
UPMC's Motion is untimely.  Therefore, the Motion to Intervene is
denied.  A separate order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion
will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://bit.ly/2VLiZ6h from Leagle.com.

Special Master, Special Master, represented by Edgar C. Gentle, III
, Gentle Turner Sexton & Harbison.

Jerry L. Conway, D.C., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron S. Podhurst --
apodhurst@podhurst.com -- PODHURST ORSECK PA, Alan McQuarrie
Mansfield, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP, Amy E. Willbanks, STROM LAW FIRM,
Archibald I. Grubb, II, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES
PC, Augusta S. Dowd -- adowd@whitearnolddowd.com -- WHITE ARNOLD &
DOWD PC, Bradley A. Wasser, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO, Brian M.
Clark -- bclark@wcqp.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER &
GOLDFARB, Charles D. Hudson, PENN AND SEABORN LLC, Christina D.
Crow, JINKS CROW & DICKSON PC, D. Brian Hufford, ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER
LLP, David A. Balto -- david.balto@dcantitrustlaw.com -- LAW
OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO, Deborah J. Winegard --
dwinegard@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS LLC, Dennis G.
Pantazis -- dgp@wcqp.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER &
GOLDFARB LLC, Donald D. Knowlton, II, CUSIMANO ROBERTS & MILLS LLC,
Edith M. Kallas -- ekallas@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS LLP,
Edward K. Wood, Jr. , WOOD LAW FIRM LLC, Emily Hawk Mills, CUSIMANO
ROBERTS& MILLS LLC, Gail A. McQuilkin, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
PA, Gregory S. Cusimano, CUSIMANO ROBERTS KNOWLES & MILLS, LLC,
Gwendolyn J. Simons -- gwen@simonsassociateslaw.com -- SIMONS &
ASSOCIATES LAW PA, Harley S. Tropin -- hst@kttlaw.com -- KOZYAK
TROPIN & THROCKMORTON PA, Henry C. Quillen --
hquillen@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS LLP, Hope S. Marshall,
WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD PC, J. Mark White -- mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com
-- WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD PC, James G. Adams, Jr., EYSTER KEY TUBB
ROTH MIDDLETON & ADAMS LLP, Javier Asis Lopez -- jal@kttlaw.com --
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON PA, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS LLP, John Gravante,
III, PODHURST ORSECK PA, John W. Partin, PENN & SEABORN LLC, Joseph
Preston Strom, Jr. , STROM LAW FIRM LLC, Julia Smeds Roth , EYSTER
KEY TUBB ROTH MIDDLETON & ADAMS LLP, Katherine R. Brown, WHITE
ARNOLD ANDREWS & DOWD PC, L. Shane Seaborn, PENN & SEABORN LLC,
Leslie Lee Ann Pescia, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES
PC, Linda G. Flippo -- lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com -- WHITE ARNOLD
& DOWD PC, Lynn W. Jinks, III -- ljinks@jinkslaw.com -- JINKS CROW
& DICKSON PC, Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, Mark K. Gray --
mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com -- GRAY & WHITE, Matthew P. Weinshall,
PODHURST ORSECK PA, Michael C. Dodge -- mdodge@gpm-law.com -- GLAST
PHILLIPS & MURRAY PC, Michael E. Gurley, Jr. --
Michael@gurleylaw.net -- WOOD LAW FIRM LLC, Michael L. Roberts,
CUSIMANO KEENER ROBERTS KNOWLES & RALEY LLC, Myron C. Penn --
myronpenn28@hotmail.com -- PENN & SEABORN LLC, Nathan A. Dickson,
II, JINKS CROW & DICKSON PC, Nicholas B. Roth --
nroth@eysterkey.com -- EYSTER KEY TUBB ROTH MIDDLETON & ADAMS LLP,
Patrick J. Sheehan -- psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY DRAKE &
KALLAS LLC, Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- PODHURST ORSECK
PA, Robert J. Axelrod -- rjaxelrod@axelroddean.com -- AXELROD &
DEAN LLP, Sallie E. Gilbert, BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, pro hac vice, U.
W. Clemon -- uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com -- U.W. Clemon, LLC, Van
Bunch -- vbunch@bffb.com -- BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT
PCO, W. Tucker Brown -- tbrown@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEYKALLAS
LLC & Wilson Daniel Miles, III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com --
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC.

Corey Musselman, M.D., The San Antonio Orthopaedic Group LLP,
Orthopaedic Surgery Center of San Antonio LLP, Charles H. Clark,
III, M.D., Bullock County Hospital, Fairhope Cosmetic Denistry and
Fresh Breath Center PC, Wini Hamilton, D.C., Bradley Moseng, D.C.,
Jay Korsen, D.C., North Jackson Pharmacy Inc, IntraNerve LLC &
Crenshaw Community Hospital, Plaintiffs, represented by Donald D.
Knowlton, II , CUSIMANO ROBERTS & MILLS LLC, Emily Hawk Mills ,
CUSIMANO ROBERTS& MILLS LLC, Gregory S. Cusimano , CUSIMANO ROBERTS
KNOWLES & MILLS, LLC, Gwendolyn J. Simons , SIMONS & ASSOCIATES LAW
PA, Helen Lynne Eckinger , Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP, Henry
C. Quillen , WHATLEY KALLAS LLP, Mario A. Pacella , STROM LAW FIRM,
Michael L. Roberts , CUSIMANO KEENER ROBERTS KNOWLES & RALEY LLC,
Patrick J. Sheehan , WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC & Sallie E. Gilbert
, BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, pro hac vice.

Kathleen Cain, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by Donald D. Knowlton,
II , CUSIMANO ROBERTS & MILLS LLC, Emily Hawk Mills , CUSIMANO
ROBERTS& MILLS LLC, Gregory S. Cusimano , CUSIMANO ROBERTS KNOWLES
& MILLS, LLC, Gwendolyn J. Simons , SIMONS & ASSOCIATES LAW PA,
Helen Lynne Eckinger , Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP, Henry C.
Quillen , WHATLEY KALLAS LLP, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. , WHATLEY KALLAS
LLP, Mario A. Pacella , STROM LAW FIRM, Michael L. Roberts ,
CUSIMANO KEENER ROBERTS KNOWLES & RALEY LLC, Patrick J. Sheehan ,
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC, Sallie E. Gilbert , BAILEY & GLASSER
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Bender , WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN &
VAUGHN PC.

Evergreen Medical Center, LLC, Plaintiff, pro se.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Defendant, represented by
Christine Varney -- cvarney@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE,
David Kumagai, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Evan Chesler --
echesler@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, Jeffrey Then,
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, pro hac vice, Karin DeMasi, CRAVATH
SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Lauren R. Kennedy, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP,
Carl S. Burkhalter -- cburkhalter@maynardcooper.com -- MAYNARD
COOPER & GALE PC, Grace Robinson Murphy --
gmurphy@maynardcooper.com -- MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, Jacob Joel
Franz, MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC, James L. Priester, MAYNARD
COOPER GALE PC, John T.A. Malatesta, III, MAYNARD COOPER GALE PC &
Pamela B. Slate -- pslate@hillhillcarter.com -- HILL HILL CARTER
FRANCO COLE & BLACK PC.

Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Gary
M. London , BURR & FORMAN LLP, Alan D. Rutenberg , FOLEY & LARDNER
LLP, Benjamin Rodes Dryden , FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Devin Clarke
Dolive , BURR & FORMAN LLP, Michael A. Naranjo , FOLEY & LARDNER
LLP & Samantha A. Robbins , FOLEY & LARDNER LLP.

Highmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Delaware & Highmark Inc,
Defendants, represented by Helen E. Witt , KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP,
Erica Zolner , KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, James R. Hileman , KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, Jeffrey J. Zeiger , KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Jonathan M.
Redgrave , REDGRAVE LLP, Kimberly R. West , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF
& BRANDT LLC, Mathea K.E. Bulander , REDGRAVE LLP & Victoria Ann
Redgrave , REDGRAVE LLP.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Inc, Defendant, represented
by Christine Varney , CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, Evan Chesler ,
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, Jeffrey Then , CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP,
pro hac vice, Karin DeMasi , CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Lauren R.
Kennedy , CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP, N. Thomas Connally, III ,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Winnifred Lewis , CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP,
pro hac vice, Cavender C. Kimble , BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Edgar R.
Haden , BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, John Martin , NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP, Lucile Cohen , NELSON MULLINS RILEY& SCARBOROUGH
LLP, Peter R. Bisio , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Travis A. Bustamante ,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia Inc, Defendant, represented
by Craig A. Hoover , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, E. Desmond Hogan , HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Emily M. Yinger , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, N. Thomas
Connally, III , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Carolyn Anne DeLone , HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Catherine E. Stetson , HOGAN LOVELLS, Cavender C.
Kimble , BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, Elizabeth A. Jose , HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Emily Anne Gomes , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, John Martin , NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Kimberly Dawn Rancour , HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Lucile Cohen , NELSON MULLINS RILEY& SCARBOROUGH
LLP, Peter R. Bisio , HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP & Zachary W. Best ,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.


BOEING COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA JOHNSON, BRENDA BEZEREDI, JAINE BIALK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00597 (W.D. Wash., April 22, 2019), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act
and the Washington Wage Rebate Act because of the Defendant's
unlawful deprivation of the Plaintiffs' right to overtime
compensation.

The Boeing Company is a Delaware corporation licensed to do
business in the state of Washington.  Boeing operates numerous
facilities in Washington State, including the Renton Production
Facility in Renton, Washington, and the Everett Production Facility
in Everett, Washington.

Boeing, together with its subsidiaries, develops, produces, and
markets commercial jet aircraft, as well as provides related
support services to the commercial airline industry worldwide.  The
Company also researches, develops, produces, modifies, and supports
information, space, and defense systems, including military
aircraft, helicopters and space and missile systems.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Gaba, Esq.
          COMPASS LAW GROUP, PS INC.
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 251-5488
          E-mail: davegaba@compasslegal.com

               - and -

          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
                  smb@mselaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia L. Vannoy, Esq.
          MATTSON RICKETTS LAW FIRM
          134 S. 13th Street, Suite 1200
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: (402) 475-8433
          E-mail: plv@mattsonricketts.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bid to Dismiss CheckMate-026 Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a motion to dismiss
the class action related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial has
been fully briefed and remains pending.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of
the Company.

The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The
remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for the
Company's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial
in lung cancer.

A fully briefed motion to dismiss is pending before the court.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this
litigation.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BROOKLYN HISTORICAL: Cartagena Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITA CARTAGENA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
7 OCEAN GROUP INC., and JASON PIETRANGELI, PATRICK VALENTINE,
BEATRICE PORTO, and CELESTINO MENDEZ, as individuals. Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02507-ARR-SMG (E.D. N.Y., April 29, 2019) seeks
compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding
$100,000.00. Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and all other legal and equitable remedies the Court deems
appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Although Plaintiff MARGARITA CARTAGENA worked approximately 84 or
more hours per week during her employment by Defendants, Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL, asserts the complaint.

Furthermore, although Plaintiff MARGARITA CARTAGENA worked
approximately 16 or more hours per day, 3 days per week, Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally prescribed
minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours, which is a blatant
violation of the spread of hours provisions contained in the NYLL,
adds the complaint.

Plaintiff MARGARITA CARTAGENA was employed by Defendants from
September 2010 until April 2018.

THE BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, 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


CALIFORNIA BANQUET: Antonio Files Wage-and-Hour Case in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO ANTONIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA BANQUET CORPORATION, a
corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV14846 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2019)
seeks to remedy wage-and-hour violations by Defendants.

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

Plaintiff Alberto Antonio was employed by California Banquet to
work as a busser at the Central Grille restaurant located at
Glendale, California from approximately July 2018 to December
2018.

California Banquet Corporation owns and operates several
restaurants throughout Glendale and Pasadena, including Central
Grille.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     VACHE A. THOMASSIAN, ESQ.
     CASPAR J1VALAGIAN, ESQ.
     KJT LAW GROUP LLP
     230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
     Glendale, CA 91206
     Phone: 818.507.8525
     Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
            caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

          - and -

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


CALIFORNIA: Pregnant Correctional Officers File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Venteicher, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that
correctional officer Sarah Coogle was seven months pregnant in the
summer of 2017 when an alarm sounded during her shift at a
California state prison in Tehachapi.

Coogle ran toward the ringing and fell. She felt pain in her
abdomen immediately. Two months later, in her 38th week of
pregnancy, her baby was still-born.

She believes she wouldn't have lost the baby had the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided her the same
accommodations the federal Bureau of Prisons and other state and
local law enforcement agencies routinely provide pregnant women,
including letting them transfer temporarily to positions with
lighter workloads without losing seniority.

"I would have taken that position, I never would have been running,
I never would have fallen and I never would have lost my baby,"
Coogle said.

California state correctional officers who become pregnant face a
difficult choice, according to a newly filed class action lawsuit.
They can keep working and risk their babies' health, take a leave
of absence and lose pay or switch to a different position and risk
losing their peace officer certification, which can compromise
their future in public safety.

That policy is fairly new. The Department of Corrections had a
policy accommodating pregnant women until 2015, when the department
quietly got rid of it for reasons that it has refused to explain.

"We're not aware of any other major law enforcement agency that has
this kind of policy," said Arnold Peter, of Peter Law Group, the
firm representing six female correctional officers who announced
their suit March 26.

The case in Los Angeles County Superior Court is the third lawsuit
filed over the policy change. Coogle sued the department and so did
former correctional officer Amanda Van Fleet, who said she was
denied accommodations at California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo
following a hepatitis C scare when she stuck her finger on
something sharp in an inmate's jacket.

California's own Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which
enforces workplace discrimination laws, joined Van Fleet's lawsuit,
seeking a return to the pre-2015 policy. The Department of
Corrections is fighting the two women's lawsuits in Kern and San
Luis Obispo county superior courts.

"We do not comment on pending litigation," CDCR spokeswoman Vicky
Waters said in an email. "CDCR has and believes in strong
nondiscrimination policies, including policy to ensure that
reasonable accommodations are provided where appropriate."

The three lawsuits argue the department's refusal to accommodate
pregnant employees with modified assignments violates state and
federal workplace protections for women.

The Kern County Superior Court issued an injunction in Coogle's
suit that suspended CDCR's policy for her during pregnancy, but not
for other CDCR employees. CDCR settled with Van Fleet, but the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing is still pursuing a
policy change related to her case.

In court filings so far, CDCR doesn't discuss its reasons for
changing the policy in 2015.

The change does not appear to stem from concerns about staffing
shortages. A 2016 corrections report noted the state's inspector
general had determined the department was in 100 percent adherence
with staffing requirements. A Legislative Analyst's Office report
from 2018 said the department had no trouble recruiting or
retaining staff.

"This is a not-so-subtle way of telling women, ‘these are men's
jobs,'" said Katherine Spillar, executive director of Los
Angeles-based Feminist Majority Foundation, a nonprofit that
studies women in law enforcement. "And if they're going to take a
man's job, they're going to be treated like a man."

Women made up just below 15 percent of CDCR's workforce of about
23,000 correctional officers as of 2017, according to the latest
CalHR data. That's down from about 20 percent in 2009, according to
the data.

Angela Powell, 32, a correctional officer at California Medical
Facility in Vacaville, said she asked in summer 2017 to swap her
gear belt for a vest to shift weight from her pregnant belly.
Holding keys, handcuffs, pepper spray, a flashlight, a baton and
other gear, the belts can weigh 15 to 20 pounds.

Powell said she waited seven weeks for a response, when she was
told she would have to submit more paperwork. Around the same time,
she was finishing an eight-hour shift when a superior told her she
would have to work another six hours of overtime patrolling a unit
with three tiers of stairs.

She said she went home and contacted her doctor, who wrote a note
regarding her condition that she presented the next day asking for
a reprieve from mandatory overtime.

"When I turned that in, I was basically laughed at and told that
wasn't going to happen," she said.

She took leave for the rest of her pregnancy. She said when she
returned to work after giving birth to her son, she was told 10
percent of her pay would be withheld for a year for insubordination
over refusing the shift. The prison eventually dropped that adverse
action, she said.

"We would like the policy to be changed back so women can continue
working and grow their family at the same time," Powell said.

Melissa Glaude, 37, a medical technical assistant at the Vacaville
prison and a plaintiff in the new suit, had her first child in
2017. At that time, Glaude said, her job classification fell under
the Department of State Hospitals.

Her supervisors accommodated her starting at nine weeks, when the
department moved her to an office tech position. She said she
worked until her 36th week of pregnancy without problems.

Then the job was reclassified under CDCR. She became pregnant again
last October. She said the department offered some accommodations,
exempting her from overtime, but even that didn't last.

She said she received an email during that time noting she would be
responsible for responding to an inmate emergency if an alarm
sounded. She started taking leave at 25 weeks pregnant.

"As a mother, you're being forced to choose between your job and
the life of your unborn child," she said. "It's a choice you have
to make but you don't really have any other choice. I'm not willing
to put my child in harm's way for the sake of anything, really."

The 2015 policy change coincided with a new contract for the union
that represents correctional officers, the California Correctional
Peace Officers Association.

The union didn't support ending pregnancy accommodations, CCPOA
spokeswoman Nichol Gomez said.

"The CCPOA team concluded that the old policy wasn't broken and
shouldn't be fixed," Gomez said in an email. "The system had been
working for the individuals who need it. The CCPOA team disagreed
with the basic regulation change so strongly the CCPOA team members
chose not to put CCPOA's stamp of approval on the idea." [GN]


CAMDEN COUNTY, GA: $7.75MM Settlement in Agnone Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case,  STEPHEN AGNONE & ENZO AGNONE; DOUGLAS & CYNTHIA
PORCELLI; BRIDGE POINTE AT JEKYLL SOUND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAMDEN COUNTY, GEORGIA; WILLIS R.
KEENE, JR.; JIMMY STARLINE; CHUCK CLARK; TONY SHEPPARD; GARY
BLOUNT; DAVID L. RAINER; KATHERINE NISI ZELL; CHARLENE SEARS;
STEPHEN L. BERRY; STEPHEN L. HOWARD; O. BRENT GREEN; JOHN MCDILL;
DAVID KEATING; SCOTT BRAZELL; LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY; THOMAS A.
DIERUF; DAVID E. CAMPBELL; JEKYLL SOUND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC;
and CAMDEN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:14-cv-00024-LGW-BKE (S.D. Ga.), Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the
U.S. District Court, for the Southern District of Georgia,
Brunswick Division, granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement, Amended Request for Attorneys' Fees and Service Awards,
as supplemented, and Petition for Approval of Qualified Settlement
Fund.

After a careful, de novo review of the record, the Judge concurs
with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which no
objections have been filed.  She finds that the Settlement, as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class Members.  The Settlement Class meets all of the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),(b)(1) and (b)(2).

The Judge finally certified the Settlement Class, as set forth
above and in the Preliminary Approval Order, as a non-opt out class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), of all persons or entities
who hold legal or equitable title as of the date of preliminary
approval of the Class Action Settlement to any Unit or Parcel in
the Bridge Pointe at Jekyll Sound Subdivision and any transferees
of any Unit or Parcel following preliminary approval of the Class
Action Settlement, except for BPJS Investments, LLC; Robert Steven
Williams, Sr.; Robert Steven Williams, Jr.; and any related
entities or persons, as these entities are obligated to release any
and all claims against Lexon Insurance Company and any related
entities or persons (together the Lot Owners).

She awarded the Class Counsels' Final Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses in the amount of $344,449.42, which will be paid from
the Final Settlement Fund as provided in the Settlement Agreement;
and denied as moot the original Request for Class Representatives
Service Awards and Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

Douglas Porcelli, Joseph Moronese, Jr., and Richard Mumford are
finally appointed and recognized as having acted as the Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class.  The Class Counsel has
also requested the payment of Service Awards to the Class
Representatives in the amount of $5,000 each for their time and
efforts spent in pursuit of the litigation.  The Judge granted the
Class Counsel's motion for a Service Award in the amount of $5,000
each for Class Representatives Porcelli and Mumford, which will be
paid from the Settlement Fund per the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.  Class Representative Joseph Moronese, Jr. has declined
a Service Award.

Within 10 business days of the entry of the Final Order Approving
the Class Action Settlement and the exhaustion of any appeal of
such Final Order, the Lexon Defendants will pay the Lexon
Settlement Fund Payment in the amount of $7.75 million into the
Registry of the Court for immediate transfer to CRIS and the
Registry of the Court will pay from CRIS, within 10 days of receipt
of written request from Robert G. Aitkens of Aitkens & Aitkens,
P.C., the following amounts to the identified payees:(1) $10,000
for the Class Representative Service Awards to Aitkens & Aitkens,
P.C. at 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 100, Atlanta,
Georgia 30339 for payment to each of the two Class Representatives,
respectively, in the amount of $5,000 each; and (2) $246,725.23 for
the portion of the Final Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
payable to Aitkens & Aitkens, P.C. to be mailed to 1827 Powers
Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 100, Atlanta, Georgia 30339; (3)
$97,724.19 for the portion of the Final Class Counsel Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses payable to Austin & Sparks, P.C. to be mailed to
2974 Lookout Place, NE, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30305; and (4)
the balance in CRIS, including all accrued interest thereon to
Fidelity Bank, the Escrow Agent, care of Mr. William W. Keith,
Senior Vice President, Fidelity Bank, Trust Services, 3490 Piedmont
Road, NE, Suite 700, Atlanta, Georgia 30305, completing payment of
the Final Settlement Fund.

The Judge approved the Petition for Petitioner Qualified Settlement
Fund, and the escrow agreement attached thereto, and will issue a
separate order regarding that Petition.

By reason of the Settlement, and approval thereof, there is no just
reason for delay and the Final Order will be deemed an appealable
final order.  The Action is dismissed with prejudice as against all
the Defendants, on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and without costs to any party, except as
provided herein or in a separate order of the Court, in the
Preliminary Approval Order, or in the Settlement Agreement.

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


CANADIAN SOLAR: Trial in Ontario Class Suit Set for Oct. 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that trial in a class action
lawsuit is scheduled for October 2019.

In January 2015, the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice obtained an order for class
certification in respect of certain claims for which he had
obtained leave in September 2014 to assert the statutory cause of
action for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, for
certain negligent misrepresentation claims and for oppression
remedy claims advanced under the Canada Business Corporations Act
(CBCA). The Court dismissed the company's application for leave to
appeal and the class action is at the merits stage.

The common issues trial is scheduled for October 2019.

Canadian Solar said, "We believe the Ontario action is without
merit and we are defending it vigorously."

Canadian Solar Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
develops, manufactures, and sells solar ingots, wafers, cells,
modules, and other solar power products primarily under the
Canadian Solar brand name. The company has operations in North
America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Australia,
and Asia. Canadian Solar Inc. was founded in 2001 and is based in
Guelph, Canada.


CEMEX SAB: Environmental Class Action in Philippines Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's subsidiary
APO Cement Corporation (APO), continues to defend an environmental
class action suit pending before the Regional Trial Court of
Talisay, Cebu, Philippines.

On September 20, 2018, a landslide occurred in Sitio Sindulan,
Barangay Tina-an, Naga City, Cebu, Philippines (the "Landslide"), a
site located within an area covered by mining rights of APO Land &
Quarry Corporation (ALQC).

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. is an indirect minority shareholder in ALQC,
the principal raw material supplier of one of the company's
subsidiaries in the Philippines, APO.

On November 19, 2018, CEMEX Holdings Philippines, Inc (CHP) and APO
were served summonses concerning an environmental class action
lawsuit filed by 40 individuals and one legal entity (on behalf of
8,000 individuals allegedly affected by the Landslide) at the
Regional Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu, against CHP, ALQC, APO, the
Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the City Government of Naga, and the Province of
Cebu, for "Restitution of Damage of the Natural and Human
Environment, Application for the Issuance of Environmental
Protection Order against Quarry Operations in Cebu Island with
Prayer for Temporary Protection Order, Writ of Continuing Mandamus
for Determination of the Carrying Capacity of Cebu Island and
Rehabilitation and Restoration of the Damaged Ecosystems."

In the complaint, among other allegations, plaintiffs claim that
the Landslide occurred as a result of the defendants' gross
negligence, and seek, among other relief, (i) monetary damages in
the amount of 4.3 billion Philippine Pesos (U.S.$81.78 million as
of December 31, 2018, based on an exchange rate of 52.58 Philippine
Pesos to U.S.$1.00) , (ii) the establishment of a 500 million
Philippine Pesos (U.S.$9.51 million as of December 31, 2018, based
on an exchange rate of 52.58 Philippine Pesos to U.S.$1.00)
rehabilitation fund, and (iii) the issuance of a temporary
environment protection order against ALQC aiming to prevent ALQC
from performing further quarrying activities while the case is
still pending.

In the event a final adverse resolution is issued in this matter,
plaintiffs will have the option to proceed against any one of ALQC,
APO or CHP for satisfaction of the entirety of the potential
judgement award, without the need to proceed against any other
private defendant beforehand. Thus, ALQC's, APO's or CHP's assets
alone could be exposed to execution proceedings.

CEMEX said, "As of December 31, 2018, because of the status and
preliminary stage of the lawsuit, considering all possible defenses
available, we cannot assess with certainty the likelihood of an
adverse result in this lawsuit, and, in turn, we cannot assess if a
final adverse resolution, if any, would have a material adverse
impact on our results of operations, liquidity and financial
condition."

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces,
markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials. The company
operates in Mexico; the United States; Europe; South and Central
America, and the Caribbean; Asia; the Middle East; and Africa.
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 1906 and is based in San Pedro
Garza Garcia, Mexico.


CEMEX SAB: Still Defends Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On March 16, 2018, a securities class action complaint was filed
against the company, one of the company's members of the board of
directors and certain of the company's executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between August 14, 2014 to March 13, 2018,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended based on purportedly
issuing press releases and SEC filings that included materially
false and misleading statements in connection with alleged
misconduct relating to the Maceo Project and the potential
regulatory or criminal actions that might arise as a result.

On September 14, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit. During the fourth quarter of 2018, plaintiffs filed an
opposition brief to this motion to dismiss and the company filed a
response to such opposition brief. The company denies liability and
intend to vigorously defend the case.

CEMEX said, "As of December 31, 2018, at this stage of the
proceedings, we are not able to assess the likelihood of an adverse
result to this lawsuit because of its current status and its
preliminary nature, and for the same reasons we are also not able
to assess if a final adverse result in this lawsuit would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, liquidity and
financial condition."

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces,
markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials. The company
operates in Mexico; the United States; Europe; South and Central
America, and the Caribbean; Asia; the Middle East; and Africa.
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 1906 and is based in San Pedro
Garza Garcia, Mexico.


CEMEX SAB: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's subsidiary
in Israel continues to defend a class action suit filed by a
homeowner who built his house with concrete supplied by the
company's Israeli subsidiary.

On June 21, 2012, one of the company's subsidiaries in Israel was
notified about an application for the approval of a class action
suit against it. The application was filed by a homeowner who built
his house with concrete supplied by the company's Israeli
subsidiary in October 2010 (an identical application was filed
against three other companies by the same legal representative).

According to the application, the plaintiff claims that the
concrete supplied to him did not meet with the "Israel Standard for
Concrete Strength No. 118" and that, as a result, the company's
Israeli subsidiary acted unlawfully toward all of its customers who
requested a specific type of concrete but that received concrete
that did not comply with Israeli standard requirements.

As per the application, the plaintiff claims that the supply of the
alleged non-conforming concrete has caused financial and
non-financial damages to those customers, including the plaintiff.
The company presumes that the class action would represent the
claim of all the clients who purchased the alleged non-conforming
concrete from the company's Israeli subsidiary during the past
seven years, the limitation period according to applicable laws in
Israel. The damages that could be sought amount to 276 million
Israeli Shekels (U.S.$73.64 million as of December 31, 2018, based
on an exchange rate of 3.748 Israeli Shekels to U.S.$1.00).

The company's  Israeli subsidiary submitted a formal response to
the corresponding court. Both parties presented their preliminary
arguments. In a hearing held on December 20, 2015, the preliminary
proceeding was completed and the court set dates for hearing
evidence on May 8, 10 and 16, 2016. In addition, the court decided
to join together all claims against all four companies, including
the company's subsidiary in Israel, in order to simplify and
shorten court proceedings, however, it should be mentioned that the
court had not formally decided to join together all claims. On the
hearing dates, the applicants in all four claims presented
evidence, including expert testimony.

An abandonment of action has been submitted to the court regarding
two of the four defendant companies, but the company's Israeli
subsidiary and another company remain as defendants. The company's
Israeli subsidiary and the applicant already submitted their
summations with regards to the application for the approval of the
class action.

CEMEX said, We are waiting for a judgment regarding this
application and with respect to the abandonment of action that has
been submitted with regards to the two other defendants. As of
December 31, 2018, at this stage of the proceeding, we believe that
the likelihood of an adverse result in this special proceeding is
not probable as our Israeli subsidiary is not able to assess the
likelihood of the class action application being approved or, if
approved, of an adverse result, such as an award for damages in the
full amount that could be sought, but if adversely resolved, we do
not believe the final resolutions would have a material adverse
impact on our results of operations, liquidity and financial
condition."

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces,
markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials. The company
operates in Mexico; the United States; Europe; South and Central
America, and the Caribbean; Asia; the Middle East; and Africa.
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 1906 and is based in San Pedro
Garza Garcia, Mexico.


CHICAGO, IL: Davis Suit Challenges City's Impound Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Davis, Veronica Walker-Davis, and Spencer Byrd, Plaintiffs,
v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05413
(Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., April 29, 2019) is a civil-rights
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Chicago's impound
program, a massive system ensnaring thousands of residents and
visitors to the city each year.

According to the complaint, the City of Chicago (the "City")
impounds tens of thousands of cars each year, holding them until
owners pay a compilation of fines and fees, both before and after
the entry of final judgment. Owners find themselves in a
labyrinthine impound system that is plagued by serious procedural
flaws. Even innocent owners get caught up in this system, facing
hefty fines and fees when someone else used their car to commit a
crime without the car owner's knowledge. That is precisely what
happened to Jerome Davis, Veronica Walker-Davis, and Spencer Byrd,
innocent car owners who were subjected to thousands of dollars in
fines and the seizure of their cars for crimes someone else
committed without their knowledge.

In addition to the fine for the offense that subjected the car to
impound in the first instance, the City imposes towing fees and
rapidly accruing storage fees. A vehicle owner cannot reclaim her
car until she pays the full amount of these combined fines and
fees. If, for any reason, she does not immediately pay, the storage
fees continue to accumulate, making eventual payment even more
challenging and burdensome. Named Plaintiffs bring this class
action to declare unconstitutional and enjoin the city's policies
and practices, which violate their rights under the Illinois
Constitution and United States Constitution, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs owned vehicles that have been or will be impounded by
the City of Chicago pursuant to Chicago Municipal Code Section
2-14-132.

City of Chicago is a municipality organized under the laws of the
state of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert J. Pavich, Esq.
     PAVICH LAW GROUP, P.C.
     30 West Monroe Street, Suite 1310
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 690-8400
     Email: rpavich@pavichlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Diana K. Simpson, Esq.
     Kirby Thomas West, Esq.
     INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
     90 I North G lebe Road, Suite 900
     Arlington, VA 22203
     Phone: (703) 682-9320
     Email: diana.simpsori@ij.org
            kwest@ij.org


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Susie Ong has
initiated an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock between
February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.

The complaint purports to state claims against the company, each of
the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class
period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the
claimed class period to disclose material information about the
company's quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer
and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and
related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a
result, the market price of the company's stock was artificially
inflated during the claimed class period.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 7, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted
the company's motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and
seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and on November
20, 2018, the court denied the motion. On December 20, 2018, the
plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31,
2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle
restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants
internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Kelly Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has
granted the company's motion to dismiss in the class action suit by
Elizabeth Kelley.

On July 20, 2017, Kelley filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of shares of the company's common stock between
February 5, 2016 and July 19, 2017, with claims and factual
allegations similar to the Ong complaint, pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, based
primarily on media reports regarding illnesses associated with a
Chipotle restaurant in Sterling, Virginia.

On March 29, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, with prejudice.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31,
2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle
restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants
internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Settlement Reached in Data Security-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has
reached agreements to settle the consolidated action captioned
Bellwether Community Credit Union, et. al. v. Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc., as well as the consolidated action captioned Todd
Gordon, et. al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

In April 2017, the company's information security team detected
unauthorized activity on the network that supports payment
processing for its restaurants, and immediately began an
investigation with the help of leading computer security firms. The
company also self-reported the issue to payment card processors and
law enforcement. The company's investigation detected malware
designed to access payment card data from cards used at
point-of-sale devices at most Chipotle restaurants, primarily in
the period from March 24, 2017 through April 18, 2017. The malware
searched for track data, which may include cardholder name, card
number, expiration date, and internal verification codes; however,
no other customer information was affected. The company removed the
malware from its systems and continue to work to enhance its
security measures. Substantially all of the company's investigation
costs have been covered by insurance; however, the company may
incur legal and other expenses in excess of its insurance coverage
limits associated with the data security incident in future
periods.

During the three months ended March 31, 2019, the company reached
agreements to settle the consolidated action captioned Bellwether
Community Credit Union, et. al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., as
well as the consolidated action captioned Todd Gordon, et. al. v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., each of which was pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Settlement of the Bellwether matter has been finalized and a
stipulation of dismissal was filed with the court on March 28,
2019.  Court approval of the Gordon settlement is pending. The
company do not expect that the settlements will exceed applicable
insurance coverages or will have a material financial impact on the
company, although the total liabilities arising from the Gordon
settlement will be dependent in part on the number of claims filed,
and may exceed the company's expectations and applicable insurance
coverage.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31,
2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle
restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants
internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CLARION HOTEL: Must Face Housekeepers' Overtime Pay Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge has
rejected efforts by the parent company of the Clarion Hotel chain
to dismiss a proposed class action that claims the company failed
to pay overtime to housekeepers.

U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on April 5 denied Choice Hotels International's motion
to dismiss, determining that the plaintiff, Gina DiFlavis, showed
enough of a connection between the international hotel company and
the Pennsylvania-based franchisee that she directly worked for.

Choice Hotels International had contended that the only connection
DiFlavis could point to between it and the franchisee, Rama
Construction Co., which owned and operated the Clarion Hotel where
DiFlavis worked, was the franchise agreement that said Rama was in
charge of all personnel issues. However, Pratter said DiFlavis
alleged enough in her complaint to allow the case to proceed
through discovery.

"The amended complaint states that Choice Hotels exercised
significant control over all aspects of the operation of Clarion
Hotels, maintained financial data on the business, performed
quality assurance visits to evaluate compliance with the rules and
regulations, required all Clarion Hotels' owners and managers to
attend training, provided the ‘Choice University' training
program, and more," Pratter said.

According to Pratter, DiFlavis worked as a full-time hourly
housekeeper at a Clarion Hotel and Conference Center in Essington
for three months in 2018. She contended that, although she worked
on average between 50 and 55 hours each week, she was only paid for
36 hours each week.

DiFlavis alleged that, each day, Clarion Hotel housekeepers are
given a list of 16 or more rooms to service, which can be further
supplemented throughout the day. Housekeepers, according to
DiFlavis are paid $9 per hour for their first eight hours each day,
plus $5 for each room they service beyond the mandated 16 in a
given day. However, housekeepers must work until they have serviced
all of their assigned rooms each day, DiFlavis contended. She
alleged it was this requirement that led housekeepers to work
between 10 and 12 hours each day, sometimes through paid meal
breaks.

Choice Hotels International, which is a Delaware corporation based
in Maryland, owns dozens of hotel and motel brands that consist of
roughly 6,400 properties globally, including about 300 Clarion
Hotels in the United States.

DiFlavis sued the hotel company alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
on behalf of all Clarion Hotel housekeepers.

Along with its motion to dismiss, the hotel company had also asked
Pratter to narrow the alleged class to only housekeepers who work
at Clarion Hotels that were also owned and operated by Rama
Construction, but Pratter said granting that request would be
premature.

"Choice Hotels has not met the high standard to strike Ms.
DiFlavis' collective and class action claims," Pratter said. "It is
premature to strike any class or collective allegations at this
early stage of the case, particularly given that the parties have
not yet conducted discovery on these issues."

In a footnote, Pratter also noted that DiFlavis alleged that Choice
Hotels' former CEO, Steve Joyce, was featured on an episode of the
TV show "Undercover Boss," which, she said, showed Joyce directing
"a range of improvements after his undercover experiences."
Ultimately, Pratter declined to factor those allegations into her
decision.

"Although interesting, the court declines to consider how probative
this fact is for the purposes of this motion," Pratter said.

Attorneys Joseph Centeno -- joseph.centeno@bipc.com -- of Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney, who is representing Choice Hotels
International; David Cohen of Stephan Zouras, who is representing
DiFlavis; and Richard DeFortuna of Paisner Litvin, who is
representing Rama, each did not return a call seeking comment.
[GN]


COMCAST CABLE: Hoffman Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration Completion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW HOFFMAN, an individual, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00066-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
Division, has issued an order for binding arbitration and stay of
action pending arbitration.

In connection with his employment with Comcast, the Plaintiff
entered into an arbitration agreement in which he agreed to pursue
any employment-related claims in arbitration on an individual basis
and to waive class claims.  The Plaintiff filed a complaint in San
Joaquin County Superior Court on Oct. 22, 2018, alleging individual
and class claims based on alleged violations of the California
Labor Code.  He filed a first amended complaint in San Joaquin
County Superior Court on Dec. 28, 2018, in which he added a seventh
cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"),
by which he seeks to recover civil penalties based on the same
alleged violations of the California Labor Code that support his
individual and class claims.

The Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of Action on Jan. 9, 2019,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The parties, through the counsel, met and conferred and have agreed
to dismiss the class claims without prejudice and resolve the
Plaintiff's individual claims in a binding, individual arbitration
proceeding in accordance with the terms of the arbitration
agreement entered into by the Plaintiff.  In the interest of
avoiding duplicative efforts and potentially wasteful litigation,
the parties request that the lawsuit, pursuing only the remaining
PAGA claim, be stayed pending resolution of the arbitration given
the overlap between the Plaintiff's individual claims and his PAGA
claim.

Therefore, the Parties stipulated, and Judge Nunley approved, that
the Plaintiff's individual claims in the action will be resolved
through final and binding arbitration on an individual basis
pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement.  The Plaintiff
will dismiss all of his claims without prejudice except his claim
for civil penalties under PAGA.  The lawsuit will be stayed, and
all dates set in the Court's Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order
vacated, pending completion of the arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cGTFXn from Leagle.com.

Matthew Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R.
Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee --
piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria
Bree Rivapalacio -- victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik.

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Dorothy Frances Kaslow -- dkaslow@akingump.com --
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Gregory William Knopp --
gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP &
Victor A. Salcedo -- vsalcedo@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer and Feld.


COMHAR GROUP: Valencia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Vargas Valencia, Juan Jorge Chavez, and Cesar Cabrera,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Comhar Gorup LLC and Leonel Lennym, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02394 (E.D. N.Y., April 24, 2019) seeks the recovery of
unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid overtime hours worked
while employed by Defendants under the applicable provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

Throughout the course of Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants
failed to compensate its non-exempt employees with overtime
premiums for worked over 40 per workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed as carpenters by Defendants from February
2016 to March 2019.

Defendants have been and continue to be an "employer" engaged in
"commerce" and/or in the production of goods for commerce, within
the meaning of the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
     The Klein Law Group, P.C.
     39 Broadway, Suite 1530
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: 212-344-9022
     Facsimile: 212-344-0301


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the May
13, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated ("Corcept" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
CORT) securities between August 2, 2017 and February 5, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Corcept investors have until May
13, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion in this class action.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On January 25, 2019, Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation
published a report alleging that Corcept paid doctors to prescribe
its drug Korlym for off-label uses in 2016 and 2017. The report
condemned the company for exploiting regulatory loopholes, charging
patients an excessive price for its lone drug product, and touting
evidence for the drug's effectiveness that -- according to SIRF --
doesn't exist. On this news, shares of Corcept fell $1.52, or 11%,
to close at $12.29 on January 25, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on January 31, 2019, likely due to the increased scrutiny of
its illicit sales practices, the Company forecast a sharp slowdown
in sales of Korlym, projecting full-year 2019 revenue of $285
million to $315 million while investors and analysts had expected
approximately $328 million. On this news, the Company's share price
fell $1.15, or more than 10%, to close at $10.03 per share on
February 1, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On February 5, 2019, Blue Orca Capital published a report alleging
that Corcept's "sole specialty pharmacy and exclusive distributor
is an undisclosed related party" and that the relationship "creates
a material risk that the Company is using its captured pharmacy to
boost sales, hide losses, or engage in other financial
shenanigans."

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had improperly paid doctors to
promote its drug Korlym; (2) that the Company aggressively promoted
Korlym for off-label uses; (3) that the Company's sole specialty
pharmacy was a related party; (4) that the Company artificially
inflated its revenue and sales using illicit sales practices
through a related party; (5) that such practices are reasonably
likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (6) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Corcept securities during
the Class Period you may move the Court no later than May 13, 2019
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please:

         Contact:
         Lesley Portnoy,Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


CREDICO (USA): 2d Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Vasto Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP VASTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZAO YANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALEX TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, XIAOJ ZHENG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
CREDICO (USA) LLC, CROMEX INC., MEIXI XU, Defendants-Appellees,
JESSE YOUNG, Defendant, Case No. 17-3870 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the summary judgment of
the district court in favor of the Defendants-Appellees entered on
Oct. 31, 2017.

The Plaintiffs each worked as Agents for Cromex for brief periods
in 2015.  Cromex was a subcontractor for Credico, which in turn was
retained by Sprint to solicit customers for its Assurance Wireless
brand phones and services, a government-subsidized program
providing mobile services to qualifying low-income households.  To
that end, the Plaintiffs met at Cromex's office each morning for
"atmosphere meetings," spent most of the day in the field
soliciting or collecting Assurance Wireless applications, and then,
upon returning to the office, participated in a "bell and gong"
ritual during which they would announce the number of customers
they had signed up that day.

The Plaintiffs later brought the putative class action, insisting
that they were misclassified as independent contractors, rather
than employees, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as New York and Arizona labor laws.

The district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants,
concluding that Credico was not the Plaintiffs' joint employer and,
in any event, the Plaintiffs were outside salespersons exempt from
wage-and-hour protections.

The appeal follows.  The Plaintiffs challenge the district court's
conclusion that, assuming the Plaintiffs were employees, Credico
was not their joint employer.  

But even assuming Credico was their joint employer (and that the
Plaintiffs were employees rather than independent contractors),
the Second Circuit agrees with the district court that the
Plaintiffs were outside salespeople and thus exempt from the FLSA's
wage-and-hour protections.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they were customarily and
regularly engaged away from the employer's place or places of
business, and they have forfeited any challenge to the district
court's conclusion that the transactions at issue were sales
(despite no money changing hands) by raising that challenge only in
a footnote.  Instead, they focus on the fact that the applications
they solicited were not necessarily binding.  But the Court has
recently rejected that position: In sum, the outside salesman
exemption does not require that the employee have the ultimate
authority to bind the customer or close the deal.  It is enough
that the employee secures a customer's commitment to engage in a
sales transaction as the term 'sale' is broadly defined by the
law.

The Plaintiffs' argument that they were poorly compensated and that
their jobs were therefore outside of what Congress apparently
contemplated when enacting the exemption.  In the absence of words
in the statute or regulation that require consideration of the
Plaintiff's level of compensation when deciding if an employee is
making sales, the Court declines to add a subject to compensation
exception to the 'making sales' requirement of the outside salesmen
exemption under the FLSA.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs raise state law claims under New
York and Arizona law, the Court affirmed the dismissal of these
claims for substantially the reasons given by the district court.
It has considered the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit.  The judgment of the district court is
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/87v9r9 from Leagle.com.

ERIC H. JASO -- ejaso@spiroharrison.com -- ( Jason Spiro --
jspiro@spiroharrison.com -- on the brief), Spiro Harrison , Short
Hills, NJ., Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

JASON C. SCHWARTZ -- jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- (Greta B. Williams
-- gbwilliams@gibsondunn.com -- Ryan C. Stewart --
rstewart@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington,
DC, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, on the brief), Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC., Appearing for Defendant-Appellee
Credico.


CVS PHARMACY: Beardsall Appeals Summary Judgment to 7th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Appellant Jennifer Beardsall appeals from a March 13,
2019 order entered by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granting Defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned captioned Jennifer
Beardsall, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; Target Corporation;
Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Fruit of the Earth, Inc.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06103.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendants' motion
to exclude expert testimony of Steven Gaskin and Colin Weir were
denied as moot.

Beardsall brought the appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals on April 30, 2019.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business at One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island 02895.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Rachel Soffin, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: 865-247-0090
     Fax: 865-522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: 248-355-0300
     Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com

          - and -

     Nick Suciu III, Esq.
     BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
     1644 Bracken Rd.
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
     Phone: 313-303-3472
     Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

          - and -

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     LITE DePALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     111 West Washington, Suite 1240
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312-750-1265
     Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
            kshamberg @litedepalma.com

          - and -

     Jonathan Cohen, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     Complex Litigation Group
     201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: 813-223-5505
     Facsimile: 813-223-5402
     Email: JCohen@ForThePeople.com

          - and -

     Jonathan N. Shub, Esq.
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: 215-238-1700
     Email: jshub@kohnswift.com

DANBURY, CT: Silva Has 45 Days to File 2nd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD J. SILVA, Plaintiff, v. D.K. WILLIAMS,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-1770 (MPS) (D. Conn.), Judge Michael P.
Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has
issued a ruling on the Plaintiff's amended complaint.

On Oct. 26, 2018, the Silva, a pro se inmate currently confined at
the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury ("FCI Danbury"),
Connecticut, brought a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, against the
warden of FCI Danbury, Williams.  The complaint seeks monetary and
injunctive relief against the defendant for "garnishing inmates'
wages" and "price gouging" items in the prison commissary.

The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because (1) the
Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that he had standing to
bring the wage garnishing claim, and (2) his "price gouging" claim
was not cognizable.  In doing so, the Court permitted the Plaintiff
to file an amended complaint alleging facts showing that he had
standing to bring the wage garnishing claim against the Defendant.

On March 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that the Bureau of Prisons garnished wages he earned at
FCI Danbury in 2018.  Specifically, he alleges that he was promised
a monthly pay of $70 but only received $58.15.

Although the Plaintiff now adequately pleads standing, even
construing his allegations liberally, Judge Shea would be inclined
to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint for the following
reasons.  The Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process claim for
garnishing of his wages against the Defendant in his individual
capacity for damages may not be cognizable under Bivens.  The
Plaintiff is also precluded from recovering injunctive relief
against the Defendant in his official capacity under Bivens.
Nonetheless, he may be able to obtain such injunctive relief under
a different cause of action, such as 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, the
Administrative Procedure Act, or a writ of mandamus.

The Plaintiff, through his amended complaint, also takes issue with
the Court's dismissal of his "price gouging" claim, contending that
the inflation of prices for necessary items such as hygiene
products, deprives him and other FCI Danbury inmates of basic human
needs.  However, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not shown
that the Defendant is depriving him of food, clothing, medical
care, or reasonable safety simply because he cannot afford to
purchase several hygiene products through commissary.  As the Court
stated in its Initial Review Order, the Plaintiff does not have a
constitutional right to access a commissary; and he has not cited
any authority that the Court has overlooked or failed to address.

Nonetheless, for the reasons stated in the Initial Review Order,
the Judge believes the Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process
claim for garnishing of his wages may have merit, but turns on
complex legal issues that are difficult for th Plaintiff to
adequately present.  Accordingly, the Judge appointed the counsel
under Hodge v. Police Officers.  The Counsel will confer with the
Plaintiff and, within 45 days from the counsel's appointment, file
a second amended complaint that attempts to rectify the flaws
identified in the Order.

The Plaintiff has indicated that he wishes to bring the claim on
behalf of himself and all "affected inmates" at FCI Danbury and,
therefore, requests that the Court designates the case as a class
action lawsuit.  He adds, however, that if the Court decides that
the case cannot move forward as a class action suit, he still
wishes to proceed with the complaint "on an individual basis."  

The Judge holds that courts in the Circuit have held that a pro se
plaintiff cannot adequately represent absent class members and thus
cannot bring a class action.  In any event, the Plaintiff's effort
to demonstrate compliance with Rule 23 here consists of conclusory
statements.  Because the Plaintiff will soon have representation,
however, any amended complaint may attempt to replead the class
allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2JgYZ4U from Leagle.com.

Gerald J. Silva, Plaintiff, represented by William H. Narwold --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.


DELTA AIR: Leighton Files ERISA Class Action Over Pension Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Leighton, John Taney, Arlen Orth, Richard Terry, and
William Wallace, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. and
Administrative Committee of Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No.
0:19-cv-01089 (D. Minn., April 22, 2019), alleges that by reducing
beneficiaries' pension benefits, Delta abused its discretion under
the Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees and
breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold Delta accountable for its alleged
unreasonable and unsupported decision to reduce their pension
benefits simply because they suffered injuries and received
workers' compensation benefits during their employment.

Delta is the second largest airline in the world.  Delta is
incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in Atlanta and
substantial operations in Minnesota.  Delta, along with its
subsidiaries and affiliates, operates over 5,000 flights daily and
serves an extensive domestic and international network with over
300 destinations on six continents.

Delta is the sponsor of the Plan and the Administrative Committee
is an administrator of the Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Ashwin Madia, Esq.
          Zane Umsted, Esq.
          MADIA LAW LLC
          323 Washington Ave. N., Suite 200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 349-2743
          Facsimile: (612) 235-3357
          E-mail: jamadia@madialaw.com
                  zaumsted@madialaw.com


DETROIT, MI: ACLU Files Class Action Over Unfair Bail System
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a
federal class action on April 14 against six judges and the sheriff
in Detroit, claiming the state's largest district court
unconstitutionally ignores a defendant's ability to pay bail before
they are detained.

The 66-page complaint filed by ACLU lawyers led by Philip Mayor, in
addition to attorneys with the nationwide firm Covington & Burling,
claims that "poor people in Detroit are routinely jailed because
they cannot afford bail," which they condemn as "unnecessary,
unconstitutional, and costly discrimination against indigent people
accused of crimes."

Judges named as defendants in the case include Chief Judge Nancy
Blount of the 36th District Court and five magistrates. The
complaint also lists Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon as a
defendant.

The class action was filed on behalf of seven people arrested for
crimes in Detroit and brought before the 36th District Court who
cannot afford to pay the cash bails set in their cases and cannot
afford counsel, caught in what the lawsuit refers to as the
district court's "wealth-based post-arrest detention scheme."

Bail is first set at an arrestee's arraignment. In the majority of
cases the court imposes a secured cash bail, but it is "policy and
practice not to inform the arrestee that her ability to pay is
relevant to the bail determination, let alone to accept evidence or
make findings relating to the arrestee's ability to pay," according
to the complaint.

If an arrestee can afford to pay their bail, they are released from
custody upon payment. However, "arrestees who are otherwise
identical, but are too poor to purchase their release, remain in
jail because of their indigency," the lawsuit states.

The ACLU stresses that these people, whom it claims number in the
hundreds on any given night in Wayne County, remain in jail without
a trial because they are too poor to pay their bail, running the
risk of losing their jobs, homes, custody of their children or
health care in the process. This causes many to "plead guilty
before trial simply to minimize these harms," the group says.

The complaint asserts that this system violates the equal
protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as
well as the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to counsel.

In addition to certifying the proposed class, the ACLU seeks a
declaratory judgment that the Detroit bail system violates
constitutional rights and a permanent injunction prohibiting those
violations.

The lead plaintiff in the case is 24-year-old Davontae Ross, who
was arrested on April 11 outside of his apartment for failing to
appear at a 2014 hearing over a misdemeanor ticket he had received
that year for staying in a park after dark.

Ross was taken to the Detroit Detention Center, or DDC, on the day
of his arrest. During his arraignment via videoconference the next
morning, for which he did not have an attorney present, the
magistrate judge allegedly set his bail at $200 without giving Ross
any reason for why it was set at that amount or asking if he could
afford it.

Ross also learned during his arraignment that he would have to stay
in jail until his next court date two weeks later if he could not
produce $200 for bail, according to the ACLU.

"Ross cannot afford to pay his bail and therefore remains in
detention because of his five-year-old ticket," the complaint
states.

All of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are black and range in age
from 66-year-old Keith Wilson to 17-year-old Kushawn Moore, who is
currently enrolled in 11th grade at a local high school.

The complaint notes that "the vast majority of arraignments are
conducted by video teleconference between a 36th District courtroom
in downtown Detroit and the DDC."

A typical arrestee spends about two to four minutes on camera
before judges that "often speak so rapidly that it is difficult,
even for legally-sophisticated arrestees, to understand what is
being said or to fully grasp much of what is happening," according
to the filing.

The complaint also says that Michigan court rules provide that
secured cash bail conditions are only a matter of last resort after
determining an arrestee's potential threat to public safety and
risk of flight such that most people arrested in the state have a
legal liberty interest in being released pending trial without
paying bail.

The 36th District Court's arraignment policies and practices,
however, do not make any such findings, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit offers that the court has other "more effective and
less harmful "alternatives for arraignment and bail, the simplest
of which is a personal bond. Under that measure, a person is
released on the condition that they promise to pay money only if
they fail to appear in court, which the suit claims "is equally
effective at securing court appearances as secured bail."

ACLU attorney Mayor said in a statement that "we have a broken bail
system that punishes the poor."

"When two people [are] charged with the same crime only the person
who has money to pay their bail goes free. That is how 36th
District Court operates," he said. "There is no justice, there is
no due process, and the poor are not appointed an attorney at the
time bail is set. It is a broken system and it is wreaking havoc on
Detroit's poor. Detroiters deserve a fair and just system. We plan
to make it happen."

Representatives with the 36th District Court could not be
immediately reached for comment on April 15.


ELEVATED LOGISTICS: Anglin Files FLSA Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY ANGLIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ELEVATED LOGISTICS, LLC, RICHARD C.
HOHENSEE, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00447-OLG (W.D. Tex., April
30, 2019) is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit against the
Defendants.

The Defendants are violating the FLSA by misclassifying their
Delivery Drivers as independent contractors and failing to pay them
any additional wages for working more than forty hours in a
workweek, says the complaint. Because there are other putative
plaintiffs who are similarly situated to the Named Plaintiff with
regard to the work performed and the Defendants' compensation
policies, Named Plaintiff brings this action as a collective
action.

Plaintiff Anglin worked for Defendants as a Driver, off and on,
from approximately March 2017 until January 2019.

Elevated Logistics contracts with other companies to provide
delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
     MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
     700 West Summit Drive
     Wimberley, TX 78676
     Phone: (512) 782-0567
     Telecopier: (512) 782-0605
     Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com

          - and -

     Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
     The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
     2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
     Austin, TX 78746
     Phone: (512) 782-0567
     Fax: (512) 782-0605
     Email: daniel@morelandlaw.com


ELLIOTT SECURITY: Security Guards Hit Illegal Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------
Daphne Fleming and Brintney Jones, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Elliott Security
Solutions, LLC, Ian Kennard and Darrin Elliott, Sr., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-02348 (E.D. La., March 6, 2018), seeks unpaid
minimum wages and overtime, liquidated damages as mandated by the
Fair Labor Standards Act including unpaid final wages pursuant to
the Louisiana's Final Wage Payment Act.

Elliott Security operates a security agency covering the New
Orleans area where Plaintiffs worked as security guards. Elliott
deducts uniforms costs, state licensing fees and other
miscellaneous fees from their employees' paychecks thus rendering
their wages below the federally mandated $7.25 per hour, notes the
complaint.

Ian Kennard and Darrin Elliott, Sr. are the owners of Elliott
Security Solutions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
     Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
     JACKSON JACKSON
     201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
     New Orleans, LA 70170
     Tel: (504) 599-5953
     Fax: (888) 988-6499
     Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net
            mjackson@jackson-law.net


ELVIS TOWING: Bid for Writ of Certiorari in Diamond Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERRI DIAMOND, Petitioner, v. ELVIS TOWING, INC.,
Respondent, Case No. 2D18-2953 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Darryl C.
Casanueva granted Ms. Diamond's petitions for writ of certiorari
seeking to quash an order of the circuit court that transferred her
class action lawsuit against Elvis Towing to the county court.

Ms. Diamond's first amended complaint was filed as a class action
against Elvis Towing pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.220(c), and it alleges that damages are in excess of $15,000.
The amended complaint was filed in county court on April 3, 2017,
and Ms. Diamond successfully moved to have the case transferred to
circuit court on July 12, 2017.  

Elvis Towing thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, in
part challenging Ms. Diamond's ability to bring a class action.
The motion to dismiss was denied on Feb. 9, 2018.

Elvis Towing also filed a supplemental motion to dismiss the
complaint based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The
motion alleged that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction
over the case because the action is based on an ordinance
violation.  It did not allege that the amount in controversy was
below the jurisdictional threshold.

On June 25, 2018, the circuit court denied the supplemental motion
to dismiss.  However, on the same day, the court entered an order
transferring the case to county court until such time as both the
action may be certified as a class-action and that sufficient
evidence or cause is given to establish that the jurisdictional
amount of Circuit Court jurisdiction may be established.  This
ruling is contrary to clearly established principles of law.

Judge Casaneuva concludes that both of the trial court's rulings
were contrary to the essential requirements of law and result in
irreparable harm for which the remedy of appeal would be
inadequate.  The circuit court erred in finding that the amount in
controversy was less than $15,000 where Ms. Diamond's complaint
alleged that damages are in excess of $15,000 and the evidence did
not show that the amount in controversy was unquestionably less
than that amount.  It was also improper for the circuit court to
transfer the case to the county court before making a determination
that the requirements of a class action had not been met.
Accordingly, the Judge granted the petition for writ of certiorari,
quashed the order of the circuit court transferring the action to
the county court, and remanded for proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/8D651T from Leagle.com.

Felipe B. Fulgencio -- info@fulgenciolaw.com -- Megan N. Daniel,
and Courtney A. Umberger of Fulgencio Law, PLLC, Tampa, for
Petitioner.

Charles E. Lykes, Jr. -- charles@lykeslaw.com -- Clearwater, for
Respondent.


EMPIRE SHOE REPAIRING: Tovar Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Empire Shoe Repairing Corporation and George Dzhurayev for alleged
violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The case is
captioned CIRO FABIO TOVAR, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- THE EMPIRE SHOE REPAIRING
CORP. (D/B/A EMPIRE SHOE REPAIR) and GEORGE DZHURAYEV, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03474 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2019).

Plaintiff Ciro Fabio Tovar was employed as a shoe and bag repairer
at the shoe repair shop in New York City. During the course of his
employment, Tovar worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked. Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiff Tovar appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Empire Shoe Repairing Corp is owned and operated by George
Dzhurayev. Its shoe repair shop is located at 991 Lexington Ave,
New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fonseca Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Fonseca, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC
and John Does l-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00374 (E.D. Wisc.,
March 13, 2019), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company operates as a debt collection agency. It
attempted to collect an AT&T DirecTV balance via a collection
letter that falsely implied that interest and other charges could
accrue on a debt that AT&T had charged-off in March 2018, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ESKOM: Responds to Load Shedding Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Khulekani Magubane, writing for Fin24, reports that Eskom says that
based on legal advice it has received, a law firm seeking to
initiate a class action suit against it on behalf of companies
which have been affected by load shedding, has little ground to
stand on.

Eskom spokesperson Khulu Phasiwe said that the legal advice the
power utility had received relied largely on the National Code of
Practice for Emergency Load Reduction and System Restoration
Practices of 2010.

The code was published in 2010 by the South African Bureau of
Standards and was approved as a regulatory standard by the National
Energy Regulator of South Africa.

This as De Beer attorneys announced in March that it would initiate
a class action suit against the power utility and invited
businesses to join.

Eskom implemented several days of Stage 4 load shedding in March
following Cyclone Idai which hit Mozambique, further compromising
Eskom's power supply. The power utility has long been plagued by
ageing power plants, insufficient maintenance and allegations of
state capture.

No guarantees

Phasiwe said that in terms of Eskom's supply agreement with either
a municipality or with an individual customer, Eskom does not
guarantee uninterrupted power supply.

Quoting the legal advice, he said, "In terms of the electricity
supply agreement, Eskom reserves the right to interrupt supply of
electricity either through load shedding, unplanned outages and
planned outages. Load shedding is done countrywide as a controlled
measure when the national grid is constrained to protect the power
system from a total collapse."

He said that, based on the legal advice, even though electricity
infrastructure systems are generally able to deal with
interruptions in electricity from time to time, "their
interdependence and vulnerability to a national blackout is
significant".

Phasiwe also said that the power utility had been advised that
electricity "must be generated and consumed in real time", failing
which, load shedding should be implemented as an "emergency
response measure to prevent a national blackout".

Additionally, the financial implications of a national blackout far
outweigh the "economic costs of manual load curtailment or
shedding".

Meanwhile De Beer Attorneys declined to comment.

"At this point, De Beer Attorneys is refraining from further media
comment due to pending developments in the case. As soon as these
developments are finalised, the firm will issue a further press
statement and be available for interviews." [GN]


EXAMONE WORLD WIDE: Yip Seeks OT Pay for Mobile Examiners
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
ExamOne World Wide, Inc., ExamOne LLC, Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated, NMS Management Services, Inc., Elaine Taule, and
Charlie Americo for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The case is captioned BRANDI YIP, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly-situated Plaintiff(s), v. NMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., EXAMONE WORLDWIDE, INC., EXAMONE LLC, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED, ELAINE TAULE, and CHARLIE ALMERICO, Defendants, Case
No. 9:19-cv-80538-RKA (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2019). Plaintiff Brandi
Yip alleges that Defendants regularly and routinely failed to pay
her and the class of others similarly situated at least a minimum
wage and failed to pay them overtime wage when working more than 40
hours in a workweek. Yip further alleges that Defendants terminated
her employment in retaliation for her joining a pending collective
action lawsuit.

ExamOne World Wide, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
headquarters and principal base of business in Kansas. ExamOne
World Wide, Inc. is licensed to and does in fact conduct business
throughout the United States, including in Florida. It is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, a Delaware
corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business
in New Jersey. NMS Management Services, Inc., is a Florida
Corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business
located at 2901 South Congress Avenue, Palm Springs, Florida.
Elaine Taule was the President of NMS, and served as the branch
manager for Quest and ExamOne. Charlie Almerico was a field leader
for ExamOne and Quest. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris P. Wido, Esq.
     THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
     25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Telephone: (216) 291-4744
     E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
     FAIRLAW FIRM
     7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 230-4884
     E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Etengoff Suit Asserts Unfair Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRACHA ETENGOFF, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., EXPRESS SCRIPTS
HOLDING COMPANY, CIGNA CORPORATION, and EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE HMO,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 154448/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty., April 30, 2019) is a class action alleging unfair business
practices and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
regarding prescription medication pricing, against Defendants.

In March of 2017, Plaintiff noticed that the price for one of her
prescription medications had more than tripled, from the usual $10
co pay to a new price of $35.87. The pharmacist had no explanation
for the increased price, which Plaintiff was forced to pay because
she needed access to her medication immediately. Shortly
thereafter, Plaintiff telephoned Empire and was told that the
reason for the price increase was that Plaintiff had not opted out
of the Express Scripts mail order drug program, even though no
increased cost or penalty was ever disclosed to her. Plaintiff then
expressed her desire to "opt out" and explained that she did not
wish to participate in any mail order drug program because, among
other reasons, her prescription dosage could change month to month.
The Express Scripts mail order program provides a 90 day supply.

The Empire representative then explained that Plaintiff could
request a refund for the additional cost of her medication, but
there was no online procedure for making such a request, and the
request might not be approved. Instead, Plaintiff would have to
request that a claim form be sent to her by mail, and would need to
provide the label from the prescription bag as well as the
pharmacist's original signature. Upon information and belief,
Empire already had this information because it had covered
Plaintiff's earlier prescriptions for the same drug at the same
pharmacy at the original price, notes the complaint.

Despite having "opted out," a few months later in July or August
2017, Plaintiff was again charged an unusually high price for a
prescription. Plaintiff again telephoned Empire and was informed
during the call that coverage may have been denied for her
medication because she had not made an election to opt out of the
Express Scripts mail order program. Plaintiff explained that she
had already opted out of the program, but the representative
suggested that Plaintiff do so again, and Plaintiff verbally opted
out once again during this call. The Empire representative also
explained that Express Scripts mails promotional materials to plan
members touting the benefits of the Express Scripts mail order
program, and that these materials noted that a failure to opt out
of the program could result in higher prescription drug prices.

Due to the refusal to provide any disclosure of any financial
penalty, notification of when to opt out of Express Scripts' mail
order program and imposition of a "retail penalty" on consumers who
do not use Express Scripts, it is highly likely that thousands of
reasonable health insurance consumers are unknowingly paying these
additional costs under the mistaken assumption that their
prescription drug prices have simply gone up, asserts the
complaint. Furthermore, Defendants seek to improperly impose the
unfair penalty prohibited by New York Insurance law without
adequate notice, and without informing customers of the requirement
to opt out every year or face the penalty, even though it is
indisputable that prescription medications are often extremely
expensive, and individuals in need of their medication are in no
position to question the increased costs at the time of purchase,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a cancer survivor, who receives prescription
medications from her local retail pharmacy in New York City.

Empire is a health maintenance organization that is incorporated in
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
     Gloria K. Melwani, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Fax: (212) 686-0114
     Email: kaufman@ whafh.com
            melwani@whafh.com

          - and -

     Jessica J. Sleater, Esq.
     ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNILLC
     1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (646) 599-9848

          - and -

     Ralph N. Sianni, Esq.
     ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
     2 Mill Road, Suite 202
     Wilmington, DE 19806
     Phone: (302) 510-8528


FALCON TRANSPORT: Chavez Suit Asserts WARN Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
MARY CHAVEZ on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FALCON TRANSPORT CO., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00958 (N.D. Ohio, April 29, 2019) is a civil action for
collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988 (the "WARN Act").

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

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

Defendant was an Ohio Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth R. Cookson, Esq.
     KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER
     Capitol Square, Suite 1800
     65 East State Street
     Columbus, OH 43215-4294
     Phone: (614) 462-5445
     Facsimile: (614) 464-2634

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     210 S. Washington Ave.
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: (251) 433-8100
     Fax: (251) 433-8181


FAT CAT BOATWORKS: Ross, Hogan Seek Overtime Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fat Cat Boatworks
LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA). The case is captioned KEN ROSS and REECE HOGAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, VS. FAT CAT BOATWORKS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00107 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2019). Plaintiff Ken Ross and
Reece Hogan allege that Fat Cat has violated the Section 207 of the
FLSA by employing them in any workweek, where they engaged in
and/or employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce for a workweek in excess of 40
hours, and by not compensating them for work hours in excess of 40
hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate at which they were employed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation under the FLSA and
liquidated damages in an amount equal to their unpaid wages, as
provided by law, and for which they seek from the Defendants by
this suit.

Fat Cat Boatworks LLC is an organization formed and existing in the
state of Texas. It does business in the state of Texas and
maintains one or more offices in the state of Texas, including in
Nueces County, Texas. It is engaged in the business of fabricating
and building custom and new boats used primarily for fishing. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jon D. Brooks, Esq.
     BROOKS LLP
     400 Mann Street, Suite 1001
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Telephone: (361) 885-7710
     Facsimile: (361) 885-7716
     E-mail: jbrooks@brooksllp.com


FBL FINANCIAL: Chavez Moves to Certify Class of Insurance Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MEDBOR CHAVEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FBL FINANCIAL
GROUP, INC., FARM BUREAU PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., FARM BUREAU
LIFE INSURANCE, and WESTERN AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02393-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.), moves for class certification
of his claims against the Defendants for Kansas Wage Payment Act
violations, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Chavez seeks to certify a class consisting of all Kansas
individuals, who signed agent and agent reserve contracts with Farm
Bureau during the Class Period.  He also asks that the Court
designate him as Class Representative and McInnes Law LLC, Rex A.
Sharp, P.A. and Rebein Brothers as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff, a former Farm Bureau insurance agent, filed this
case to challenge Farm Bureau's alleged illegal employment
practices.  Farm Bureau is a major life and property/casualty
insurance company that recruits a workforce of insurance agents
under the ruse that they can "run their own business."  Once these
agents have signed up, however, Farm Bureau controls the manner,
method and means of virtually every facet of their work, through
rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and non-negotiable
guidelines applicable to all of its so-called "independent"
insurance agents, the Plaintiff alleges.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex. A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ryan Hudson, Esq.
          Larkin Walsh, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, P.A.
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  rhudson@midwest-law.com
                  lwalsh@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Jack McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          1900 West 75th Street, Suite 120
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220-2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com

               - and -

          David J. Rebein, Esq.
          Pablo Mose, Esq.
          REBEIN BROTHERS TRIAL LAWYERS
          810 Frontview, P.O. Box 1147
          Dodge City, KS 67801
          Telephone: (620) 227-8126
          E-mail: David@rbr3.com
                  Pablo@rbr3.com


FEDEX GROUND: Johnson, Belardino Seek OT Pay for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. for alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned ADRIAN
JOHNSON and RAY BELARDINO on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00196 (M.D. Fla., April 19,
2019).

As a central part of its business, FedEx contracts with
incorporated independent service providers (ISPs) to deliver
packages to its customers through a standardized agreement. These
ISPs, in turn, hire drivers like Plaintiffs here to deliver the
FedEx packages within the ISP's service areas. However, even though
Plaintiffs and the other drivers were nominally employed through
ISPs, FedEx directed and controlled Plaintiffs and the other
drivers work, dictating nearly every aspect of their delivery work.
As such, FedEx jointly employed Plaintiffs and these other
similarly situated drivers and are liable for wage and hour
compliance for these drivers. This lawsuit arises under the FLSA
for FedEx's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
drivers overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to recover the unpaid
overtime wages owed to them and all other similarly situated
drivers employed by FedEx through ISPs throughout Florida.

FedEx is a Delaware for-profit corporation that operates and
conducts business throughout Florida. The company offers
business-to-business package shipping and ground delivery services.
It delivers packages by truck to residential and business
addresses. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. PINE ISLAND ROAD, SUITE 400
     PLANTATION, FL 33324
     Telephone: (954) WORKERS
     Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
     E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Telephone: (407) 418-2069;
     Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
     E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

         - and –

     Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
     Fort Collins, CO 80528
     Telephone: (970) 214-0562
     E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Koopmann Securities Suit Deal Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY KOOPMANN, TIMOTHY KIDD and VICTOR PIRNIK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., FCA US LLC, RONALD
ISELI AND ALESSANDRO BALDI, AS CO-EXECUTORS FOR THE ESTATE OF
SERGIO MARCHIONNE, SCOTT KUNSELMAN, MICHAEL DAHL, STEVE MAZURE and
ROBERT E. LEE, Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-07199-JMF (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York preliminarily approved the Settlement, as
embodied in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April
5, 2019.

A securities class action is pending in the Court entitled Victor
Pirnik, et al. v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., et al., No
1:15-cv-07199-JMF ("Action").  The Parties have determined to
settle all claims asserted against the Defendants in the Action
with prejudice on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation.

The Judge preliminarily approved the Settlement, as embodied in the
Stipulation, and finds that the Parties have shown the Court that
it will likely be able to approve the proposed Settlement as being
fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, subject to further
consideration at the Settlement Fairness Hearing set for Sept. 5,
2019 at 3:00 p.m.

The Class Counsel are authorized to retain Epiq Class Action & Mass
Tort Solutions Inc. to supervise and administer the notice
procedure in connection with the proposed Settlement as well as the
processing of Claims.

The Notice of the Settlement and the Settlement Fairness Hearing
will be given by the Class Counsel as follows:

     a. within five calendar days after entry of the Order, FCA
will provide or cause to be provided to the Class Counsel or the
Claims Administrator, at no cost to the Settlement Fund, the Class
Counsel, or the Claims Administrator, a list, in electronic form,
of record holders of FCA common stock during the Class Period
obtained from FCA's U.S. transfer agen, to the extent that such
information is reasonably available;

     b. not later than 20 calendar days after the date of entry of
the Order, the Claims Administrator will cause the Notice Packet,
to be mailed to the potential Class Members at the mailing
addresses and/or the e-mail addresses set forth in the records
provided or caused to be provided by FCA, or who otherwise may be
identified through further reasonable effort;

     c. contemporaneously with the mailing of the Notice Packet,
the Claims Administrator will cause copies of the Notice and the
Claim Form to be posted on a website to be developed for the
Settlement, from which copies of the Notice and Claim Form can be
downloaded;

     d. not later than 10 calendar days after the Notice Date, the
Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice, to be published
once in Investor's Business Daily and to be transmitted once over
the PR Newswire; and

     e. not later than seven calendar days prior to the Settlement
Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel will serve on the Defendants'
Counsel and file with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration,
of such mailing and publication.

The Court approved, as to form and content, the Notice, the Claim
Form, and the Summary Notice.

Those brokers and other nominees who purchased or otherwise
acquired FCA common stock on a U.S. Exchange or otherwise in the
United States during the Class Period for the benefit of another
person or entity will (a) within seven calendar days of receipt of
the Notice, request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies
of the Notice Packet to forward to all such beneficial owners and
within seven calendar days of receipt of those Notice Packets
forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (b) within seven
calendar days of receipt of the Notice, send a list of the names
and addresses (and e-mail addresses, if available) of all such
beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator in which event the
Claims Administrator will promptly mail or e-mail the Notice Packet
to such beneficial owners.

Those nominees or custodians who elect to send the Notice Packet to
their beneficial owners will send a written certification to the
Claims Administrator confirming that the mailing has been made as
directed.  Additional copies of the Notice Packet will be made
available to any nominee or custodian requesting same for the
purpose of distribution to beneficial owners.

The Claims Administrator shall, if requested, reimburse nominees or
custodians solely for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, up
to $0.70 per notice mailed or $0.10 per name and address provided
to Claims Administrator, incurred in providing notice to beneficial
owners, which expenses would not have been incurred except for the
sending of such notice, and subject to further order of the Court
with respect to any dispute concerning such reimbursement.

The Class Members who wish to participate in the Settlement and to
be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund
must complete and submit a Claim Form in accordance with the
instructions contained therein.  Unless the Court orders otherwise,
all Claim Forms must be postmarked, or submitted online, no later
than 120 calendar days after the Notice Date.  Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Class Counsel may, at their discretion, accept for
processing late Claims, provided such acceptance does not delay the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to the Class.

Any Class Member who does not request exclusion from the Class may
enter an appearance in the Action, at his, her, or its own expense,
individually or through counsel of his, her, or its own choice, by
filing with the Clerk of Court and delivering to representatives of
both the Class Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel (Class Counsel
Defendants' Counsel Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. William B. Monahan,
Esq. Pomerantz LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th
Floor 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10016 New York, NY
10004-2498 Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275
Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, New York 10016), a notice of
appearance such that it is received no later than Aug. 15, 2019, or
as the Court may otherwise direct.  Any Class Member who does not
enter an appearance will be represented by the Class Counsel.

Any objections by a Class Member must: (a) state the name, address,
and telephone number of the person or entity objecting and must be
signed by the objector; (b) state whether the objector is
represented by counsel and, if so, the name, address, and telephone
number of the objector's counsel; (c) indicate whether the
objection applies only to the objector, to a specific subset of the
Class, or to the entire Class; (d) state with specificity the
grounds for the Class Member's objection or objections, and the
specific reasons for each objection, including any legal and
evidentiary support the Class Member wishes to bring to the Court's
attention; and (e) include documents sufficient to prove membership
in the Class, consisting of (1) documents showing the number of
shares of FCA common stock that the objector purchased/acquired
between Oct. 13, 2014 and Aug. 21, 2017, both dates inclusive, as
well as the dates, number of shares, and prices of each such
purchase/acquisition, and whether the purchase/acquisition was made
on a U.S. Exchange or otherwise in the United States; and (2)
documents showing the number of shares of FCA common stock that the
objector sold between Oct. 13, 2014 and Aug. 21, 2017, both dates
inclusive, as well as the dates, number of shares, and prices of
each such sale.

All reasonable costs incurred in identifying the Class Members and
notifying them of the Settlement, as well as in administering the
Settlement, will be paid as set forth in the Stipulation without
further order of the Court.

The Class Counsel will file and serve the opening papers in support
of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and the Class Counsel's
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses no later than 35 calendar days prior to the
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and reply papers will be filed and
served no later than seven calendar days prior to the Settlement
Fairness Hearing.  The Class Counsel will include in their reply
papers detailed data on the claims-rate, opt-out rate, and
estimated mean recovery per claimant.

In light of the Order, the parties' earlier motions (for summary
judgment, for sanctions, and to exclude the testimony of certain
witnesses) are denied as moot.  The letter motions to file motion
papers under seal, which the Court temporarily granted upon the
filing of the papers, are granted; the parties need not re-file on
the docket any of the sealed or redacted motions papers.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 273, 276,
279, 289, 292, 295, 298, 310, and 353.

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

Gary Koopman & Timothy Kidd, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by
Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Jonathan Stern, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Sara Esther Fuks
-- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Veronica
Valeria Montenegro, Pomerantz LLP & Michael Jonathan Wernke --
mjwernke@rosenlegal.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Victor Pirnik, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jonathan Wernke,
Pomerantz LLP, Jonathan Stern , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Joseph
Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Sara
Esther Fuks, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Veronica Valeria Montenegro,
Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Sheila Ross, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by John Brandon
Walker, Bragar, Eagel & Squire P.C. & Todd Harris Henderson,
Bragar, Eagel & Squire P.C.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Anil
Karim Vassanji -- vassanjia@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Joshua Seth Levy -- levyjo@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com
-- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Victoria Alterman Coyle, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP & William Brian Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

Scott Kunselman, Defendant, represented by Anil Karim Vassanji,
Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, Bradley Adams Harsch,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan Michael Sedlak, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Joshua Seth Levy , Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Matthew
Alain Peller, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr.,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Sean Patrick Fulton, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Tasha Nicolette Thompson , Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Theodore
Edelman, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas Charles White, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP & William Brian Monahan, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

FCA US LLC, Michael Dahl, Steve Mazure & Robert E. Lee, Defendants,
represented by Bradley Adams Harsch -- harschb@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Darrell Scott Cafasso --
cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Robert Joseph
Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Theodore Edelman -- edelmant@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP & Thomas Charles White -- whitet@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP.

Roland Iseli, as Co-Executors for the Estate of Sergio & Allessadro
Baldi, as Co-Executors for the Estate of Sergio, Defendants,
represented by Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & William
Brian Monahan, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Settles Investors' Class Action for $110MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that international car
maker Fiat Chrysler has agreed to a tentative $110 million
settlement in an investor class-action suit over the company's
failure to comply with federal emission and safety standards that
cost the company in massive fines and costly recalls, according to
court documents.

The suit was first filed in the Southern District of New York in
2015, following a record $105 million levying of fines against the
company by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that
year, according to the complaint. Additionally, in an amended set
of claims, the company faced regulatory concerns over its diesel
fuel emissions standards. The company would go on to settle these
claims for $800 million.

Throughout the class period from October 2014 to May 2017, the
plaintiffs claimed company executives were aware of the issues
facing the manufacturer, despite public assurances that the company
wasn't facing the kinds of similar safety issues faced by General
Motors and the emissions issues faced by Volkswagen just prior to
Chrysler's own respective issues.

The class was certified in the suit in June 2018. Discovery
produced more than 3.5 million pages of documents, and included 36
total depositions, along with reports from 11 expert witnesses,
according to court documents.

Beginning in September 2018, the parties entered into mediation
discussions with former San Francisco Superior Court Judge Daniel
Weinstein. Following a second meeting in January, Weinstein issued
a mediator's proposal to settle the action for $110 million. The
parties accepted the proposal in February.

The suit was an example of an event-driven class action, brought
against the company following allegations of wrongdoing or
negligence. Legal observers have seen a rise in these kinds of
suits, and anticipated 2019 would see more of them.

The settlement now requires the approval of U.S. District Judge
Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York.

In a statement sent by a Fiat Chrysler Automobiles spokesman, the
company said it was pleased to reach an "amicable solution" in the
matter, even as it "continues to vigorously deny the allegations of
wrongdoing made in this lawsuit."

Fiat Chrysler was represented by Sullivan & Cromwell partners
Robert Giuffra Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- and William Monahan
-- monahanw@sullcrom.com

The plaintiffs were represented by co-class counsel, led by
Pomerantz LLP managing partner Jeremy Lieberman and Rosen Law Firm
name attorney Laurence Rosen.

In a statement, Lieberman said the plaintiffs were "very pleased"
with the proposed settlement, which he said would achieve a
recovery of 14 percent of recoverable damages.

"We look forward to progressing to the final stages of the
settlement," Lieberman said. [GN]


FIRST DATA: Cooley Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Blake Cooley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. First Data Merchant Services, LLC Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-01185, (N.D. Ga., March 13, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief
and any other relief under the consumer-privacy provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Cooley alleges that First Data Merchant Services commissioned
automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls without prior
express written consent.

Defendant is a global payment processor engaged in the business of
processing credit and debit card transactions for merchants and
independent sales organizations who use First Data's card
processing services. [BN]

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
      Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com


FITBIT INC: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott E. Waxman, Esq. and Adrienne M. Wimberly, Esq., of K&L Gates,
in an article for National Law Review, report that in the
consolidated stockholder derivative litigation, In re Fitbit, Inc.,
CA No. 2017-0402-JRS (Del. Ch. Dec. 14, 2018), the Delaware Court
of Chancery denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
insider trading and breach of fiduciary duty claims. The claims
stem from alleged insider knowledge of members of Fitbit's Board of
Directors (the Board) and chief financial officer that Fitbit's
PurePulse(TM) technology was not as accurate as the company
claimed. Plaintiffs alleged that members of the Board structured
the company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) and Secondary Offering
(together, "the Offerings") to benefit Fitbit insiders and voted to
waive employee lock-up agreements, thereby allowing those insiders,
to prematurely sell stock in the Secondary Offering. As a result of
their sales, the alleged insiders sold about 6.2 million shares for
over $115 million in the IPO and about 9.62 million shares for over
$270 million in the Secondary Offering.

Plaintiffs brought claims against Director Defendants, who approved
the deal structure. Director Defendants include: Fitbit co-founder
and CEO, James Park, co-founder, Eric Friedman, founder and
managing member of True Ventures, Jonathan Callaghan, partner of
SoftBank Capital, Steven Murray, Fitbit Chief Financial Officer,
William Zerella, and Chris Paisley. In addition, Plaintiffs brought
claims against the subset of directors who sold stock, called the
Selling Defendants. Selling Defendants include: Park, Friedman,
Callaghan, Murray, and Zerella. Plaintiffs stated two causes of
action: Count I- breach of fiduciary duty against all Defendants
for allowing the Selling Defendants to sell stock in the Offerings
based on insider information and against the Director Defendants
for waiving the lock-up agreements and Count II- breach of
fiduciary duty against the Selling Defendants for harm caused by
insider trading. Non-defendant directors Brad Feld, Laura Alber,
and Glenda Flanagan were included in the demand futility analysis.

Beginning with Count II, the Court analyzed demand futility, the
Defendants' alleged knowledge of material, nonpublic information,
and whether Plaintiffs alleged the requisite scienter. Given that
the Plaintiffs made no pre-suit demand upon the Board, the Court
concluded that Plaintiffs pled particularized facts to create
reasonable doubt that the Director Defendants could exercise their
independent and disinterested business judgment in responding to a
demand. The Court analyzed demand futility in reference to the
seven-member Board as comprised at the time the first complaint in
the consolidated action was filed. This Board, called the Demand
Board, included Selling Defendants Park, Friedman, Callaghan, and
Murray as well as non-defendant directors Feld, Alber, and
Flanagan.

Citing precedent, the Court determined that Plaintiffs were
required to well-plead that a majority of the Demand Board
possessed material, nonpublic company information and used that
information improperly by making trades motivated by that
knowledge. First, the court determined that knowledge of the design
flaws in the PurePulse(TM) technology was material and nonpublic.
Despite Defendants' claim that negative consumer reviews
demonstrated the public's knowledge of the faulty technology, the
Court found that the public was unaware of the scope and severity
of the defect as well as Fitbit's inability to fix the problems.

The court also looked to previous litigation against Fitbit to
support its finding. In January 2016, Fitbit faced a consumer class
action (the "Consumer Action") related to the failure of its pulse
tracking technology to perform as warranted. Simultaneously, Fitbit
faced a federal securities class action (the "Securities Action")
that alleged securities fraud related to issuing materially false
or misleading statements related to IPO sales. In the instant case,
the Court cited the Securities Action as support for the
proposition that the "precipitous and continuous decline" in the
Fitbit stock price after the filing of the Consumer Action
suggested that the market was not aware of the severity of the
PurePulse(TM) technology flaws.

Second, the Court found that Plaintiffs well-plead that the Selling
Defendants acted with scienter. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs
did not adequately plead that all the Selling Defendants actually
sold stock in the Offerings. There is no question that individuals,
Park and Friedman, sold stock. However, the Court faced an issue of
first impression as to whether a fiduciary may be held liable for
trades that an entity or fund associated with that fiduciary
executed in its name. The Court found, for policy reasons, that the
sales by True Ventures and Softbank could be attributed to
Callaghan and Murray, respectively. To find otherwise, the Court
said, would be inconsistent with the policy of preventing
fiduciaries from profiting from a breach of confidence. The Court
found that Callaghan and Murray personally and materially profited
from the stock sales through their ownership and control of those
entities.

Although Plaintiffs' complaint only expressly identified Park and
Friedman as having received internal documents, the Court found
that, at this stage of the proceeding, this was enough to support a
reasonable interference of knowledge and scienter. Further, the
Court found given that the PurePulse(TM) technology accounted for
80% of Fitbit's revenue, Fitbit tried and failed to fix the design
flaws, and Fitbit boasted about the technology to the market
despite these problems, combined with the nature, timing, and size
of the Offerings, the Selling Defendants sought to make trades
based on nonpublic information.

Additionally, the Court found that the Board designed the Secondary
Offering to accommodate the Selling Defendants' interests by
incentivizing underwriters to exercise the Selling Defendants'
overallotment option and waiving lock-up agreement for certain
insiders. By waiving the lockup agreements, Selling Defendants were
able to trade at $28.13 per share, as compared to the price on the
earliest day they would have otherwise been allowed to trade,
$12.50 per share. Again citing the Securities Action, the Court
took judicial notice that another court reviewing similarly pled
facts found that those facts supported an inference of knowledge
for all the Defendants.

As to Count I, the Court noted that four of seven Director
Defendants were beneficiaries of the waiver of their lock-up
agreement when they sold shares in the Secondary Offering and made
a personal profit. Despite the small percentages of stock the four
defendants sold, the Court found that the trades were material
because the profits were "sizable to say the least." This fact
created enough reasonable doubt that the Demand Board was
disinterested in the waiver of the lock-up agreements. Finally, the
Court rejected Defendants' argument that they were entitled to
exculpation under § 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation
Law and Fitbit's certificate of incorporation. The Court noted that
Section 102(b)(7) did not apply when a director derived an improper
personal benefit from a transaction. Thus, the Court denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for both counts. [GN]


FLEX LTD: June 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until June 4, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against Flex Ltd. (NasdaqGS:
FLEX), if they purchased the Company's shares or exchange-traded
options between January 26, 2017 and October 25, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares or options of Flex and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-flex/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by June 4, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Flex and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On October 25, 2018, post-market, Company disclosed that its
co-manufacturing operations with Nike in Guadalajara, Mexico were
being wound down because it was "unable to reach a commercially
viable solution" for the project, as well as the abrupt retirement
of CEO Michael McNamara who just a few months prior had "taken
direct ownership for our Nike operations to ensure its operational
success."

On this news, the price of Flex's shares plummeted.

The case is David Kipling v. FLEX LTD., 18-cv-02706.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

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


FLOORIT FINANCIAL: Faces Icon Servicing Suit for Illegal Conversion
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ICON SERVICING, INC., a California corporation, and all other
members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, v.
FLOORIT FINANCIAL INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES I through
250, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01066952-CU-FR-CXC
(Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., April 30, 2019) seeks damages and
equitable relief under the laws of the State of California and the
United States of America.

On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff entered into a consignment agreement
with OC Autosource, Inc. ("OC Auto Source"), a retail automobile
dealership. The subject of the agreement was a 2016 Porsche Cayenne
vehicle, Vehicle Identification Number WP1AE2A29GLA6l372 ("the
vehicle"), which Plaintiff had recently purchased. Plaintiff and OC
Autosource agreed that the agreement would run for days, after
which time the agreement would terminate if the vehicle had not
been sold. On or about May 2, 2018, the vehicle remained unsold and
the agreement between Plaintiff and OC Autosource terminated.
However, OC Autosource agreed to allow Plaintiff to store the
vehicle on its property while Plaintiff explored other
opportunities to sell the vehicle. At no point after May 2, 2018
did OC Autosource have any ownership, lien, encumbrance, or other
financial interest in the vehicle. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, OC
Autosource had at some point entered into a flooring agreement with
Defendant. At some point in or about May 2018, Defendant decided
that OC Autosource had defaulted on its obligations under the
flooring agreement, and unilaterally decided that its proper
recourse was to take possession of OC Autosource's property.

In the early hours of on or about May 15, 2018, FLOORIT forcibly
broke locks to gain access to OC Autosource's dealership, and
removed numerous items of property including, but not limited to,
OC Autosource's business documents and files (including the roster
of vehicles on the property actually owned by OC Autosource),
vehicles owned by third parties, and Plaintiff's 2016 Porsche
Cayenne. Despite being thus appraised that OC Autosource had no
lawful claim to Plaintiff's vehicle, and by extension that
Defendant had no lawful claim to the vehicle, Defendant wrongfully
took possession of the vehicle anyways, in flagrant disregard of
Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at this
time Defendant also wrongfully took possession of the vehicles of
at least seven other class members, to which neither OC Auto source
nor Defendant had any legal or lawful claim. Plaintiff is informed
and believes that it is Defendant's custom and practice to
knowingly take possession of vehicles it knows it has no financial
interest in during the course of its repossession actions.

Immediately upon being made aware of Defendant's unlawful
conversion of his vehicle, Plaintiff informed Defendant that it had
wrongfully converted his vehicle, and that Plaintiff had no
financial liability to either Defendant or OC Autosource. Defendant
ignored Plaintiff, and refused to return possession of Plaintiffs
vehicle to him. Plaintiff was later made aware that Defendant had
fraudulently registered themselves as the legal owner of the
vehicle with the California Department of Motor Vehicles and/or
assigned a lien against Plaintiffs clear-titled vehicle, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a California corporation.

FLOORIT FINANCIAL INC. is and at all relevant times was a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     GARY R. CARLIN, ESQ.
     BRENTS. BUCHSBAUM, ESQ.
     LAUREL N. HAAG, ESQ.
     JOHN F. LITWIN, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
     301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 1550
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 432-8933
     Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
     Email: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
            brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
            laurel@mcarlinbuchsbaum.com
            john@mcarlinbuchsbaum.com


FLORIDA FARM BUREAU: Yoder et al. Seek Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Florida Farm Bureau et al for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned DIANNA YODER, CLINT
WALDING, and KELLEY WILLIAMS, individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU, FLORIDA
FARM BUREAU GROUP, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, FLORIDA FARM
BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN FARM BURUEA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
and SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00070-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., April 17, 2019).

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated insurance agents were not
paid any base salary. Instead, the Defendants only paid them
commissions, and Plaintiffs labored without any predetermined
guaranteed minimum pay per week, and regardless of the number of
hours worked. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs or other
similarly situated insurance agents an overtime premium for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a week, in violation of the FLSA.

Florida Farm Bureau is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Southern
Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Group and consists of two Florida
property and casualty insurance companies: Florida Farm Bureau
Casualty Insurance Company and Florida Farm Bureau General
Insurance Company. Headquartered in Gainesville Florida, Florida
Farm Bureau provides auto, homeowner, dwelling fire, farm, and
business owner insurance policies. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason A. Richardson, Esq.
     Avi Moshenberg, Esq.
     Nick Lawson, Esq.
     Emil Sadykhov, Esq.
     MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
     1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 337-5580
     Facsimile: (713) 337-8850
     E-mail: Jason.Richardson@mhllp.com
             avi.moshenberg@mhllp.com
             nick.lawson@mhllp.com
             emil.sadykhov@mhllp.com


FLORIDA PET RETAILERS: Fenwick Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Jaline Fenwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Florida Pet Retailers, Inc. and Pooches of
Pines, Inc. d/b/a Petland Pembroke Pines, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61080 (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2019) is a putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
arising from Defendants' knowing and willful violations of the
TCPA.

The Defendants engage in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards
prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights,
asserts the complaint. The Defendants telemarketing consists of
sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to purchase
goods and/or services.

The Defendants caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be
sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members,
causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

Florida Pets owns and/or operates five pet stores throughout South
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33301
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
     Phone: 954.533.4092

          - and -

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33301
     Phone: 954.400.4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


FRANCOIS RISHA: Cashiola Seeks Damages, Back-pay
------------------------------------------------
MOLLY CASHIOLA, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly
Situated Individuals Plaintiff, v. FRANCOIS RISHA d/b/a FRANCOIS
LOUNGE, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00922 (N.D. Ohio, April 24,
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 misclassified Plaintiff and all
other members of the class and collective as "independent
contractors" when they should have been classified as "employees."
As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all other
members of the class and collective minimum wage compensation they
were entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Wage Law ("OMWL"), says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer by Defendant for the
period of about October 2016 through about November 2017.

Defendant is an individual that does business under the trade name
"Francois Lounge" and operates as a gentlemen's club featuring
female exotic dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew S. Goldwasser, Esq.
     Phillip A. Ciano, Esq.
     CIANO & GOLDWASSER, LLP
     ETON Tower
     28601 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 250
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (216) 658-9900
     Facsimile: (216) 658-9920
     Email: asg@c-g-law.com
            pac@c-g-law.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


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Class Action Over Fukushima Fallout Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Massachusetts federal judge on April 8
dismissed a proposed class action by Japanese residents against
Boston-based General Electric over their loss of property due to
the 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. [GN]


GETTY: Faces Copyright Class Action in Washington
-------------------------------------------------
Po Yi, Esq. -- pyi@manatt.com -- of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP,
in an article for JDSupra, reports that in a new putative class
action complaint, a Texas-based digital media marketing company
accused Getty of fraudulently claiming ownership of copyrights in
public domain images and selling fictitious copyright licenses for
such images.

"Using a number of different deceptive techniques, [Getty] misleads
its customers and potential customers into believing that it or one
of its third-party contributors owns the copyright to all of the
images available on its website, and that a license from [Getty] is
required to use all of the images on its website," according to the
Washington federal court complaint. "In truth, anyone is free to
use public domain images, without restriction, and by definition in
a non-exclusive manner, without paying [Getty] or anyone else a
penny."

To further its deception, the defendant sends letters to users of
the public domain images accusing them of copyright infringement,
digital media marketing company CixxFive alleged, characterizing
Getty's conduct as "at a minimum, knowing and intentional," or
malicious in its violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act
and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Practices (RICO) Act, among other claims.

The stock photo company offers and sells licenses to public domain
images, including White House press photographs, historical
paintings and documents, and NASA images, the plaintiff told the
court, providing examples from Getty's website including a NASA
photo the defendant requested payment of $475 for the right to
use.

Getty doesn't differentiate the pricing for the public domain
images, leaving purchasers unable to realize they are paying for a
picture that is free to use, the plaintiff said. The images feature
an overlay of Getty's copyright symbol and the agreement features
the same licensing scheme as the copyrighted works, the plaintiff
alleged, restricting how licensees may use the public domain work.

The defendant has intensified the problem with copyright
infringement enforcement efforts such as demand letters seeking
thousands of dollars in payment for the use of public domain
images, CixxFive asserted. In one instance, Getty sent a demand
letter to a photographer accusing her nonprofit foundation of
copyright infringement based on the use of one of her own public
domain images.

Seeking to certify a nationwide class action of those who entered
into a license with Getty for a public domain image over the past
four years, the plaintiff requested injunctive relief as well as
monetary damages.

Why it matters: According to the plaintiff, Getty has engaged in an
"egregious scheme" that duped visitors to its website by marketing
images in the public domain as subject to its copyright ownership,
selling fictitious copyright licenses that purport to limit a
purchaser's rights to the free-to-use images and then seeking to
enforce the alleged copyright with demand letters. [GN]


GILDARDO GARCIA: Waitresses File Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALONDRA GONZALEZ, an individual; BRIANA SANCHEZ, and individual,
Plaintiff, v. GILDARDO GARCIA, an individual doing business in
California as Labarca Jalisco #1, La Barca Jalisco Restaurant, La
Barca Jalisco Restaurantes, and Birrieria La Barca Jalisco; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV14976
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2019) is a class
action seeking to remedy wage-and-hour violations by Defendants.

The complaint notes that throughout Plaintiffs' employment,
Plaintiffs' meal breaks were constantly interrupted, taken after
the fifth hour of work, or were not given altogether. Plaintiffs
were not permitted to, and not advised of their right to take,
their statutory uninterrupted 30-minute rest breaks for every five
hours worked or majority portion thereof, nor were Plaintiffs told
they had the right to do so.

Plaintiffs were also paid once every week; were required to
purchase their uniforms and other items of clothing intended to be
worn exclusively for Defendants business needs; and received
inaccurate paystubs that did not comply with Labor Code, because
they fail to show payment for one hour of pay at Plaintiffs'
regular hourly rate for missed meal and rest break periods, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as waitresses.

GILDARDO GARCIA, was and is an individual doing business in
California as Labarca Jalisco #1, La Barca Jalisco Restaurant, La
Barca Jalisco Restaurantes, and Birrieria La Barca Jalisco.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jace H. Kim, Esq.
     Carlos Andres Perez, Esq.
     Matias N. Castro, Esq.
     THE DOMINGUEZ FIRM, LLP
     3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-4011
     Facsimile: (213) 201-8212


GREENBRIER INT'L: Costal Bay Mint Contains Toxins, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Greenbrier
International, Inc. for violations of the California Business and
Professions Code and California Civil Code. The case is captioned
TIFFNI ALTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03011-SVW-FFM (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2019).
Greenbrier manufactured, m and sold Costal Bay Dinner Mints
containing partially hydrogenated oil (PHO), which is an unlawful
and dangerous food additive due to its artificial trans-fat
content. On June 16, 2015, the FDA issued a final regulation and
declaratory order, after extensive public comment, declaring PHO
unsafe for any use in food. The FDA came to the same conclusion
when it initially proposed the regulation in 2013. Defendant was
aware that PHO was unsafe even before this time, yet still harmed
its customers by adding PHO to Costal Bay Dinner Mints. During the
entire class period, inexpensive and commercially viable
alternatives to PHO existed, and were used in many competitor
products. In order to increase profits, Greenbrier instead sold an
unsafe and illegal product, and such behavior was an unfair
business practice.

Defendant also defrauded the class by using the false and
unauthorized "0g Trans Fat" nutrient content claim on Costal Bay
Dinner Mints packaging. All PHO, however, contains trans-fat, and
the amount in Greenbrier was not "0g," but a substantial and
dangerous amount.

Greenbrier is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of
business in Chesapeake, VA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
     Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq.
     THE WESTON FIRM
     1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Telephone: (619) 798-2006
     Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
     E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
             andrew@westonfirm.com


HALL MANAGEMENT: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Erika Martinez, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hall Management
Corp., Hall Management Group, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
T19-258 (Cal. Super., March 12, 2019), was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California under Case
No. 19-at-00189.

Martinez seeks redress for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
pay all overtime wages, meal period violations, wage statement
violations, waiting time penalties and unfair competition under
California Law.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
             mmoen@haineslawgroup.com

Hall is represented by:

      Michael C. Saqui, Esq.
      Jennifer M. Schermerhorn, Esq.
      Anthony C. Oceguera, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Hause-Schultz, Esq.
      DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED
      1410 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 330
      Roseville, CA 95661
      Telephone: (916) 782-8555
      Facsimile: (916) 782-8565
      Email: Jschermerhorn@laborcounselors.com
             RHause-Schultz@laborcounselors.com


HEALTH CARE: $22K Settlement in Sawyer FLSA Suit Has Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY SAWYER, individually and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH CARE
SOLUTIONS AT HOME, INC; and LINCAREINC., Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-5674 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
parties' Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement.

In the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
Plaintiffs allege that their employers improperly deducted time
from their recorded hours for lunch breaks they did not take and
failed to factor bonus compensation into their overtime rate.  

In October 2016, Sawyer filed a complaint against Defendants Health
Care Solutions at Home, Inc. and Lincare Inc., on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated hourly workers employed by the
Defendants.  These employees worked as hourly Service
Representatives and Customer Service Representatives at the
Defendants' Hanover, Harrisburg, Lancaster, Wyomissing, and York
locations in Pennsylvania.

Sawyer contends that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Pennsylvania law by: (1) falsely altering the
timekeeping records of their hourly employees to deduct 30-minute
lunch breaks from the employees' hours even when they did not take
breaks, and (2) excluding bonus compensation from the calculation
of the overtime rate for hourly employees.  The Defendants deny any
wrongdoing.

On April 26, 2018, the Court conditionally certified a putative
FLSA collective comprised of all current and former hourly Service
Representatives (drivers) and Customer Service Representatives who
worked for Defendants at the Defendants' Hanover, Harrisburg,
Lancaster, Wyomissing, and/or York locations in Pennsylvania at any
time on or after March 15, 2014.

On July 16, 2018, the Court approved the proposed notice and
consent forms and established procedures for giving notice.  On
July 19, 2018, the notice was sent via United States mail to the 54
potential collective members identified by the Defendants.  Two
individuals opted in on Aug. 6, 2018, and another three opted in on
Aug. 20, 2018; thus, the FLSA collective currently comprises six
Plaintiffs, including Sawyer.

The parties then conducted discovery, which included the
Defendants' production of timekeeping and payroll data for all the
six Plaintiffs.  During the discovery period, the Plaintiffs'
counsel interviewed most of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants deposed
Sawyer, and both sides deposed Sawyer's former manager Justin
Schenk.

The parties reached a settlement in October 2018.  They state that,
at the time, they were preparing for depositions of the five opt-in
Plaintiffs, the Defendants' corporate designee, and other former
managers of the Plaintiffs.  The settlement creates a
non-reversionary fund of $21,900.01 to be paid by the Defendants in
exchange for the Plaintiffs' release of all claims related to the
lawsuit; each Plaintiff will receive a share of the fund
proportional to the number of weeks her or she was employed after
Nov. 1, 2013.  The parties now move jointly for Court approval of
the settlement under the FLSA.

Judge Leeson is satisfied, for purposes of the settlement, that the
Plaintiffs are similarly situated and warrant final certification
as an FLSA collective.  He also finds that (i) the record
establishes that the Plaintiffs are similarly situated; (ii) the
settlement resolves a bona fide dispute between the parties; (iii)
the settlement is fair and reasonable; and (iv) the Settlement
Agreement does not frustrate the implementation of the FLSA as long
as the confidentiality clause is broadly construed.

For these reasons, the Judge granted the Motion and approved the
Settlement Agreement.  The Plaintiffs will file any petition for
attorneys' fees and expenses within fourteen days of the date of
the Order.  Any petition will justify the amount of attorneys' fees
requested according to the lodestar or percentage-of-recovery
method and by reference to awards in comparable cases.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/kz8i6P from Leagle.com.

JEFFREY SAWYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JASON T. BROWN --
jbt@jbtlawgroup.com -- JTB LAW GROUP, LLC & NICHOLAS R. CONLON --
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com -- JTB LAW GROUP LLC.

HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS AT HOME INC. & LINCARE INC., Defendants,
represented by ASHWIN R. TREHAN, FORD HARRISON LLP, MARILYN G.
MORAN -- mmoran@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP, MARK A.
SALOMAN -- msaloman@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP, TODD S.
AIDMAN -- taidman@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP & DAVID M.
KALTEUX -- dkalteux@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP.


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HCSG) from
April 11, 2017 through March 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Healthcare
Services investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Healthcare Services Group, Inc. class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1526.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Healthcare Services' CEO either knew or was reckless in
not knowing that Healthcare Services had been accused of
strategically rounding quarterly earnings per share, and therefore
investors could not rely upon the company's track record without a
thorough investigation into the allegations; (2) defendants
concealed that the SEC had written to Healthcare Services in
November 2017 to inquire into the company's earnings per share
rounding practices; and (3) Healthcare Services concealed that the
SEC delivered a subpoena to the company in March 2018 demanding the
production of documents in connection with how Healthcare Services
calculated earnings per share. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
21, 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-1526.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]


HILL'S PET: Protective Order Bid in Jubinville Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER JUBINVILLE, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC., and HILL'S PET NUTRITION SALES, INC., Defendants,
C.A. No. 19-74WES (D. R.I.), Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted
in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective
order governing communications between the Defendants and the
putative class members.

The case is one of a series of putative class actions1 arising out
of a recall of "prescription" or specialty dog food that allegedly
contained toxic and sometimes fatal levels of vitamin D; the recall
was announced on Jan. 31, 2019, by the manufacturer/seller of the
dog food, Defendants Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., and Hill's Pet
Nutrition Sales, Inc.

On Feb. 15, 2019, Plaintiffs Jubinville, Jenna Sprengel, Kelli
Coppi and Laura Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed the case.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
consumption of Hill's contaminated products inflicted significant
suffering and death on their dogs and caused the Plaintiffs to
incur economic injury, including veterinary expenses.  As of the
date of the filing of the Jubinville complaint, the recall involved
approximately 675,000 cases of canned food.  The Plaintiffs assert
that more specialty dog food contaminated with excessive vitamin D
was sold by Hill's, beyond what has been recalled so far.

Prior to the recall, owners whose pets were suffering adverse
symptoms after eating any type of Hill's "prescription" pet food
initiated contact with Hill's by calling its consumer affairs line
to speak to a representative, by emailing or by connecting with
Hill's through social media.  Consistent with its long-standing
practice based on its "100% satisfaction guarantee," Hill's
interviewed these consumers to get details of any health issues
that the consumer linked to a Hill's product and, based on the
submission of supporting documentation, offered reimbursement both
to the consumer for related veterinary expenses and other costs and
directly to the veterinarian for related diagnostic testing.

After the recall was announced (and before any law suits had been
filed), Hill's continued this practice, while ramping up the times
when consumers could call due to the volume triggered by the
recall.  And Hill's continued its prior practice of reimbursing
veterinarians directly for diagnostic testing of any dog whose
owner was concerned that contaminated food might have been
consumed.

In connection with this effort, Hill's developed communication
protocols for the non-attorney consumer affairs representatives who
fielded consumers' phone calls and a sequence of written
communications to be sent to consumers and veterinarians regarding
reimbursement.  After Hill's became aware that class actions were
being filed, its letter to consumers offering reimbursement, in
consideration for which Hill's required a release of claims, was
edited to clearly advise the consumer that several class actions
had been filed (including contact information for class counsel in
each) and that the signing of a release would affect the consumer's
right to participate in the class; both the letter and the release
itself clearly emphasize that the consumer has the right to seek
advice of legal counsel before signing.

Beginning in August 2018, one of the putative class representatives
in the case, Ms. Jubinville, initiated contact with Hill's
repeatedly about her dog's health.  After the recall was announced
on Jan. 31, 2019, Ms. Jubinville flooded Hill's with phone calls,
emails and postings on Facebook; after the action was filed two
weeks later (on Feb. 15, 2019), she continued posting multiple
times on Facebook.  Three times Ms. Jubinville was successful in
reaching and talking to Hill's non-attorney consumer affairs
representatives.  After she advised the Hill's representative that
she wanted her bills of approximately $8,000 (primarily for
veterinary expenses) to be reviewed for swift reimbursement, Hill's
explained to her that it would send and then did (with her consent)
send her its form letter and questionnaire detailing the
information that it needed to review her claim.  In addition,
Hill's representatives called Ms. Jubinville twice in response to
her inquiries, leaving voicemail messages with its consumer affairs
phone number for her to call if she wished.

Concerned by two responsive voicemails left by a Hill's
representative on Ms. Jubinville's phone and by the letter and
questionnaire Hill's sent to Ms. Jubinville, on March 4, 2019, a
little more than two weeks after the filing of the class action
complaint, the Plaintiffs filed this emergency motion for a
protective order.  The motion argues that Hill's communications
with Ms. Jubinville, a named putative class representative, are
unethical, and that its communications with other putative class
members amount to impermissible discovery, are unbalanced and
misleading, and seek to adversely affect the status of this
litigation.  

The motion seeks sweeping relief: to bar Hill's from communicating
at all with consumers affected by the recall except with a
Court-approved script proposed by he Plaintiffs; to void any
releases consumers have already signed; to cancel authority any
consumers had given to allow Hill's to communicate with a
veterinarian; and to chide Hill's for what the Plaintiffs claim is
unethical conduct in violation of Rule 4.2 of the Rhode Island
Rules of Professional Conduct5 in communicating directly with Ms.
Jubinville.

Hill's opposes the motion, maintaining that its interactions with
consumers have been neither misleading nor coercive.  Hill's argues
its communications do not warrant such an extreme interference with
its right to respond to consumers who contact it or the rights of
consumers to speak to its non-attorney representatives, including
consumers' rights to seek quick reimbursement without involving
(and paying for) an attorney instead of the risky wait for the
outcome of a class action that may never be certified and may yield
little or nothing.  And it aggressively denies that its attorneys
acted unethically by communicating with Ms. Jubinville, pointing
out that it was entirely appropriate for Hill's non-attorney
representatives to respond as they did to Ms. Jubinville's repeated
overtures.

The motion is referred to the Magistrate for determination pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A).  Based on the Court's review of
the substance of Hill's communications so far with absent putative
class members, the transcripts of the three calls with Ms.
Jubinville and the arguments of counsel at the hearing held on
March 18, 2019, the Magistrate finds that, overall, Hill's
communication strategy appears to be well calibrated to avoid
misleading or improperly coercing consumers to sign releases that
might pose a serious threat to the fairness of the litigation
process.

Nevertheless, the Magistrate is troubled that one of the letters
(together with the attached questionnaire) Hill's has distributed,
read in isolation, might be misleading in effect, and orders a
limited clarification of the meaning of Hill's deadline for
consumers to submit documentation to support a claim for
non-litigation reimbursement.  Otherwise, the subsequent letter in
Hill's sequence of communications, as well as the release itself,
is more than adequate to cure any potential misunderstandings.  As
such, she finds that additional judicial interference with such
communication treads perilously close to a serious interdiction on
protected First Amendment speech.

As to Hill's communications with Ms. Jubinville, the Magistrate
finds that none were unethical or violative of any Rhode Island
Rule of Professional Responsibility. Rather, they were all
initiated by Ms. Jubinville, did not involve any attorneys and not
only were appropriate but also were empathetically responsive to
Ms. Jubinville's understandable anguish over the death of her dog.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Sullivan granted in part
the Plaintiffs' motion  for a protective order governing
communications between the Defendants and the putative class
members, as follows:

      (1) The Defendants will craft a corrective communication to
be incorporated into the Recall Letter going forward and to be sent
to consumers who received the Recall Letter advising that the
thirty-day deadline referenced in the Recall Letter and the
enclosed questionnaire is Hill's claims processing deadline; that
Hill's deadline for claims processing has no impact on the time by
which a case asserting a claim must be filed in court, which is
subject to a different deadline based on whatever the applicable
statute of limitations may be; and that consumers who wish to
ascertain what the applicable statute of limitations may be should
confer with an attorney.

      (2) To the extent that Defendants are actually applying the
thirty-day deadline flexibly, the corrective communication must
also cure any misstatement that indicates otherwise.

      (3) The corrective communication will be sent within ten days
of the entry of the Order.  Otherwise, the motion is denied.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion in limited part to require
clarification of the 30-day deadline references in Hill's Recall
Letter and the related Questionnaire.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/iInoIT from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Jubinville, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Jenna Sprengel, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Kelli Coppi, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated & Laura Freeman, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bethany R. Turke -- brt@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler
Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Dennis A. Costigan, Motley Rice LLC,
Kenneth A. Wexler --  kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
pro hac vice, Umar Sattar -- us@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace
LLP, pro hac vice, Vincent L. Greene, IV, Motley Rice LLC & Fidelma
L. Fitzpatrick -- ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice.

Kristina Johnson, Cliff Palifrone & Theresa Erickson, Intervenor
Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas J. Enright, Enright Law LLC.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. & Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Hannah Y. Chanoine -- hchanoine@omm.com
-- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Richard Goetz -- rgoetz@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Robert Clark Corrente --
rcorrente@whelancorrente.com -- Whelan Corrente & Flanders LLP.


HOME POINT: Settlement in Noroma FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON NOROMA, Plaintiff, v. HOME POINT FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07205-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Norona's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action and collective settlement.

Norona worked in California for the Defendant, which sells loans to
consumers.  He was a non-exempt employee who worked overtime and
earned bonuses and commission wages.  He regularly worked in excess
of eight hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek.  Norona
alleges that he, like other Home Point employees, was "not
compensated" for all of the hours he worked, including "proper
overtime," which violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
California law.

Norona brought his claims on behalf of two groups of non-exempt
Home Point employees, including loan originators, mortgage
professionals, loan officers, and loan processors who worked
overtime and earned commission and bonus pay.  

First, he asserted a nationwide, opt-in collective action under
FLSA, on behalf of Home Point employees who worked from three years
prior to the filing date up to the date of judgment.  His FLSA
action sought to (i) recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation
owed to the FLSA Employees, (ii) obtain an equal amount in
liquidated damages, as provided by Section 16(b) of the FLSA, and
(iii) recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action,
as provided for by Section 16(b) of the FLSA."

Second, he asserted claims under the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code as part of an opt-out
class action composed of Home Point employees who worked from four
years prior to the filing date up to the date of judgment and also
under the California Private Attorneys General Act.

Norona filed his initial complaint on Dec. 19, 2017.  He filed a
first amended complaint on March 21, 2018.  The parties held a
mediation before the Hon. William J. Cahill on May 17, 2018, at
which they reached a settlement in principle.  They filed the
motion for settlement on November 8.  The Court held a hearing on
Dec. 13, after which it took the motion under submission.

Following a day-long mediation, the parties agreed to settle the
case in its entirety.  The proposed settlement covers two classes
of Home Point employees: the FLSA Collective (also known as the
Settlement Collective) and the California Class (also known as the
Settlement Class).  The FLSA Collective is an opt-in collective
that includes 1,392 members employed by Home Point outside of
California from Dec. 19, 2014 to Sept. 30, 2018; it settles claims
under FLSA.  The California Class is an opt-out class of 254
members employed by Home Point in California from Dec. 19, 2013 to
Sept. 30, 2013; it settles overtime claims under FLSA as well as
California-law claims related to overtime pay, waiting time
penalties, and meal and rest breaks.  The Plaintiff intends to file
a Second Amended Complaint adding Plaintiff Linda Corbin as a
representative for the FLSA Collective.

The key terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows:

     i. Class Definitions - The Defendant estimates that there are
approximately 1,392 people in the Settlement Collective and
approximately 254 people in the California Class.

          a. FLSA Collective: All persons currently or previously
employed by Defendant in the United States while residing outside
California, including under the Defendant's previous name, Maverick
Funding Corp., as non-exempt loan originators, mortgage
professionals, loan officers, loan processors and other non-exempt
employees in positions that were eligible for commissions and/or
non-discretionary bonuses, the amounts of which are measured by or
dependent on hours worked, production, or efficiency, from Dec. 19,
2014, through and including Sept. 30, 2018, who have not previously
released their claims.  Individuals who resided in California for
part of the relevant time period and outside of California for part
of the relevant time period are included in the Settlement Class
for the workweeks employed by the Defendant and residing in
California, and included in the Settlement Collective for the
workweeks employed by Defendant and residing in the United States
but outside of California.

          b. California Class: All persons currently or previously
employed by the Defendant in California, including under its prior
name, Maverick Funding Corp., as non-exempt loan originators,
mortgage professionals, loan officers, loan processors and other
non-exempt employees in positions that were eligible for
commissions and/or non-discretionary bonuses, the amounts of which
are measured by or dependent on hours worked, production, or
efficiency, from Dec. 19, 2013 through and including Sept. 30,
2018, who have not previously released their claims.  

     ii. Settlement Payout

          a. FLSA Collective: Up to $500,000 total, with amount
paid out based on the number of opt-ins. After fees and costs, the
Plaintiff estimates that up to $305,214.07 will be paid out to
members of the FLSA Collective.  FLSA Collective members will
receive a pro-rata share of the available funds, based on the
number of weeks worked during the covered period.  The average
award (after fees and expenses) is expected to be about $200.  For
tax purposes, the awards will be allocated as 50% wages and 50%
liquidated damages.

          b. California Class: $1.725 million total,
non-reversionary.  After fees and costs, the Plaintiff estimates
that $1.1 million will be paid out to California Class members.
The class members will receive a pro-rata share of the available
funds, based on the number of weeks worked during the covered
period.  The average award (after fees and expenses) is expected to
be over $4,000.  For tax purposes, the awards will be allocated as
one-third wages, one-third statutory and civil penalties, and
one-third interest.

          c. PAGA Allocation: $25,000 will be allocated to settle
claims under PAGA.  Three-quarters ($18,750) will be paid to the
California Labor Workforce Development Agency and one-quarter
($6,250) will be paid to the California Class.  All California
Class members (even those who opt out) will receive their pro-rata
share of the PAGA payment.

     iii. Class Notice & Procedure - The parties have agreed on a
third-party settlement administrator to send notices to class
members.  They have attached the proposed notices to be sent to the
FLSA Collective and the California Class.  Recipients will have 60
days from the mailing date to opt in (for members of the FLSA
Collective) or to opt out or object (for members of the California
Class).

     iv. Service Awards - The Settlement Agreement contemplates a
service award to Norona and Corbin of up to $10,000 each.

     v. Attorneys' Fees and Costs - The counsel for the Plaintiff
will file a separate motion for attorneys' fees, for up to
one-third of the gross settlement fund of $2.225 million.  The
Plaintiff proposes to allocate 77.5% of attorneys' fees and costs
to the California Class and 22.5% to the FLSA Collective.  The
Plaintiff estimates that administrative costs for the Settlement
Administrator will total $23,410.92 for the FLSA Collective and
$4,089.08 for the California Class.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action and collective settlement.  He directed
the Plaintiff to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint within
three days of the Order.  The parties are directed to meet and
confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event listed,
which will be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date
of the Order:

     i. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all
putative members of the California Class and FLSA Collective

     ii. Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion
Filing deadline for incentive payment motion

     iii. Deadline for California Class members to opt out or
object to settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and
costs and incentive payment

     iv. Deadline for FLSA Collective members to opt in

     v. Filing deadline for final approval motion

     vi. Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions

The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class
notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/vBtt3H from Leagle.com.

Brandon Noroma, Plaintiff, represented by Reuben D. Nathan --
rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com -- Nathan & Associates, APC &Matthew
Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C.

Home Point Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rod M.
Fliegel -- rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., Alison
S. Hightower -- ahightower@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Gal
Gressel.


HONEYWELL INT'L: 11th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Santiago Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 18-12006 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's text order, striking
Santiago's amended complaint and dismissing her class action
lawsuit against Honeywell on grounds that she failed to join a
"necessary party" to the litigation.

Santiago is a representative of a class of Plaintiffs who are or
were customers of electric utility provider Florida Power & Light
Company ("FP&L").  In 2009, FP&L began the process of replacing
existing analog electricity usage meters located on its customers'
residences with new digital "smart meters."  FP&L hired Honeywell
to assist with this process.

Among other things, the agreement entered into by FP&L and
Honeywell identified Honeywell as an independent contractor with
the full power and authority to select the methods, means, and
manner of performing its work; provided Honeywell with a payment
for each smart meter it installed; and required Honeywell to comply
with FP&L's smart meter installation procedures, many of which were
aimed at ensuring a safe installation.  FP&L did not retain the
right to control or direct the process, nor did FP&L exercise any
actual control over the process.

Honeywell eventually installed some 4.3 million smart meters for
FP&L at residential properties in the state of Florida.  The
parties do not dispute that FP&L, as the utility provider, was
authorized to enter those properties pursuant to the FP&L tariff
rules for the purpose of installing the smart meters.  Nor do the
parties dispute that Honeywell was similarly authorized to enter
those properties under its contract with FP&L.  Once on each
property, the scope of Honeywell's contracted work involved
removing the old analog meter from the "meter can" located at the
FP&L customer's residence and, following an inspection for
compatibility and safety, connecting the new smart meter to the
meter can.  Each FP&L customer owned the meter can located at his
or her residence, but FP&L retained ownership of the smart meter
after Honeywell installed it.

On behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Santiago filed
a complaint against Honeywell alleging one count of negligence and
one count of gross negligence.  In particular, Santiago alleged
that she and the other class members were "at high risk of
suffering damage" resulting from Honeywell's "improper training,
supervision, and inspection prior to and during installation" of
the smart meters.  Among other things, Santiago asked the district
court to declare that Honeywell negligently and grossly negligently
failed to warn the class of risks associated with the smart meter
installation.  She aso asked the district court to compel Honeywell
to remove, inspect, photograph, and provide a report on each class
member's smart meter, while also enjoining Honeywell from
installing future smart meters without first properly training its
employees and agents.

Honeywell filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 12(b)(7), and 19.  It argued that
Santiago's claims were barred by the applicable statute of
limitations; that Santiago had not suffered any injury and thus
lacked standing; that Santiago failed to state a claim for which
relief could be granted; and that the requested relief could not be
granted without FP&L, which the parties agree cannot be joined as a
party to a negligence action on account of certain indemnity
provisions in the FP&L tariff rules.

In her response to Honeywell's motion to dismiss, Santiago argued
that FP&L was not a necessary party under Rule 19(a) because
Santiago had not alleged any wrongdoing on FP&L's part.  She also
argued that full injunctive relief could be afforded without FP&L,
and the requested relief actually would benefit FP&L because it
would save FP&L the manpower necessary to inspect the smart meters
on its own.  Finally, Santiago also argued that even if FP&L was a
necessary party under Rule 19(a), it was not an indispensable party
under Rule 19(b) because FP&L would not be prejudiced by the
district court requiring Honeywell to do what it had already
promised to do for FP&L in the smart meter installation contract.

The parties eventually appeared at a motion hearing before the
district court.  The district court ultimately found that the
negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations; that
Santiago lacked standing to proceed as the class representative;
and that the complaint failed to state a claim.  It granted
Santiago 14 days to file an amended complaint to remedy these
problems, thanked everyone, and stated that the court was in
recess.

The day of the hearing, the district court entered an Order After
Hearing granting Honeywell's motion to dismiss.  It also gave
Santiago 14 days to file an amended complaint to remedy the
pleading problems raised during the motion hearing, including
naming FP&L as a party to the proceeding.

Santiago timely filed an amended complaint, which alleged, among
other things, that FP&L was not an indispensable party.  The
district court then sua sponte entered a text order, directly on
the docket, noting its earlier determination at the motion hearing
that FP&L was a "necessary party."  That same text order then
struck Santiago's amended complaint because it did not name FP&L as
a party and thus failed to meet the requirements of the district
court's Order After Hearing.  This had the effect of eliminating
the conditional nature of the district court's Order After Hearing,
which had granted Honeywell's motion to dismiss Santiago's original
complaint subject to Santiago's leave to file an amended complaint,
and the district court closed the case.

Santiago appealed to the Court.  The Court now considers the
question whether the district court erred when it struck Santiago's
amended complaint because it failed to name FP&L as a party.

The Court finds that although the district court did briefly
discuss at the motion hearing how FP&L's presence might help
Honeywell carry out the requested remedial work -- e.g., that FP&L
credentials would help Honeywell agent's gain access to FP&L
customers' property -- nothing in that brief discussion adequately
addressed any of the mandatory equitable factors identified in Rule
19(b).  Put another way, the district court's questions and
comments during the motion hearing focused on the separate Rule
19(a) question whether the district court could "accord complete
relief among existing parties" without FP&L's involvement in the
remedial work.

Although the Court passes no judgment on exactly how much the
district court should have said about why it found FP&L to be an
indispensable party (either at the motion hearing, in the Order
After Hearing, or in the text order entered directly on the
docket), it does conclude that what it said in this particular case
was not enough.  It finds that further support for this conclusion
in the fact that Santiago alleged, in several paragraphs at the end
of her amended complaint, that FP&L was not an indispensable party.
These allegations should have put the district court on notice
that a more robust Rule 19 analysis was required.  Thus, based on
the Court's careful review of the record, it is apparent that the
district court improperly relied on an incomplete conclusory label
and ultimately did not do what Rule 19 clearly requires a court to
do: undertake an examination of the practical and equitable factors
actually raised by the absence of a particular party in the case
before it.

Given its finding that the district court abused its discretion by
not undertaking a complete Rule 19 analysis (or by otherwise
failing to adequately explain why FP&L was an indispensable party),
the Court is left to decide how to best dispose of the appeal.
Although the parties encourage it to make a final Rule 19
determination one way or the other on appeal, the Court prefers to
remand the case to the district court to allow it to make a
complete Rule 19 determination in the first instance.

The Court finds this approach particularly appropriate --
especially in a class action lawsuit potentially involving 4.3
million Florida homeowners -- given the Circuit's emphasis that
"pragmatic concerns, especially the effect on the parties and on
the litigation, should control Rule 19 dismissals.  Should it
continue in FP&L's absence, the district court will be closest to
the class action litigation between Santiago, the other class
members, and Honeywell.  And if relief is to be shaped to
accommodate for FP&L's absence, the district court will be casting
the mold.  Consequently, the district court should be the first to
deliver a reasoned opinion as to whether FP&L is both a required
party under Rule 19(a) and, "in equity and good conscience," also
is an indispensable party as contemplated by Rule 19(b).

Accordingly, the Court vacated the district court's endorsed text
order, entered directly on the docket at ECF No. 58; and remanded
the case to the district court with instructions to re-open the
case and conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with the
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/8qOsSm from Leagle.com.

David W. Brill -- David@brillrinaldi.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeannete Christine Lewis -- jlewis@lewislegalgroup.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael R. Holt, for Defendant-Appellee.

Gregory Mark Palmer -- gpalmer@rumberger.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Robert J. McKee -- rmckee@themckeelawgroup.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Elliot Burt Kula -- elliot@kulalegal.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph J. Rinaldi, Jr. -- joe@brillrinaldi.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

William Aaron Daniel, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeannine L. Lee -- katherine.devlaminck@stinson.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Katherine E. Devlaminck -- katherine.devlaminck@stinson.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Todd A. Noteboom -- todd.noteboom@stinsonleonard.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Rachel Elie Davis Scherf, for Defendant-Appellee.


HYDROCHEM LLC: Parham Seeks OT Pay for Project Managers
-------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
HydroChem LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (FLSA). The case is captioned JUSTIN L. PARHAM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HYDROCHEM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01413
(S.D. Tex., April 18, 2019). HydroChem has allegedly violated the
FLSA within the past three years by not paying its project
managers, including Plaintiff Parham and others similarly situated,
for the overtime hours they worked. HydroChem reportedly required
Plaintiff Parham and similarly situated employees to sign an
agreement stating that the job of project manager was considered an
exempt position for purposes of federal wage-hour law. The
agreement also states that project managers are not eligible for
overtime pay for hours actually worked in excess of 40 in a given
workweek. HydroChem pays Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
a bi-weekly flat salary with no overtime and misclassifies them as
exempt from the overtime pay mandates of the FLSA.

Plaintiff Justin Parham resides in Baytown, Texas. Parham was hired
by Defendant in or about February 2016 in Deer Park, Texas to
perform field service work, consisting of slug flushing, steam
blows, chemical clean, lube oil flushing, and air blows, for
multiple and different piping systems for Defendant and its
clients. He was so employed until approximately May 2017. HydroChem
LLC is a foreign limited liability company that operates throughout
the United States. It is an industrial cleaning solutions company
to the petrochemical, oil refining, and energy end-markets that
provides chemical cleaning. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luisa F. Calderon, Esq.
     FERGUSON BRASWELL FRASER KUBASTA PC
     9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 403-4200
     Facsimile: (713) 403-4201
     E-mail: lcalderon@fbfk.law


HYUNDAI: Vehicle Owners Report Shattering Sunroofs Amid Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Shea, writing for Global News, reports that Mark Barsoum is
warning fellow Hyundai owners with sunroofs about the possibility
the glass above their heads may suddenly shatter into pieces while
driving.

It happened to him -- and he offers pictures and video to prove
it.

"It sounded like a gunshot, an explosion -- I was showered in
glass," Barsoum told Global News, describing what happened to him
on the way to work on Highway 427 in Toronto.

"It looks like someone dropped a bowling ball on my car," he said.

But the roof glass didn't rupture as a result of any outside force,
a fact borne out by dash-cams on the front and rear of his 2017
Hyundai Tuscon.

For no apparent reason, the glass gave way — some of it streaming
behind the car into the path of other drivers.

"I'm petrified, my wife is petrified," Barsoum said, reflecting on
the incident in which he was not injured.

His case is similar to stories told by other Hyundai owners who
have experienced shattering sunroofs. Class-action lawsuits were
launched in Canada and the U.S. following owner complaints.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

As of October 16, 2017, Transport Canada said it had received 351
complaints from auto consumers, including 61 involving Hyundai
vehicles. Nissan, BMW and Ford had the next three highest number of
registered complaints about shattered glass.

Contaminated glass is pointed to as a possible cause of many
incidents, according to experts contacted by Global News for
previous reports.

Barsoum says he had his vehicle towed to a Hyundai dealership for
evaluation and warranty repair. His vehicle is only two years old
and has been driven only 40,000 km.

But he says he was told by the dealership that Hyundai would not
replace the $800 item under warranty. Instead, he has filed an
insurance claim.

Hyundai Canada assured Global News its vehicles are safe.

"Nothing is more important to Hyundai than the safety and security
of our customers. Hyundai stands behind the quality of our products
and this is demonstrated through our long-standing and
industry-leading five year warranty that has benefited many
Canadian consumers and continues to be a significant statement of
confidence in the quality and safety of our vehicles," the company
said in a written statement.

The company invited Barsoum to call Hyundai directly in order to
address his issue individually.

But Barsoum says he's lost faith in Hyundai after the incident and
may sell his vehicle, given what happened.

"I'm going to be doing my best to get rid of this vehicle," he
said.

Ed. note — Barsoum clarifies he was alone in the vehicle at the
time of the incident. An earlier version of this story suggested
otherwise. [GN]


ILLINOIS: Kolton Renews Bid for to Certify Property Owners Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY D. KOLTON, et al.,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated v. MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of the State of
Illinois, Case No. 1:16-cv-03792 (N.D. Ill.), renews their motion
for class certification.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its
prior order denying class certification and enter an order
certifying this case for treatment as a class action.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of this class:

    "All persons who are owners of property in the Illinois
     unclaimed property program that is in the form of
     money."[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terry Rose Saunders, Esq.
          THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM
          120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 444-9656
          E-mail: tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Arthur Susman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR SUSMAN
          West Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (847) 800-2351
          E-mail: arthur@susman-law.com


INFI LLC: Field Techs Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Hamilton and Kristin Snyder, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. I.N.F.I. LLC, and
Josh Auden, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00561, (N.D. Ohio, March 13,
2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

INFI is a technology solutions firm that specializes in networking
and security systems working with major retailers and service
providers across the United States. Plaintiffs worked for INFI as
field technicians. Batista claims to have frequently worked more
than forty hours in a single workweek without overtime
compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Class Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Christopher L. Weiss removed on April 19, 2019, the class
action lawsuit titled Stearns, et al. v. Inmate Services
Corporation, et al., Case No. 18CV-19-00142, from the Crittenden
County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (Jonesboro).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00121-DPM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges civil rights violations.[BN]

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

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

               - and -

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

Defendant Christopher L. Weiss is represented by:

          Pamela Warnock Blair, Esq.
          MCNABB, BRAGORGOS & BURGESS, PLLC
          81 Monroe Avenue, Suite 600
          Memphis, TN 38103-5402
          Telephone: (901) 624-0640
          E-mail: pblair@mbbslaw.com


JENNY CRAIG: Basile Sues Over Unauthorized Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR BASILE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JENNY CRAIG, INC., a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00788-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal.,
April 30, 2019) is an action against Defendant to secure redress
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

This case arises from Defendant's unauthorized text messages to
cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with prior
express consent, as well as cellular subscribers who expressly
requested not to receive Defendant's text messages. Defendant
caused thousands of text messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members who either never provided
Defendant with consent to contact them or who had revoked any prior
express consent. Defendant has been sued before for violating the
TCPA and was aware of the restrictions imposed upon it by the TCPA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Nassau County, New York.

Defendant is a company that deals in providing weight loss, weight
management, and nutrition services for individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is reprensted by:

     Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
     Bradley K. King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: 310-474-9111
     Fax: 310-474-8585
     Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
            bking@ahdootwolfson.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


JIMENEZ & SONS: Flores Pulido Files RICO Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Arturo Flores Pulido, Daniel Ceja and Angel Eduardo Flores
Pulido on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Francisco Jimenez, Fabiola Alcasar Cisneros, Jimenez
& Sons Landscaping, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02767 (N.D.
Ill., April 24, 2019) seeks relief for violations of Plaintiff's
rights by Defendants who were part of a criminal enterprise.

Defendant Francisco Jimenez is the owner and President of Jimenez &
Sons Landscaping, Inc., and is responsible for oversight of its
business operations. Plaintiffs are individuals who were
fraudulently induced to travel to Illinois with the promise of
reimbursement for their visa, border crossing and travel expenses
and certain wage and hourly pay promises.

By regulation, an employer seeking an H2-B visa for workers must
disclose in writing: (A) the place of employment; (B) the wage
rates to be paid; (C) the crops and kinds of activities on which
the worker may be employed; (D) the period of employment; (E) the
transportation and any other employee benefit to be provided, if
any, and any costs to be charged for each of them; (F) the
existence of any strike or other concerted work stoppage, slowdown,
or interruption of operations by employees at the place of
employment; (G) the existence of any arrangements with any owner or
agent of any establishment in the area of employment under which
the farm labor contractor, the agricultural employer, or the
agricultural association is to receive a commission or any other
benefit resulting from any sales by such establishment to the
workers.

However, the Defendants knowingly and intentionally lied to
Plaintiffs about the terms and conditions of employment that they
were to work under. That is, Defendants lied to Plaintiffs and the
Department of Labor telling them they would be paid a certain wage,
and would be paid overtime for any hours worked over 40 per week;
that they would be paid for the costs of their visas and
transportation; and that they would work at a certain location. As
a result, Plaintiffs and others like them suffered harm in that
they did not receive the reimbursement for visa and travel expenses
and they were forced to expend personal funds to cover these
expenses, says the complaint.

The actions undertaken by Defendants are sufficient to state claims
for redress under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
("TVPA"), the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, ("IMWL"), the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and the principles of Illinois contract
theory, asserts the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
     Lopez & Sanchez LLP
     77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 420-6784

          - and -

     Alexandria Santistevan, Esq.
     Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project
     33 N. LaSalle Street # 900,
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 784-3541


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dahl Suit Remanded to California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA DAHL, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03522, was remanded
from the United States District Court California Central District
Court to Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Santa Clara on April 29, 2019. The case was originally filed in
the California Superior Court on May 2, 2018 with Case No.
18CV327541.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277 5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Daigle Suit Remanded to California Superior Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN DAIGLE, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03523, was remanded
from the California Central District Court to Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles on April 29,
2019. The case was originally filed in the California Superior
Court on March 14, 2018 with Case No. BC698281.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
          Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          2860 Michelle Drive Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (877) 480-9142
          Facsimile: (213) 330-0346
          E-mail: lwelling@thesandersfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Acker Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against
them in the matter titled CATHLEEN ACKER, an individual v. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03124 to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer.  J&J disputes
these allegations.

The Plaintiff's case was coordinated into the coordinated
proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before
Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases
(JCCP No. 4872).  On February 20, 2019, leadership for all
plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended
Master Complaint ("Master Complaint").[BN]

Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ackerman Talc Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against
them in the matter titled ROBERT ACKERMAN, an individual, and as
successor in interest for MARYANNE ACKERMAN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of
California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03129 to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

On January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Stanislaus County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer.  J&J disputes
these allegations.

The Plaintiff's case was coordinated into the coordinated
proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before
Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases
(JCCP No. 4872).  On February 20, 2019, leadership for all
plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended
Master Complaint ("Master Complaint").[BN]

Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Dapp Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against them in the matter
captioned THOMAS DAPP, as Personal Representative of the Estate and
Survivors of Decedent, LONI DAPP v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
etc., et al., Case No. 18-CA-004805, from the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00954 to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Among others, J&J and the Debtors were originally named as
co-defendants in the matter.  The claims against the Debtors have
since been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  The State
Court Talc Claims are those brought against J&J.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, mesothelioma.  J&J disputes these allegations.

The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos,
contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J
cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal
injury and/or wrongful death.

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven S. Schulte, Esq.
          SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P.C.
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 610
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 276-7680
          Facsimile: (214) 276-7699
          E-mail: sschulte@sgpblaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel F. O'Shea, Esq.
          REYES, O'SHEA & COLOCA, P.A.
          5599 S. University Drive, Suite 202
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 252-2599
          Facsimile: (954) 252-2699
          E-mail: doshea@osheaandreyes.com

Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc., is represented by:

          Andrea Cox, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 428-4500
          Facsimile: (305) 374-4744
          E-mail: Andie.cox@saul.com

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
are represented by:

          Stephen J. Krigbaum, Esq.
          Ryan S. Cobbs, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          CityPlace Tower - Suite 1200
          525 Okeechobee Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659-7070
          Facsimile: (561) 659-7368
          E-mail: skrigbaum@carltonfields.com
                  rcobbs@carltonfields.com

Defendants Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Imerys Talc America
Inc. are represented by:

          Stuart A. Weinstein, Esq.
          SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A.
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 477-7800
          E-mail: sweinstein@sbwh.law


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ferreira Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against them in the matter
entitled ELIZABETH FERREIRA, Individually, and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of TONY WEATHERMAN v. CYPRUS AMAX
MINERALS CO., Individually and as successor in interest to CHARLES
MATHIEU, et al., Case No. 2019-CA-000055 from the Circuit Court of
the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-00758 to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Among others, J&J and the Debtors were originally named as
co-defendants in the matter.  The claims against the Debtors have
since been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  The State
Court Talc Claims are those brought against J&J.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, mesothelioma.  J&J disputes these allegations.

The operative complaint generally alleges that exposure to
asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use
of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's
personal injury and/or wrongful death.

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose L. Becerra, Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
          600 Brickell Ave., Suite 3800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 547-9800
          E-mail: jlb@ferrarolaw.com

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
are represented by:

          Stephen J. Krigbaum, Esq.
          Ryan S. Cobbs, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          CityPlace Tower - Suite 1200
          525 Okeechobee Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659-7070
          Facsimile: (561) 659-7368
          E-mail: skrigbaum@carltonfields.com
                  rcobbs@carltonfields.com

Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc., is represented by:

          Andrea Cox, Esq.
          Christopher Collings, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 428-4500
          Facsimile: (305) 374-4744
          E-mail: Andie.cox@saul.com
                  Christopher.collings@saul.com

Defendants Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Imerys Talc America
Inc. are represented by:

          Stuart A. Weinstein, Esq.
          SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A.
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 477-7800
          E-mail: sweinstein@sbwh.law

Honeywell International, Inc., is represented by:

          Caroline M. Iovino, Esq.
          Anthony Nolan Upshaw, Esq.
          Melissa R. Alvarez, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
          333 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 4500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347-6548
          E-mail: ciovino@mwe.com
                  aupshaw@mwe.com
                  malvarez@mwe.com

Genuine Parts Company is represented by:

          Lucia V. Pazos, Esq.
          MANNING GROSS & MASSENBURG, LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33131-3068
          Telephone: (305) 537-3421
          E-mail: lpazos@mgmlaw.com

Pneumo Abex, LLC, is represented by:

          Clarke S. Sturge, Esq.
          Daniela Salazar, Esq.
          Henry Salas, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT KISSANE, P.A.
          9150 South Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156-7855
          Telephone: (305) 350-5300
          E-mail: Clarke.sturge@csklegal.com
                  Daniela.salazar@csklegal.com
                  Henry.salas@csklegal.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Michini Talc Injury Suit to D. Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against
them in the lawsuit styled MARGARET MICHINI v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; OMJ PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON BABY PRODUCTS, INC.; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and RIO TINTO MINERAL
SERVICES INC., Case No. N18C-05-100 TAL, from the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00723-UNA to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Among others, J&J and the Debtors are named as co-defendants in the
matter.  The State Court Talc Claims are those brought against
J&J.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian cancer.  J&J disputes these allegations.

The Complaint generally alleges that the Debtors' talc, through the
habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the
Plaintiff personal injury.

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Renaissance Centre
          405 N. Kings Street, 8th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 984-6300
          E-mail: mkelly@mccarter.com
                  djbrown@mccarter.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Poole Talc Injury Suit to D. Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against
them in the matter titled PATRICIA E. POOLE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; OMJ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON
BABY PRODUCTS, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC
AMERICA, INC., from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00720-UNA to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Among others, J&J and the Debtors are named as co-defendants in the
matter.  The State Court Talc Claims are those brought against
J&J.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian cancer.  J&J disputes these allegations.

The First Amended Complaint generally alleges that the Debtors'
talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder
products, caused the Plaintiff personal injury.

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Renaissance Centre
          405 N. Kings Street, 8th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 984-6300
          E-mail: mkelly@mccarter.com
                  djbrown@mccarter.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Powell Talc Injury Suit to D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against
them in the lawsuit captioned DORIS T. POWELL v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; OMJ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON
BABY PRODUCTS, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC
AMERICA, INC., from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00721-UNA to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Among others, J&J and the Debtors are named as co-defendants in the
matter.  The State Court Talc Claims are those brought against
J&J.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian cancer.  J&J disputes these allegations.

The First Amended Complaint generally alleges that the Debtors'
talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder
products, caused the Plaintiff personal injury.

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Renaissance Centre
          405 N. Kings Street, 8th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 984-6300
          E-mail: mkelly@mccarter.com
                  djbrown@mccarter.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Shook Talc Injury Suit to W.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against them in the matter
entitled ROSEMARIE SHOOK v. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Case No.
GD 19-002293, from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00457-LPL to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Among others, J&J and the Debtors are named as co-defendants in the
matter.  The State Court Talc Claims are those brought against
J&J.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, mesothelioma.  J&J disputes these allegations.

The Amended Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos,
contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J
cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal
injury.

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

Defendants Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., f/k/a Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., incorrectly sued
as Johnson & Johnson, are represented by:

          Katherine A. Lowery, Esq.
          Christopher S. Arnold, Esq.
          KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI HANNA & REBER, LLP
          676 E. Swedesford Rd., Suite 260
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 981-4070
          Facsimile: (216) 902-4447
          E-mail: klowery@kjmsh.com
                  carnold@kjmsh.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Zambrano Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against
them in the matter styled BRIANA ZAMBRANO, an individual v. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2018-00022860-CU-MT-CTL, from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-3112 to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Among others, J&J and the Debtors are named as co-defendants in the
matter.  The State Court Talc Claims are those brought against
J&J.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer.  J&J disputes
these allegations.

On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of San Diego County which generally alleges that the Debtors'
talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum powder
products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or wrongful
death.

The Plaintiff's case was coordinated into the coordinated
proceeding pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court before
Judge Maren Nelson: In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases
(JCCP No. 4872).  On February 20, 2019, leadership for all
plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding filed a Second Amended
Master Complaint ("Master Complaint").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kelly, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  daniel.kelly@tuckerellis.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: August 8 ADR FX Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP regarding the JPMorgan ADR FX Litigation.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Court Order,
Merryman, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No.
1:15-cv-09188-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) has been provisionally certified as a
class action for settlement purposes and a $9,500,000 settlement
has been proposed, which, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the litigation.  This notice provides basic information. It is
important that you review the detailed notice ("Notice") found at
the website below.

What is this lawsuit about:

Plaintiffs claim that JPM, as depositary bank for the American
Depositary Receipts or securities covered by the litigation
("ADRs"), assigned foreign exchange rates ("FX") to the conversion
of non-U.S. dollar-based cash distributions, which reflected a
spread that was added to the FX rate JPM actually received at the
time of the conversion, and thereby improperly retained class
member dollars from such distributions.  JPM has denied, and
continues to deny, any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever.

Who is a Settlement Class Member:

Persons or entities who are or were holders (directly or
indirectly, registered or beneficially) of or otherwise claim any
entitlement to any payment (dividend, rights offering, interest on
capital, sale of shares or other distribution) in connection with
(i) securities listed on Appendix 1 to the Notice (including any
predecessor or successor) from November 21, 2010 to July 18, 2018;
or (ii) securities listed on Appendix 2 to the Notice (including
any predecessor or successor) from November 21, 2012 to July 18,
2018.

What are the benefits:

If the Court approves the settlement, the proceeds, after deduction
of Court-approved notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees
and expenses, will be distributed pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation in the Notice, or other plan approved by the Court.

What are my rights:

If you hold (or held) your ADRs directly and are listed on JPM's
transfer agent records, you are a Registered Holder Settlement
Class Member and do not have to take any action to be eligible for
a settlement payment.  However, if you hold (or held) your ADRs
through a bank, broker or nominee and are not listed on JPM's
transfer agent records, you are a Non-Registered Holder Settlement
Class Member and you must submit a Claim Form, postmarked by
September 19, 2019, to be eligible for a settlement payment.
Non-Registered Holder Settlement Class Members who do nothing will
not receive a payment, and will be bound by all Court decisions.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not want to remain in
the Settlement Class, you may exclude yourself by request, received
by July 3, 2019, in accordance with the Notice. If you exclude
yourself, you will not be bound by any Court decisions in this
litigation and you will not receive a payment, but you will retain
any right you may have to pursue your own litigation at your own
expense concerning the settled claims.  Objections to the
settlement, Plan of Allocation, or request for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be received by July 3, 2019, in accordance with the
Notice.

A hearing will be held on August 8, 2019 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Valerie E. Caproni, at the Thurgood Marshall U.S.
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, NY, NY 10007, to determine if the
settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or request for fees and
expenses should be approved.  Supporting papers will be posted on
the website once filed.

For more information visit www.JPMorganADRFXSettlement.com,
email info@JPMorganADRFXSettlement.com or call 1.866.637.9457


JUST BORN: California Woman Leads Class Suit Over Candy Boxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hall, writing for Allentown Morning Call, reports that
whether they're half empty or half full, a California woman claims
that Mike and Ike boxes are designed to trick buyers into thinking
there's more fruity candy inside than there actually is.

A federal judge cleared the way for Stephanie Escobar to lead a
class action lawsuit on behalf of other sweet-toothed consumers
against Just Born, the Bethlehem-based maker of Mike and Ike and
other treats.

Escobar of Los Angeles filed the lawsuit after she purchased a box
of Mike and Ike at a movie theater in 2016. She selected the $4 box
of candy from a glass display case at the cinema's concession
counter but claims she didn't discover until she got to her seat
that it was only about half full.

Her complaint alleges that 46 percent of the box was empty and that
the packaging for Mike & Ike and Just Born's similarly chewy but
cinnamon candy, Hot Tamales, violates California's consumer
protection, false advertising and unfair competition laws.

She cited research showing that 70 to 80 percent of consumers don't
look at labels before purchasing food and candy.

"Faced with a large box and a smaller box with the same amount of
product inside . . . consumers are apt to choose the larger box
because they think it's a better value," the suit says.

A spokesman for Just Born said the company is disappointed with the
decision.

"Our products and labels comply with all FDA regulations and
provide consumers with the information they need to make informed
purchase decisions. We stand behind our products and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves," spokesman Matt Pye said.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr.'s ruling puts Escobar over
a significant hurdle in class action lawsuits, which can recover
millions from businesses on behalf of consumers and result in a
tasty payout for the lead plaintiff and her lawyers.

In Escobar's case, Hatter found she'd checked off the four points
courts require of class-action plaintiffs before they can proceed:
That the number of potential plaintiffs is so large that a class
action lawsuit would be most efficient; that the claims are all
similar; that the lead plaintiff's experience is typical of other
consumers; and that the lawyers selected are capable of fairly and
adequately representing the class.

The class would include any consumer who purchased 5-ounce packages
of Mike and Ike or Hot Tamales in California since February 2013.

Pye noted the lawsuit is among a growing number of lawsuits over
packaging against food and candy makers.

A Missouri man in 2016 sued Hershey, alleging that it is
intentionally under-filling packages of Whoppers, Reese's Pieces
and other candy.

Although a federal judge cleared Robert Bratton's case as a class
action, it was dismissed last year after the judge found Bratton
couldn't show he was deceived because he conceded he'd purchased
about 600 boxes of the candy in the decade before he filed the
suit.

Another suit by a California man alleges Nutella & Go snack
packages sold by Ferrero USA misleads buyers into thinking there is
much more Nutella spread in the container than there actually is.

Among the filings in Escobar's case is a 51-page report from an
expert in food packaging who measured the contents of dozens of
boxes of Mike and Ike and Hot Tamales compared to the volume of the
cartons. She offered the opinion that the extra space in the box
served no purpose to protect the product.

A second expert issued a report suggesting that very few consumers
are likely to complain when dissatisfied and that most use the size
of a package to judge how much of product they will get.

Just Born asked the judge to throw out the experts' opinions, but
he declined.

The case will now move toward a trial, but no date has been
set.[GN]


KADLEC REGIONAL: Bradford Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Bradford v. Kadlec Regional
Medical Center, et al., Case No. 19-00002-00648-03, was removed on
April 19, 2019, from the Benton County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Richland).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-05076-SMJ to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from contract-related issues.[BN]

Plaintiff Stephen Bradford, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Cortney M. Corbet, Esq.
          CLEARWATER LAW GROUP
          5202 W Clearwater Avenue
          Kennewick, WA 99336
          Telephone: (509) 734-8500
          E-mail: Info@ClearwaterLawGroupTriCities.com

               - and -

          Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BARRY L. KRAMER
          9550 S Eastern Avenue, Suite 253
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 778-6090

Defendant Kadlec Regional Medical Center, a Washington corporation,
is represented by:

          Bradley L. Fisher, Esq.
          Rebecca J. Francis, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: bradfisher@dwt.com
                  RebeccaFrancis@dwt.com


LAMB WESTON: California Court Narrows Claims in Kennard Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA KENNARD, Plaintiff, v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04665-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzales Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a California citizen who resides in San Francisco,
California.  The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in Eagle, Idaho.  The Plaintiff
brings the class action alleging that the Defendant unlawfully and
unfairly packaged its Alexia brand sweet potato fries with sea salt
SEA SALT product in opaque containers that contain more than 50%
empty space.

The Plaintiff contends that she purchased the Alexia product
several times during 2017 and 2018 in Daly City, only to be
surprised when she opened the product that the container had more
than 50% empty space, or slack-fill.  She does not deny that the
Alexia product labels accurately disclose the product's net weight,
the number of fries per serving, and the approximate number of
servings per container.  Namely, the package indicates that the bag
has about 6 servings per container and that a serving size is 3 oz
(84g/12 pieces).  Instead, the Plaintiff argues that the container
size leads reasonable consumers to believe that there will be more
fries than there actually are.

The Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on Aug. 2, 2018.  After
the Defendant moved to dismiss and strike the complaint with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
12(b)(6), and 12(f), the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as moot.  The
Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the FAC, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part, giving the Plaintiff leave to
amend its claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
the "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs of the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), and the False Advertising Law ("FAL").

On Jan. 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the operative SAC.  Therein,
she seeks to represent the following class of California consumers:
All California residents who made retail purchases of the
Defendant's ALEXIA brand SWEET POTATO fries product during the
applicable limitations period up to and including final judgment in
the action.

The SAC is virtually identical to the Plaintiff's FAC, with the
exception of: (i) six additional paragraphs concerning each
statutory slack fill safe harbor provision under California
Business and Professions Code section 12606.2(c)(1)-(6); and (ii)
allegations regarding consumers' handling practices as to frozen
foods.  The Plaintiff asserts the same three claims for relief as
in his FAC, namely violations of the CLRA, UCL, and FAL.

The Defendant moves to dismiss each.

Judge Rogers granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's SAC.  The Plaintiff's claims
withstand the Defendant's motion to dismiss to the extent they are
based on the Plaintiff's nonfunctional slack fill theory of
liability, the namely Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL (unlawful and unfair
prongs) claims.  The Plaintiff has established that the Alexia
product's packaging contains nonfunctional slack fill, and the
Plaintiff's unlawful prong of the UCL claim, predicated on
violations of section 12606.2, states a plausible claim for relief.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion as to these claims is denied.


However, to extent these and other claims are based on the
Plaintiff's consumer deception theory of liability, they do not
survive the motion, namely the Plaintiff's CLRA, UCL (unfair and
fraudulent prongs), and FAL claims.  The Plaintiff fails to state a
plausible claim of consumer deception based on the Alexia product's
packaging.  Accordingly, these claims are dismissed with prejudice.


The Defendant will file an answer within 14 days of the Order.  The
Order terminates Docket Number 39.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Zf6LuF from Leagle.com.

Angela Kennard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Hidehito Hikida, Esq.,
Pacific Trial Attorney, APC & Scott J. Ferrell --
sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- Pacific Trial Attorneys.

Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP & Shawn R. Obi -- sobi@winston.com -- Winston Strawn
LLP.


LARIO OIL & GAS CO: Hancock Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hancock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lario Oil & Gas Company, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-02140 (D. Kan., March 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Lario is an oil and gas associated services company where Hancock
worked as an oilfield contractor. He claims that he was paid a
salary regardless of the number of hours he worked that day without
any overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 945-7165
      Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


LAZARD ASSET: Sullivan Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. LAZARD ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No.
154111/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., April 22, 2019), is a civil
rights lawsuit against the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, and/or own or operate its Web site that is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, deaf and
hard-of-hearing people.

Lazard Asset Management LLC is a for-profit corporation organized
in the state of Delaware and is registered in New York State to do
business.

Lazard is a privately owned investment manager.  The Firm primarily
provides its services to individuals.  The Firm also caters to high
net worth individuals, banking and thrift institutions, investment
companies, pooled investment vehicles, pension and profit sharing
plans, charitable organizations, corporations and other businesses,
state and municipal government entities, other investment advisers,
insurance companies, foundations, endowments, Taft-Hartley plans,
and public funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY TIRE: Denial of Manning Class Certification Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BETTY MANNING AND JENNY COTTON, Appellants, v. LIBERTY
TIRE SERVICES OF OHIO, LLC; AND BOHANNON PROPERTIES, LLC,
Appellees, Case No. 2016-CA-001719-ME (Ky. App.), Judge Glenn E.
Acree of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the Jefferson
Circuit Court's Nov. 3, 2016 opinion and order denying their motion
for class certification.

On Nov. 3, 2014, tires located at a recycling facility leased by
appellee Liberty Tire Services and owned by Appellee Bohannon
Properties caught fire and burned for more than two days.  A smoke
plume from the fire deposited soot, ash, and other particulate
matter onto surrounding neighborhoods, homes, automobiles, and
driveways.  At 10:15 a.m., local authorities issued a
Shelter-In-Place ("SIP") order for persons living within a one-mile
radius of the fire.  The order restricted residents from leaving
their homes and from being outside for a defined period of time.
Authorities lifted the SIP order the next day, Nov. 4, 2014, around
2:59 p.m.  Manning was subject to the SIP order; Cotton was not.

Air monitoring conducted during the fire revealed high levels of
harmful particulate matter in the surrounding neighborhood, with
concentrations as high as 2,200 micrograms per cubic meter, which
is considered unhealthy for the general population according to
standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Due to an "inversion" weather pattern, the soot and ash in the
particulate plume traveled north and stayed close to the ground in
the early hours of Nov. 4, 2014, before tapering off later that day
when a soil cap was placed on the burning tires.

The Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health ("CTEH")
performed additional air monitoring at Liberty Tires' request.
CTEH tested for levels of particulate matter in the surrounding
community, and tested the air for benzene, toluene, and other
volatile organic compounds normally found in tire smoke.  CTEH
discovered that harmful levels of particulate matter exceeded
health guidelines for brief periods of time but did not reach
unhealthy levels when projected over a longer period of time.

On Nov. 5, 2014, the Appellants filed the action against Liberty
Tire and Bohannon Properties alleging their reckless, intentional,
and negligent conduct caused substantial damage to them and members
of a putative class.  To ascertain the extent of the particulate
matter, soot, and ash in the neighborhood, the Appellants retained
a forensic meteorology expert.  That expert produced a report that
used air quality data to illustrate the geographic area north of
the tire facility where soot and ash were deposited on surrounding
homes.

The Appellants' homes are located within the area the expert
modeled the smoke plume to have traveled, and the expert's report
included estimates for the amount of particulate matter deposited
on the Appellants' properties.  They also submitted a report
outlining methods for calculating the number of the affected class
members.  That report estimated the proposed class would include
2,500 individuals.

The Appellants then moved for class certification.  They sought to
certify two sub-classes: one related to the SIP order, and the
other to the particulate smoke plume.  The Appellees opposed class
certification arguing, among other things, that the proposed class
definitions were flawed, that the proposed class representatives
did not raise claims typical of those of the class, and that
individual issues would predominate over common ones, making
Appellants' claims unsuited for class adjudication.

By order entered Nov. 3, 2016, the circuit court denied Appellants'
class-certification motion.  It found the CR 23.01 prerequisites --
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation
— not met, and the CR 23.02(c) requirements -- that class
litigation is superior and common questions predominate over
individual ones — unsatisfied.

The Appellants appealed.  The sole question before the Court is
whether the circuit court appropriately denied class certification.
The Appellants challenge each of the circuit court's findings.

Judge Acree finds that a class of 2,500 is sufficiently numerous to
make joinder impracticable.  The circuit court abused its
discretion in finding Appellants failed to satisfy the numerosity
requirement.

Next, he finds that common proof as to liability is central to all
the proposed class members' claims and would advance the interest
of the class as a whole.  The Appellants satisfied the commonality
requirement, and the circuit court abused its discretion in finding
otherwise.

He then finds that the claims of the class representatives (the
Appellants) are based on the same legal theories and common facts
as those of the class, and are typical of the other members of the
putative class in all respects except for the measure of damages.
The circuit court abused its discretion in finding Appellants
failed to satisfy the typicality element.

The named representatives share a common interest with other class
members and are strongly pursuing these interests through
appropriate legal counsel.  The Appellants have demonstrated they
are adequate representatives of the class.  The circuit court
abused its discretion in finding otherwise.

Finally, the Judge is cognizant of federal case law reiterating
that a need for individual damages determinations is not
necessarily fatal to class certification.  And courts can often
bifurcate class action proceedings, adjudicating liability on a
classwide basis and then if liability is found, the issue of
damages can be decided by another method.  But it is certainly an
important factor when considering whether common issues and facts
predominate.  When combined with a need for individualized
determinations of causation and even impact questions, it is within
the circuit court's discretion to determine that common questions
do not predominate.  And in contrast to CR 23.01's commonality
requirement, CR 23.02(c)'s predominance criterion is far more
demanding.  

He simply cannot say the circuit court abused its discretion in
finding common questions of law or fact did not predominate over
individual issues.  The circuit court's concerns are well founded
and reasonable.  And failure to satisfy a CR 23.02 criterion is
fatal to formation of the class.

Judge Acree concludes that while he disagrees with much of the
circuit court's analysis, he cannot say it abused its discretion in
finding the Appellants failed to demonstrate common questions
predominate over individual issues.  Accordingly, he affirmed the
Jefferson Circuit Court's Nov. 3, 2016 order denying the
Appellants' motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/baIBNQ from Leagle.com.

Jasper D. Ward, IV -- jasper@jonesward.com -- Alex C. Davis --
alex@jonesward.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEFS AND ORAL
ARGUMENTS FOR APPELLANTS.

Edward H. Stopher, Rod D. Payne -- rdpayne@bsg-law.com -- Todd P.
Greer, Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LIBERTY TIRE
SERVICES OF OHIO, LLC:

Patrick B. Healy -- Patrick.Healy@lewisbrisbois.com -- Judd Uhl --
Judd.Uhl@lewisbrisbois.com -- Fort Wright, Kentucky BRIEF FOR
APPELLEE BOHANNON PROPERTIES, LLC.

Todd P. Greer, Rod D. Payne, Louisville, Kentucky, ORAL ARGUMENTS
FOR APPELLEE LIBERTY TIRE SERVICES OF OHIO, LLC.

Patrick B. Healy, Fort Wright, Kentucky, ORAL ARGUMENT FOR OHANNON
PROPERTIES, LLC.


M/A/R/C RESEARCH: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Exclusively Cats Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EXCLUSIVELY CATS VETERINARY HOSPITAL, P.C., a Michigan professional
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. M/A/R/C RESEARCH, LLC, a
Texas limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-11228-RHC-SDD (E.D. Mich., April 29, 2019) is a case
challenging the Defendant's practice of sending "unsolicited
advertisements" by facsimile.

The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("JPFA"), and the
regulations promulgated under the Act, prohibit a person or entity
from faxing or having an agent fax advertisements without the
recipient's prior express invitation or permission.

On July 5, 2016, Defendant sent Plaintiff an unsolicited fax
advertisement in violation of the TCPA ("the Fax"). The Fax seeks
survey-takers to provide opinions to Defendant regarding products,
goods, or services provided by Defendant's client, namely, a
"potential new veterinary pain management product." Upon
information and belief, Defendant has sent, and continues to send,
the Fax and other facsimile transmissions of unsolicited
advertisements to Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the TCPA,
says the complaint.

EXCLUSIVELY CATS VETERINARY HOSPITAL, P.C., is a Michigan
professional corporation with its principal place of business in
Waterford, Michigan.

M/A/R/C RESEARCH, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Irving, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAYAS FOOD: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANTONIO MARIN RODRIGUEZ, ARMANDO MARIN, JUAN MANUEL PEREZ,
MARQUI ARIEL REYES, and MARGARITO CASTRO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MAYAS FOOD CORP.,
MOHAMMED MAYAS, ABDO MAYAS, BELIGH MAHMOOD MAYAS, NOMAN MAYAS,
FARES MAYAS, and JOHN DOES #1-2, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:19-cv-02348 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2019), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime premiums owed to the
Plaintiffs and others pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Mayas Food Corp. is an active New York Corporation doing business
as "Fine Fare Supermarket" with its principal place of business
located at 783 Saratoga Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York.  The
Individual Defendants are owners and operators of the Corporate
Defendant.  The Doe Defendants represent other owners, operators
and/or managers of the Corporate Defendant.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store doing business under
the trade name "Fine Fare Supermarket" located in the Brownsville
neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com


MB FINANCIAL: Boone Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted MB
Financial's motion to dismiss the case, Rhonda Boone, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MB
Financial Bank, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1771 (N.J. Ill.).

MB Financial is a national bank with its United States headquarters
and principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.  Its banking
services include the issuance of debit cards associated with its
customers' checking accounts.

Boone alleges that MB Financial maintains a running account balance
in real time, tracking funds consumers have for immediate use.
This running account balance is adjusted, in real-time, to account
for debit card transactions at the precise instant they are made.
When a customer makes a purchase with a debit card, MB Financial
sequesters the funds needed to pay the transaction, subtracting the
dollar amount of the transaction from the customer's account
balance.  The sequestered funds are not available for any other use
by the customer.  At a later point, which can be several days after
the transaction, the sequestered funds are transferred from the
customer's account to the merchant's account, a process known as
settling.

Boone's alleges that from 2015 to 2017, MB Financial assessed her
overdraft ("OD") fees in purported violation of its checking
agreement and Illinois law.  In asserting her claim, Boone relies
on the "Overdraft Disclosure" and "Fee Schedule."  Boone challenges
three aspects of MB Financial's OD fees.

Boone's first challenge is predicated on MB Financial's assessment
of OD fees on certain debit-card related transactions.  Her second
claim challenges MB Financial's assessment of the Continuous Daily
Overdraft fee ("CDOF").  Boone's third claim challenges MB
Financial's discretion over whether to pay an overdraft fee.

On March 12, 2018, Boone filed her three-count putative class
action complaint against MB Financial, alleging: (1) breach of
contract stemming from her APPSN and CDOF claims; (2) breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act.

On July 13, 2018, MB Financial filed the instant motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.  MB Financial seeks
dismissal of all three counts.

In Count I, Boone alleges that MB Financial breached the Checking
Agreements by improperly charging OD fees on APPSN transactions and
CDOF on the day after an account incurs an overdraft fee.  Judge
Kocoras finds that that Boone has failed to sufficiently plead a
breach of contract claim on her APPSN assertions because the
Checking Agreements are unambiguous and expressly permit MB
Financial's conduct.  Therefore, MB Financial's motion to dismiss
Boone's APPSN claim is granted.

Boone next alleges that MB Financial prematurely charges her CDO
Fees.  Specifically, she claims that MB Financial breached the
Checking Agreements by charging CDO fees before the expiration of
two business days.  MB Financial argues the Checking Agreements
expressly permit this conduct.

The Judge agrees.  He finds the Fee Schedule's language unambiguous
and straight forward.  The Fee Schedule allows MB Financial to
assess CDO fees on the "second consecutive calendar day the account
is negative."  MB Financial correctly points out that the Fee
Schedule does not refer to the time of day that the bank determines
whether there is an overdraft.  Nor does it refer to the date on
which an OD fee is deducted from the account.  Instead, it solely
refers to the account's negative status, the "second consecutive
calendar day the account is negative."  Therefore, the Judge finds
the Fee Schedule unambiguous and Boone's claim implausible.

In Count II, Boone alleges MB Financial has breached the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing in the contract through its
overdraft policies and practices ("discretion-to-pay").  The Judge
holds that Illinois law does not recognize an independent cause of
action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.  This covenant merely aids in contractual interpretation
and is not an independent source of contractual duties or
liability.  Therefore, Count II is dismissed with prejudice.

In Count III, Boone alleges that MB Financial violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), by
engaging in deceptive and unfair acts or practices stemming from
the imposition of OD Fees, CDOF, and discretion-to-pay claims.  The
Judge holds that (i) Boone fails to articulate how any of her
claims are oppressive or violate public policy; (ii) MB Financial
correctly points out that Boone not only accepted MB Financial's
terms by opening her account but continued to use her account in
the ordinary course for years; (iii) MB Financial acted within the
expressed scope of the Checking Agreement; and (iv) Boone's mere
articulation that MB Financial's primary motivation was to maximize
profits is not breach of good faith when MB Financial acted in
accord with its contractual obligations.  For these reasons, Count
III is dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Kocoras granted the motion to dismiss in
its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/2R6tbB from Leagle.com.

Rhonda Boone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D. Kaliel --
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com -- Kaliel PLLC, Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Kyle Alan
Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg,
LLC, Robert R. Ahdoot -- rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot &
Wolfson, PC, pro hac vice & Theodore Walter Maya --
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, pro hac vice.

MB Financial Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Lucia Nale --
lnale@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Jed Wolf Glickstein --
jglickstein@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown, Llp & Thomas Vangel
Panoff -- tpanoff@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


MCNEIL GROUP: Accused by Harbour Suit of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Harbour, Individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. McNeil Group, Inc d/b/a
Pinnacle Metal Products, Case No. 2:19-cv-01545-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio,
April 22, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by, among other things, failing to pay
proper overtime.

McNeil Group, Inc, doing business as Pinnacle Metal Products, is an
Ohio for-corporation doing business in Columbus, Ohio.  The
Defendant fabricates, delivers, and installs stairs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2672: Court Denies Bids to Remand Vodonick Clean Diesel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied John Vodonick's motions to remand the
case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt.
Nos. 942, 947, 2033, 4375, 5883, Vodonick, Dkt No. 20, MDL No. 2672
CRB (JSC), No. 3:16-cv-0219-CRB (N.D. Cal.).

The Court appointed the Lead Counsel in early 2016 to represent a
class of consumers who had purchased TDI diesel-engine cars.
Several months before, Vodonick had filed his own putative class
action on behalf of TDI consumers, in California state court.
Vodonick named Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG,
and Roseville Volkswagen, LLC as the Defendants.

VWGoA and Roseville VW filed separate notices of removal, removing
Vodonick's case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction
under CAFA.  Shortly after removal, Vodonick filed two motions to
remand.  He later re-noticed his motions and, after the Court
lifted a stay on remand motions, he filed an amended motion.

Vodonick argues that remand of his case is warranted (1) because
removal was untimely, and (2) because the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Breyer concludes that although VWGoA's removal notice was
untimely, Roseville VW's notice was not.  And even though Roseville
VW filed its notice after VWGoA's, Roseville VW's notice was not a
nullity.  He also concludes that it has federal subject-matter
jurisdiction over Vodonick's case.  When Vodonick filed his case
and when the case was removed it satisfied Section 1332(d)'s
jurisdictional requirements.  And Vodonick has not demonstrated
that a CAFA exception applies.  For these reasons, the Judge
concludes that Vodonick's case was properly removed to federal
court.  Accordingly, Vodonick's motions to remand are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/61YeHR from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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


MDL 2741: Albert Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled ANTHONY ALBERT v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00608, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02064-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: Baehr Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled BARBARA BAEHR, individually and on behalf of
WAYNE BAEHR, (deceased) v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00597, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02061-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: Barnett Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned ROBERT BARNETT v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00672, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02075-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: Brand Suit Consolidated in Roundup Sales Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled ANNA BRAND v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00628, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02067-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: Browning Suit Included in Roundup Sales Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled MELISSA BROWNING and GREG BROWNING v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00606, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02063-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: Cohen Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned DAVID ROBERT COHEN, an individual v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-00459, was transferred on April 19, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
at Seattle to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02077-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:

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


MDL 2741: Cupp Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled ROGER CUPP v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00647, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02073-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: Delsuc Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled LAURENT DELSUC AND CAROL LEANN DELSUC, husband
and wife and their marital community v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-00461, was transferred on April 19, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02079-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:

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


MDL 2741: Fohne Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned NORMAN FOHNE and RHONDA FOHNE v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00649, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02074-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: Fruits Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled DAVID FRUITS and LAURA FRUITS v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00646, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02072-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: Hignett Suit Included in Roundup Product Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled JOSEPH HIGNETT and FAITH HIGNETT v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00619, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02065-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: Lawary Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled HAROLD LAWARY v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00634, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02068-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: Musselman Suit Included in Roundup Sales Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned PAMELA MUSSELMAN and GARY MUSSELMAN v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00643, was transferred on April
19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02069-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: Ott Suit Consolidated in Roundup Product Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled JAMES OTT v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00601, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02062-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: Simmons Suit Included in Roundup Product Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled PEGGY SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of
JAMES SIMMONS, (deceased) v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00644, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02070-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: Vereugo Suit Included in Roundup Sales Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned ARTHUR VEREUGO v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00623, was transferred on April 19, 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 California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02066-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 2884: 3 Suits by Anacor Pharma Transferred to Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: KERYDIN (TAVABOROLE) TOPICAL SOLUTION 5% PATENT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2884, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
three actions filed by Anacor Pharmaceuticals to the District of
Delaware and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the
Honorable Richard G. Andrews for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

This litigation consists of three actions pending in two
districts:

      -- District of Delaware

         * ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. LUPIN LIMITED, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:18-01606

         * ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ASCENT PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.,ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-01673

      -- Northern District of West Virginia

         * ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
INC.,ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18!00202

Plaintiff and patentholder Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., invokes 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 to seek centralization of this patent
infringement litigation in the District of Delaware.  Generic
manufacturer defendants in two D. Delaware actions do not oppose
centralization in the District of Delaware.  Mylan Inc., and Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc., which are defendants in the Northern District
of West Virginia action, oppose centralization.

Anacor filed these actions after 22 generic drug manufacturers
submitted a total of 14 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs)
seeking approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
make and sell generic versions of Kerydin (tavaborole) topical
solution 5%,a topical antifungal that is used to treat toenail
fungus.  The actions on the motion area series of Hatch-Waxman
patent infringement lawsuits, in which Anacor alleges that each of
the 22 total defendants has infringed four U.S. Patents by filing
ANDAs seeking FDA approval to market generic tavaborole in the
United States.

Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the District of Delaware will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.  All actions involve
substantially identical claims that defendants infringed the four
Kerydin patents.  Centralization is warranted to prevent
inconsistent rulings (particularly with respect to claim
construction and issues of patent validity) and overlapping
pretrial obligations, reduce costs, and create efficiencies for the
parties, courts, and witnesses.

Mylan opposes centralization, arguing that there are too few
actions to justify centralization and that informal coordination
among the parties and involved judges is an adequate alternative to
formal centralization.  The Panel is not persuaded by these
arguments.  Even though only three actions are pending in this
litigation, the Panel has long acknowledged that "actions involving
the validity of complex pharmaceutical patents and the entry of
generic versions of the patent holder's drugs are particularly
well-suited for transfer under Section 1407." In re: Alfuzosin
Hydrochloride Patent Litig., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 1372 (J.P.M.L.
2008).  For that reason, the Panel has centralized litigation
consisting of only two Hatch-Waxman Act cases.  Given the
complexity of the allegations and regulatory framework governing
Hatch-Waxman cases, as well as the need for swift progress in
litigation involving the potential entry of generic drugs into the
market, placing all actions before a single judge should foster the
efficient resolution of all of the actions.

Judge Vance selects the District of Delaware as the appropriate
transferee district for these actions.  The claims of 13 of the 14
ANDA filers are pending in this district.  Judge Vance is confident
that Judge Richard G. Andrews, who is well-versed in complex patent
litigation, will steer this matter on a prudent course.

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


MDL 2886: Luongo Suit Consolidated in Allura Product Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Luongo v. Allura USA LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10143, was transferred on April 23, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston).

The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01168-DCN to the proceeding.

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

The lawsuit is a consumer class action brought on behalf of all
persons and entities, who own homes, residences or other structures
physically located in Georgia, on which the Defendants' Allura
fiber cement exterior siding is or was installed.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Siding of his and Class Members' homes suffers
from an inherent defect resulting in the Siding cracking,
splitting, warping, and breakage.[BN]

Plaintiff Antonetta Luongo, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Walter Kelley, Esq.
          KELLEY BERNHEIM DOLINSKY, LLC
          Four Court Street
          Plymouth, MA 02360
          Telephone: (508) 747-8854
          Facsimile: (508) 747-8857
          E-mail: walterkelley@duejustice.com

Defendant Plycem USA LLC, doing business as: Allura, is represented
by:

          William M. Taylor, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          125 High Street
          19th Floor, High Street Tower
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 204-5100
          E-mail: taylorw@pepperlaw.com


MICHIGAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Unemployment Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Whelan, writing for WTVB, reports that it ruined lives, cost
people their homes, caused divorces and even a few suicides. Now
the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that thousands who were
accused of unemployment fraud by a glitch-riddled computer operated
by the State of Michigan's Unemployment Office should be able to
sue to get compensation.

It was part of an effort by Governor Snyder to downsize state
government. Officias reportedly let a computer alogarithm attempt
to identify applicants involved in unemployment insurance fraud and
93% of the people it charged were innocent. They estimate the
number at around 40,000.

Those laid-off workers were charged with fraud, and forced to
refund any money they had been paid, with penalties and interest.

The state issued $20.8 million in compensation to the victims last
year, but tsome say that hardly compensates them for the losses.

Some of those charged sued, and two of them who also filed class
action suits had their cases upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court
on April 5. That means anyone who kept their records may be able to
join the suit.

Attorney General Dana Nessel and the Director of the Unemployment
Insurance Agency are reviewing the high court ruling. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid for Summary Judgment in Adkins FDCA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE ADKINS and DOUGLAS SHORT, Plaintiffs, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
5:17-cv-04107 (S.D. W. Va.), Judge Irene C. Berger of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Beckley
Division, (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
on Count Two; and (ii) denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The named Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and
a purported class of West Virginia consumers against Defendant MCM.
Although the Class Action Complaint  asserted violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and multiple
violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
("WVCCPA"), the Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their individual
claims under the FDCPA, as well as all WVCCPA claims related to
letters sent on or before July 3, 2017.  

The Court recently granted a motion for class certification related
to the sole remaining claims.  That class is defined as all persons
with West Virginia addresses to whom Midland sent a debt collection
letter on or after July 4, 2017 seeking to collect debt that
Midland's records indicated had passed its statute of limitations,
which letter failed to provide the following disclosure: The law
limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of
your debt, [Midland] cannot sue you for it.

Accordingly, the Judge only addresses only the facts and arguments
related to the class claim that remains pending.  In addition, the
she incorporates the Memorandum Opinion and Order denying MCM's
motion to dismiss and the Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as those opinions
resolve some issues presented in the case.

An amendment to the WVCCPA, effective July 4, 2017, requires that,
when debt is beyond the statute of limitations, the following
language must be included in all written communications with the
consumer: "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt.
Because of the age of your debt, (INSERT OWNER NAME) cannot sue you
for it."  MCM monitored the progress of the bill that contained
that amendment, among other changes to the WVCCPA, in the West
Virginia legislature.  After the bill was signed into law, MCM
legal, compliance, and marketing personnel exchanged emails on
April 27 and 28, 2017, discussing the content of the bill,
including how to implement the change to the statute of limitations
disclosure and the effective date of July 4, 2017.

Between January and April 2017, MCM implemented a new system for
requesting changes in its debt collection correspondence.  Its
representative explained that the new system was intended to
prevent change requests from falling through the cracks.
Previously, the department or individual suggesting a change would
email Marketing, and Marketing held follow-up meetings.  Under the
new system, the department or individual suggesting a change emails
Marketing with a uniform request form, and Marketing holds follow
up meetings.  The April 28, 2017 email describing the amendments to
the WVCCPA and the changes required for MCM's letter templates was
submitted shortly after implementation of the new system but was
not sent on the uniform request form.  Marketing did not implement
the change, and no follow up occurred until the Legal/Compliance
Department discovered on Aug. 9, 2017, that the change had not been
made.  Marketing corrected the letter templates by Aug. 25, 2017.

MCM sent letters to the named Plaintiffs during the period after
July 4, 2017, and before it implemented the changes to the letter
templates to comply with the WVCCPA amendment.  It sent a letter
dated July 19, 2017, addressed to Mr. Short but mailed to his
attorney's office.  The letter lists a current balance of $992.30.
It references a dispute, indicates that MCM concluded that its
"information is accurate" and verified the amount of Mr. Short's
outstanding balance.  The letter contains the following language:
"The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt.  Because of the
age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the
debt, we may continue to report it to the credit reporting agencies
as unpaid."  

The same language appears in a letter dated July 12, 2017, that MCM
sent to Ms. Adkins.  Ms. Adkins' letter lists a balance of $849.73
and offers "payment options" with a 40% discount for paying the
reduced amount due in full by Aug. 11, 2017, a 20% discount for
paying the reduced amount due in six monthly payments, with the
first payment due by Aug. 11, 2017, or "Monthly Payments As Low As:
$50 per month."

Both parties have submitted motions for summary judgment.  The
Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because
it is undisputed that MCM violated Section 46A-2-128(f) of the
WVCCPA by sending letters to class members that did not contain the
specific language required by that section.  MCM argues that any
violation was the result of a bona fide error.  It contends that
the violation was unintentional and that it maintained procedures
reasonably adapted to avoid the violation by monitoring changes in
the law and establishing a process for implementing corresponding
changes to its collection activities.  The Plaintiffs argue that
MCM cannot rely on the bona fide error defense under the facts of
this case, where 14 employees were aware of the change to West
Virginia law, including the individuals tasked with implementing
the change in MCM's collection letter templates, yet they neglected
to make the changes.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to MCM and
assuming that the violation was unintentional, Judge Berger finds
that MCM has not produced sufficient evidence that it maintained
procedures reasonably adapted to prevent this type of violation.
He holds that courts look for redundant or fail-safe systems
designed to catch an error missed during the regular procedures by
adding extra layers of review.  MCM has presented no evidence of
procedures designed to limit the risk of human error, such as
pre-scheduling meetings at the time of submission of a change
request, requiring follow-up by the individual submitting a change
request, or systems for Legal/Compliance to monitor for compliance
prior to the effective dates of new legislation.  Instead, MCM
claims it implemented a new system requiring use of a special form
to prevent change requests from falling through the cracks, and
then blames its own failure to follow that system for the change
request herein falling through the cracks.  Because this is not the
type of error protected by the bona fide error defense, and MCM has
not presented evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to rule
in its favor, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to
summary judgment as to liability for the Count Two class claims.

Wherefore, after thorough review and careful consideration, Judge
Berger granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count
Two, and denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.  She
ordered that Count One and the individual WVCCPA claims be
dismissed pursuant to the Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal.  She
directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to the counsel of
record and to any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/L3KML4 from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Adkins & Douglas Short, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
B. Frost, HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD, Jonathan R. Marshall --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, Patricia M. Kipnis
-- pkipnis@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER & Steven R.
Broadwater, Jr. -- sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com -- HAMILTON
BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley
W. French, DINSMORE & SHOHL, Jason E. Manning --
jason.manning@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS & Megan Elizabeth
Burns -- megan.burns@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Dismissal of Schellenger's Counterclaim Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff, v. JEAN SCHELLENGER,
Defendant, (Jean Schellenger, on Behalf of Herself and a Putative
Class, Counterclaimant-Appellant; Midland Funding LLC and Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Counterdefendants-Appellees), Case No.
5-18-0202 (Ill. App.), Judge James R. Moore of the Appellate Court
of Illinois for the Fifth District affirmed the Feb. 22, 2018,
order of the circuit court of Clinton County that granted the
motion of the Counterdefendants, Midland Funding, LLC and Midland
Credit Management, Inc., to dismiss Jean's counterclaim.

On Jan. 27, 2017, Midland Funding filed a small claims complaint
against Jean, alleging that Jean was the holder of a credit card
(usable only for the purchase of goods at Home Depot), that Midland
Funding was the successor in interest of the credit card account
from Citibank, N.A., that Jean made purchases against the account
but failed to make the monthly payments, that there was a balance
of $3151.21 due and owing on the account, and that Jean was in
default on the account.  Midland Funding requested judgment against
Jean in the amount of $3151.21 plus costs.  An affidavit appended
to the complaint stated that the last payment posted to the account
was on July 12, 2012.  Accordingly, the complaint was filed more
than four years but less than five years after the default.

On June 30, 2017, Jean filed a motion for class certification along
with a three-count class action counterclaim against Midland
Funding and Midland Credit.  The counterclaim alleged, inter alia,
that because a Home Depot store credit card can only be used to
purchase goods at a Home Depot store, the action was one to enforce
a contract for the sale of goods and the applicable statute of
limitations is four years under section 2-725 of the UCC.  The
counterclaim further alleged that Midland's collection complaint
was time-barred and, accordingly, the filing violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and the Collection Agency Act.  The allegation
underlying all counts of the counterclaim was that Midland had a
practice of suing customers on time-barred store credit card
debts.

On Sept. 19, 2017, Midland filed a motion to dismiss Jean's
counterclaim.  The motion alleged, inter alia, that Midland's
complaint was timely filed because Jean's credit card agreement is
governed by the five-year statute of limitations that applies to
credit card agreements, pursuant to section 13-205 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, rather than the four-year statute of limitations
under the UCC that governs the sale of goods, as Jean alleged in
her counterclaim.

A hearing was conducted on Feb. 20, 2018, where the counsel offered
respective arguments concerning, inter alia, which statute of
limitations applied.  The circuit court entered an order on Feb.
22, 2018, granting Midland's motion to dismiss, holding that the
five-year statute of limitations applied, and dismissing Jean's
counterclaim with prejudice.  Jean filed a timely notice of
appeal.

The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred by granting
Midland's motion to dismiss Jean's counterclaim, on the basis of
the five-year statute of limitations applying to Midland's
underlying complaint, rather than the four-year statute of
limitations, as argued by Jean in her counterclaim.  A circuit
court's rulings on motions to dismiss as well as whether a
particular statute of limitations applies to a cause of action are
reviewed de novo.

Judge Moore opines that Citizen's National Bank of Decatur v.
Farmer is inapplicable in the case, and distinguishes it in the
same way the Citizen's court did from Harris Trust & Savings Bank
v. McCray.  In Citizen's, the bank stepped into the shoes of the
seller as the assignee of the retail installment agreement between
the buyer and seller.  That is not the case in the instant matter,
where a tripartite relationship exists between the bank, the
cardholder, and the merchant and where the payments made by the
bank to the merchant pursuant to the cardholder agreement
constitute a loan, just as in Harris Trust.  Accordingly, the Judge
finds the holding in Citizen's does not apply to the instant case.

Jean cites an additional Illinois case -- Johnson v. Sears Roebuck
& Co. -- in which the court held that a store credit card was not
subject to usury laws because the sale of goods on credit and
allowing payments over time do not constitute a loan.  However,
again, like Citizen's, the Johnson case did not involve a
tripartite system where the bank paid the merchant for goods that
were purchased by a cardholder who agreed to repay the bank instead
of the merchant, but a bipartite relationship directly between a
retail seller and a buyer.  Accordingly, the Judge finds the ruling
in Johnson also inapplicable.

Finally, the Judge notes that Jean concedes that litigation
involving general purpose bank credit cards is subject to a
five-year statute of limitations pursuant to section 13-205 of the
Code.  On that note, she contends that Harris Trust is
distinguished from the instant case, because in that case, a
general purpose credit card was used that could be used at multiple
retailers as well as used for cash advances and services, whereas
here, the credit card originated with Home Depot, was issued
through Citibank, and could only be used to purchase goods at a
single retailer -- Home Depot -- therefore making it subject to the
UCC as a part of a sale of goods.

The Judge disagrees.  He opines that the type of credit card is
immaterial.  The determining factor in Harris Trust was not that
the credit card was general purpose or usable only at a single
establishment, but that a tripartite relationship and a loan of
money were involved.  The same principles apply to the instant
case, and he finds the distinction Jean raises regarding the type
of credit card to be of no consequence to established law in
Illinois.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Moore affirmed the Feb. 22, 2018,
order of the circuit court of Clinton County.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ttpD7Z from Leagle.com.

Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs, James O. Latturner, Francis
R. Greene, Isabella M. Janusz, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60603-3403; Dennis
L. Koch , 815 Laurel Street, Suite 23, Highland, IL 62249-2106,
Attorneys for Appellant.

William P. Hardy -- whardy@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, 400 South Ninth Street, Suite 200, Springfield, IL 62701-1908;
Louis J. Manetti, Jr., David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com
-- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, 151 N. Franklin St., Suite 2500,
Chicago, IL 60606, Attorneys for Appellees.


MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Mobile TeleSystems PJSC
("MBT" or the "Company") (NYSE: MBT) and certain of its officers,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired MBT
securities during the period between March 19, 2014 through March
7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mbt.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) MBT and
its subsidiary were involved in a scheme to pay $420 million in
bribes in Uzbekistan; (2) consequently, MBT 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) MBT's level of cooperation with the
U.S. government and remediation was lacking; (4) due to the
aforementioned misconduct, MBT 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
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mbt or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in MBT you
have until May 20, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email:  info@bgandg.com
                 peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (NYSE: MBT) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
Mobile Telesystems between March 19, 2014 through March 7, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 20, 2019 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact:

        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
        Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
        Gainey McKenna & Egleston
        Telephone: (212) 983-1300
        Website: www.gme-law.com  
        E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


MONSANTO CO: California RoundUp Cases Raise Concerns
----------------------------------------------------
Judy Brown, writing for Leader Telegram, reports that despite
nationwide publicity surrounding California court cases linking the
herbicide Roundup to causing cancers such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma,
a sampling of visitors to the recent WPS Farm Show suggests they
have other concerns in the down agricultural economy.

"Nope."

That was the response of several agricultural observers at the farm
show who said farmers weren't getting skittish over the use of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in the broad spectrum weed
killer.

Roundup, marketed by Monsanto, is expected to be applied to 60
million acres of soybeans and cotton this year, the St. Louis-based
company said. Corn acres were not disclosed but totaled 50 million
in 2018.

Monsanto was acquired more than a year ago by Bayer AG, a German
conglomerate also known for its Bayer aspirins.

On the market for 40 years, Roundup's patent has expired, which
means that glyphosate-based herbicides are manufactured in other
countries and sold in about 160 countries.

France was the first to ban Roundup. An equipment salesman at the
WPS Farm Show said Switzerland also has banned the product over
carcinogenic concerns.

Last August, a California jury awarded $289 million to a
70-year-old-groundskeeper who claimed using Roundup for 20 years
led to his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He claimed Monsanto had failed to
warn consumers of the cancer risks of the herbicide. A judge scaled
back the award to $79 million.

In March, Bayer lost another San Francisco case in which the
plaintiff alleged Roundup was linked to another cancer case. The
jury awarded him $80 million. Monsanto is appealing both
decisions.

Another court case in Oakland began the week of April 1. It's
expected that another five cases in California will go to trial
this year. A business news website said Bayer AG now faces more
than 11,000 lawsuits over Roundup. Lawyers advertise on television
seeking to pursue class-action suits.

Following the most recent jury finding, Bayer AG said in a
statement March 19 that the company was disappointed with the
verdict: "We continue to believe firmly that the science confirms
that glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer."

The company added that "an extensive body of science supports the
conclusion that Roundup was not the cause of his cancer."

Bayer said more than 800 studies have been submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and European and other regulatory
agencies in the registration process.

EPA, in a cancer assessment statement in 2017, said glyphosate is
"not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."

The International Agency for Research on Cancer affiliated with the
World Health Organization classified glyphosate as "probably
carcinogenic" in 2015. After that, lawsuits began to emerge.

"If you talk to people selling glyphosate, they will tell you sales
are as strong as ever," said Steve Kindschi, sales manager for
Tracy Seeds in Janesville.

He said that, over the years, growers have developed a rotational
strategy in response to weed resistance from using glyphosate
exclusively.

"That way, you are not going to get weed resistance," he said about
producers switching herbicides yearly.

Harold Meisenhelder of Shiocton, an Outagamie County grower, custom
sprayer and grain harvester and Tracy seed dealer, figured he's
used Roundup for 40 years.

"You just got to know what it is and read the label and follow
label directions," he said. "It's not rocket science."

He plans to plant conventional corn and not GMO varieties on his
150 rented acres. What he sprays on his customers' fields is
determined by agronomists, he said.

Several farm-show vendors said they weren't aware of the California
Roundup cases.

"California? I don't know about it, except I'm starting to see
lawyers advertising on television for class-action suits," an
exhibitor said.

The conversation at another booth questioned if label directions
were followed.

"How many farmers have sprayed but have not worn a stitch of
protective gear?" one vendor wondered.

Joe Lauer, University of Wisconsin corn specialist, emphasized that
in the California cases, decisions were based on a jury trial
rather than a trial by science.

"Everything is very preliminary as these are all made by juries,"
Lauer said. "Bayer has some good science behind it. Still, once
that science comes forward, it will be interesting to see what the
final settlement will be."

Reached at his Janesville home, Doug Rebout, president of the
Wisconsin Corn Growers Association, said no one has brought up the
California cases.

"I have not had anyone talk to me about anything as to what is
going on in California," Rebout said. His family will plant 2,500
acres of corn this year.

"Any time anything looks bad for any reason, we want the pure
science looked at rather than emotion," Rebout said. "If people
look at the pure science, they will see it's not what they are
making it out to be." [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Farmer Awareness Increasing Over Roundup Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judy Brown, writing for Leader Telegram, reports that soybean
growers are beginning to take notice of California court cases in
which plaintiffs say exposure to the weed killer Roundup leads to
non-Hodgkin lymphoma, says the president of the Wisconsin Soybean
Association.

"I've had discussions with people who are concerned about the
lawsuits," said Pepin County farmer Tony Mellenthin. "They are not
concerned with the safety of Roundup because, as farmers, we know
it's been proven safe over the years and by decades of research."

Instead, he said, the head scratching is over the size of the
settlements and how juries reach their conclusions.

"We are seeing the lawsuits decided not based on science,"
Mellenthin said. "It's concerning because, essentially, science is
being ignored."

Having not seen transcripts of the California cases, Mellenthin
said he assumes Bayer AG introduced as evidence information from
many Roundup studies.

"That's why I'm saying they are ignoring the science and believing
the misinformation from the other side," he said.

He said he wonders what evidence was introduced to prove the
plaintiff's charge: "I haven't seen proof that Roundup leads to
non-Hodgkin lymphoma."

Published reports indicate that plaintiffs say they should have
been warned about the effects of Roundup.

Mellenthin, 28, earlier this year won an advocating-for-agriculture
competition with the Outstanding Young Farmers program. He is a
graduate of UW-River Falls with a major in agricultural business
and a minor in crop science.

He farms about 7,000 acres with his father, Marty, with the total
split between corn and soybeans. In addition, Tony rents other
acres for his cropping operation. The family conducts their own
herbicide spraying program.

Explaining agriculture's need for effective weed control tools
falls into Mellenthin's wheelhouse.

In leading the soybean association, Mellenthin comes into contact
with growers at the annual Corn/Soy Expo in Wisconsin Dells and at
other meetings statewide and nationally.

"Up to now, it's been mostly water cooler talk rather than official
conversation," Mellenthin said. "Most of the time, the topic comes
up from the people I'm talking to."

Asked to gauge farmer awareness and concern over the outcome of the
trials, Mellenthin said, "I would say there are farmers aware of
it. Are there enough farmers aware? I'm not sure that's the case,
but there (are) some."

While television commercials aim to enlist more supporters in class
action suits against Roundup, Mellenthin said his family's farm
also has been solicited by law firms.

"We've had letters from law offices who specialize in class action
suits," Mellenthin said. "We are a farm and they assume we use
glyphosate."

He said the family did not respond to the letters and he's not
aware of other soybean growers receiving such letters.

While the court cases play out in California, Mellenthin said
grower organizations such as his will continue to keep an eye on
what's happening in California and Washington, D.C.

"We are constantly talking to federal regulators about glyphosate,
reiterating not only the safety of the product but the necessity of
having these tools in the toolbox," he said.

And he believes there are other conversations coming up as the
Roundup controversy becomes more intense.

"I think we will be spending more time on consumer outreach and
consumer education," he said.

It's reported that there are about 11,200 lawsuits filed against
Monsanto and Bayer AG involving the weed killer. It's not clear how
many involve farmers or how many involve gardeners, landscapers or
other users of the product.

Mellenthin emphasizes the importance of reading and adhering to the
product's label: "The label says you need personal protection
equipment. By almost all definitions, the label is the law," he
said. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Hall Seeks Damages for Roundup-related Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK HALL v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00943 (E.D. Mo.,
April 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages for injuries allegedly
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(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Mr. Hall maintains 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:

          Joe McGreevy, Esq.
          KUHLMAN & LUCAS, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2550
          Kansas City, MO 64104
          Telephone: (816) 548-3187
          Facsimile: (816) 799-0336
          E-mail: joe@kuhlmanlucas.com


MONSANTO CO: Newble Seeks Damages for Roundup-related Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUANITA NEWBLE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00944 (E.D.
Mo., April 19, 2019), seeks compensatory damages arising from the
Plaintiff's alleged pain and suffering and for severe and permanent
personal injuries she sustained, including health care costs and
economic loss, 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.

Ms. Newble maintains 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:

          Joe McGreevy, Esq.
          KUHLMAN & LUCAS, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2550
          Kansas City, MO 64104
          Telephone: (816) 548-3187
          Facsimile: (816) 799-0336
          E-mail: joe@kuhlmanlucas.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Castillo Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Daniel Castillo, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01021 (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019),
the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Clifton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS W. CLIFTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01043 (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: Colbert Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Colbert, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01038 (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
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Gillson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
QUENTIN GILLSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01026 (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: Mikels Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, James Mikels Sr., the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01031 (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
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Mullahy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Mullahy, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01022 (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
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Payne Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Payne, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01033 (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
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MOUNT IDA: Seeks Dismissal of Students' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
WHDH reports that representatives for Mount Ida College were
scheduled to appear in federal court in Boston on April 9 in an
effort to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed by students claims that school officials
intentionally misled them and their parents about the school's
finances.

The college shut down suddenly last year.

Seniors were able to graduate from the school but underclassmen had
to find another way to finish their education. [GN]


NATIONAL PRODUCTION: Dean Files ERISA Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Dean and Dean Wollenzien, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Production
Workers Union Severance Trust Plan; National Production Workers
Union 401(k) Retirement Plan; Joseph Vincent Senese, Rosie Gibson,
Jose Diaz, James Malloy, Scott Gore, individually and in their
capacities as the Board of Trustees of the National Production
Workers Union Severance Trust Plan and the National Production
Workers Union 401(k) Retirement Plan; and James Meltreger,
individually and in his capacity as Plan Manager of the National
Production Workers Union Severance Trust Plan and National
Production Workers Union 401(k) Retirement Plan, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02694 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2019) is an action under
the Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

Plaintiffs have, at all relevant times, been employed by Parsec,
Inc. ("Parsec" or "Employer") at its location in Elwood, Illinois.
For a number of years and until August 2017, the National
Production Workers Union, Local 707 ("NPWU" or "Union") represented
Plaintiffs and the other employees in the Elwood Bargaining Unit
for purposes of collective bargaining with Plaintiffs' Employer.
Pursuant to successive collective bargaining agreements between
Parsec and NPWU ("NPWU CBA"), Parsec made contributions on behalf
of Elwood Bargaining Unit employees into the NPWU Severance Plan
until 2012.

Parsec made contributions to the Severance Plan on behalf of Elwood
Bargaining Unit employees pursuant to the terms of the NPWU CBA
until 2012. Since 2012 and through about August 2017, the NPWU CBA
provided for employer contributions on behalf of Elwood Bargaining
Unit to be made into the NPWU 401(k) Plan instead of the NPWU
Severance Plan. One of the major issues in the campaign to
decertify the NPWU was the NPWU Retirement Plans. Many members of
the Elwood Bargaining Unit, including Plaintiffs, were unhappy with
both the representation by the NPWU and the management and
performance of the NPWU Retirement Plans. Plaintiffs and other
members of the Elwood Bargaining Unit wanted to leave the NPWU
Retirement Plans, become participants in the Teamsters 401(k) Plan,
and transfer their existing NPWU Retirement Plan account balances
into the Teamsters 401(k) Plan.

During the decertification campaign, NPWU explicitly threatened
Elwood Bargaining Unit members by repeatedly telling them that, by
voting for Teamsters Local 179, participants would lose complete
control over their accounts. NPWU told Elwood Bargaining Unit
members that their accounts would stay within the control of the
NPWU and that the Elwood Bargaining Unit would not be permitted to
withdraw their money or otherwise transfer their accounts to the
Teamsters 401(k) Plan. Some of these threats specifically came from
Defendant Senese, who is an officer of NPWU and a trustee of the
NPWU Retirement Plans. Following through on NPWU's threats, the
Trustees of the NPWU Retirement Plans refused to act in the
interests of and on the requests of the Elwood Bargaining Unit
participants and adopt plan provisions that would permit such
transfers, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs have been "participants" as that term is defined by
ERISA, of the NPWU Severance Plan and NPWU 401(k) Plan.

The NPWU Severance Plan is a multiemployer defined contribution
"money purchase" pension plan as that term is defined by ERISA,
which maintains offices in DuPage County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Peter Dowd, Esq.
     George A. Luscombe III, Esq.
     Elizabeth L. Rowe, Esq.
     DOWD, BLOCH, BENNETT, CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH
     8 S. Michigan Ave. - 19th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312-372-1361


NCAA: Approval of Settlement & Fee Award in Antitrust Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST LITIGATION (This document
relates to ALL ACTIONS except Jenkins v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic
Ass'n, N.D. Cal. No. 14-cv-278-CW), SHAWNE ALSTON; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, DARRIN DUNCAN, Objector-Appellant, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, The NCAA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-15054 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
approval of the settlement and fee award.

In the underlying class action, student athletes who attended
Division I schools challenge a NCAA bylaw that capped the maximum
grant-in-aid at less than the full cost of attendance at those
schools.  In January of 2015, after the Plaintiffs filed suit, the
NCAA amended its bylaws to allow member schools to provide up to
the full cost of attendance in athletic aid.  As to the Plaintiffs'
damage claims, the parties reached a settlement that requires the
Defendants to pay $208,664,445 to some 53,000 class members.  After
deducting attorneys' fees and expenses, the average recovery for
class members who played sports for four years is approximately
$6,000.

The district court approved the settlement of the Plaintiffs'
damage claims and awarded $41,732,889 in attorneys' fees and
$3,184,274.38 in expenses.  Class member Darrin Duncan objected to
the fee award and now appeals the district court's approval of the
settlement and fee award.

Duncan's objections relate to the district court's approval of
attorneys' fees, not the settlement itself.  Duncan first argues
that the district court erred by approving a fee award of 20% of
the settlement fund.  He argues that a fee award of 20% and a 3.66
multiplier of the lodestar is excessive because this is a
"mega-fund" case with a settlement of more than $200 million.  The
district court rejected Duncan's objection based on the large size
of the recovery because (1) an award of 20% was less than the
percentage awarded in the comparably sized cases that we cited in
Vizcaino; and (2) the counsel's efforts led to the "exceptional,
mega-fund results.  The Appellate Court holds that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the large size
of the settlement fund did not warrant a reduction of the 20% fee
award.

Duncan next argues that the district court abused its discretion
when it did not include litigation expenses in calculating the
percentage award.  He waived this argument because he did not raise
it in the district court, and at any rate, the objection lacks
merit.  The Court holds that it allows a district court to
calculate the percentage of attorney fees based on either the gross
or net fund.  Accordingly, it concludes that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it calculated the percentage without
including expenses in the numerator.

Finally, Duncan argues that the district court abused its
discretion in using the percentage-of-the-fund method because it
failed to properly perform a lodestar crosscheck.  In particular,
he objects to the district court's reliance on summary billing of
the counsel's fees and its failure to request background
information that would have, he contends, revealed that the
lodestar was inflated.  

The Court finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in calculating a lodestar of $11,398.158.30 for purposes
of a crosscheck on the reasonableness of the 20% fee award.  The
district court ordered the counsel to provide more detailed
information including a summary of the hours spent on various
categories of activities.  In addition, because the settlement only
resolved the Plaintiffs' claims for damages, the district court
ordered the counsel who had not already done so to specify whether
their activities billed related only to such claims.

As noted, Duncan appealed the district court's approval of the
settlement.  His briefs, however, do not challenge the settlement
generally, but instead concern only the district court's award of
attorneys' fees.  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose sanctions
on that basis, arguing that the appeal of the settlement approval
has not actually been prosecuted and is delaying the distribution
of funds to class members.  But to address this concern, the
Plaintiffs could have moved the district court to require Duncan to
post an appeal bond.

Moreover, although the Plaintiffs contend that Duncan's appeal is
unrelated to the district court's settlement approval, the Court
has held that attorneys' fees provisions included in proposed class
action settlement agreements are, like every other aspect of such
agreements, subject to the determination whether the settlement is
fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable, and so the
reasonableness of the settlement is not wholly distinct from the
reasonableness of attorneys' fees, as plaintiffs suggest.  It
therefore disagrees that Duncan's appeal of the approval settlement
was purely vexatious, and so it denied the motion for sanctions.

The Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/2PQuYdj from Leagle.com.


NCAA: Faces Hastedt Class Action Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HASTEDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-01592-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 22, 2019), seeks to obtain
redress for alleged injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Averett University student-athletes.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms, the Plaintiff alleges.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Averett.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: JRaizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Neglected Health and Safety of CHC Athletes, Lee Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEROY GARLAND LEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01597-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., April 22, 2019), arises
from injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's alleged
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of The
College of the Holy Cross ("CHC") student-athletes.

For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of
concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive
injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that
resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded
this information to protect the very profitable business of
"amateur" college football, the Plaintiff alleges.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at CHC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: JRaizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NIO INC: Says U.S. Shareholder Class Actions "Meritless"
--------------------------------------------------------
Liu Yukun and Denies Jia, writing for Caixin, report that Chinese
electric vehicle maker Nio Inc. and its executives face multiple
class action lawsuits in the U.S. filed by shareholders. The
plaintiffs allege the company misled investors about a planned new
manufacturing facility during its 2018 initial public offering and
failed to disclose the impact of reductions in government subsidies
for electric cars.

Nio's executives and its IPO underwriters led investors to believe
the company planned to build its own manufacturing factory in
Shanghai but instead continued to rely on a "little-known" auto
manufacturer to produce its electric vehicles, according to the
lawsuits.

Shareholders also complained that the company failed to disclose
that the Chinese government's decision to reduce subsidies to
purchasers of electric cars would materially hurt the company's
sales. The lawsuits seek to recover unspecified damages for Nio
investors who bought its shares from September 12, 2018, through
March 5, 2019.

Nio said the lawsuits are "meritless" and the company will defend
itself vigorously.

In its IPO prospectus filed in September 2018, Nio said it signed a
five-year joint manufacturing agreement with state-owned JAC Motors
to make electric cars at JAC's factory in the eastern Chinese city
of Hefei.

Meanwhile, Nio planned to build its own factory in Shanghai's
suburban Jiading district, according to the prospectus. But Nio
dropped that plan in March after rival Tesla Inc. in January broke
ground on a manufacturing plant in Shanghai.

Nio gave up the plan to build its factory after the central
government released regulations limiting the number of such
facilities to curb the risk of overcapacity in a sector that has
grown rapidly under generous government subsidies that are now
being rolled back. As work began on Tesla's factory, it became
unlikely that a second plant would be permitted in Shanghai for
several years.

Nio said in the prospectus that its growth would depend heavily on
the government's subsidies for electric vehicles. Total government
subsidies on the purchase of each ES8 SUV, Nio's first volume
manufactured electric vehicle, were about 74,000 yuan ($11,016) in
2018. The retail price tag before subsidies started at 448,000 yuan
($66,700).

Since early 2018, China has started to cut back on its new-energy
vehicle subsidies as part of a broader plan to abolish all
subsidies after 2020.

At least one of the lawsuits alleged that Nio recently dismissed
any significant impact from changes in subsidies because "premium
car buyers are less price sensitive."

In Nio's January conference call to discuss the proposed issuance
of $650 million in convertible notes, NIO's management reassured
investors that demand was strong for the ES8 and ES6. In fact, Nio
sales declined more than 45% in January from December 2018, New
York law firm Pomerantz LLP said in a class action lawsuit against
Nio and certain of its executives.

The complaint also said Nio founder and Chief Executive Officer Li
Bin said on TV in February that the company exceeded its delivery
goal in 2018 and was ramping up production, just days before the
company reported fourth-quarter earnings that were well below Wall
Street expectations.

After disappointing earnings reported after the close of the market
March 5, Nio's shares plunged more than 21% on March 6 and 11% more
the following day.

In addition to Pomerantz, several other law firms, including Zhang
Investor Law, Rosen Law Firm, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP and Levi
& Korsinsky LLP, filed similar class action lawsuits on behalf of
Nio's shareholders against the company and its executives on
allegations of misleading statements.

Rosen previously also filed class action lawsuits against other
U.S.-listed Chinese tech companies, including Alibaba Group
Holdings Ltd. and Pinduoduo Inc.

Other defendants include Li, CFO Louis Hsieh, former and current
members of the company's board, and IPO underwriters including
Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

Zhang Yaqin, president of new business at Baidu, was named among
the defendants. He served as a director at Nio for three months
last year before the company's IPO, according to a filing on April
8 by software company AsiaInfo Technology with the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange.

AsiaInfo made the disclosure because Zhang also serve as an
independent nonexecutive director on the company's board. AsiaInfo
said in the filing that such class action lawsuits are not unusual.
[GN]


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Mislabeled Hydraulic Fluid, Sevy et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer action complaint has been filed against O'Reilly
Automotive, Inc, Ozark Automotive Distributors, Inc., O'Reilly
Automotive Stores, Inc., and O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. for
their negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness
for particular purpose, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and for their violations of the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act. The case is captioned ADAM SEVY, SHAWN HORNBECK,
each on behalf of himself and others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs, v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., OZARK AUTOMOTIVE
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC. d/b/a O'REILLY
AUTO PARTS, and OMNI SPECIALTY PACKAGING, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02192-DDC-GEB (D. Kan., April 18, 2019).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have deceptively and
misleadingly labeled, marketed and sold tractor hydraulic fluid as
"303" fluid meeting "303" specifications when, in fact, the "303"
designation is obsolete and 303 specifications have not been
available for over 40 years. Defendants have also deceptively and
misleadingly labeled, marketed and sold tractor hydraulic fluid as
meeting certain manufacturer specifications and providing certain
anti-wear and protective benefits when, in fact, Defendants knew,
or should have known, the fluid they were selling did not meet all
listed manufacturer specifications and did not contain the
anti-wear and protective properties required in tractor hydraulic
fluid.

Ozark Automotive Distributors, Inc., O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., and
O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. are for-profit companies organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, with its
principal place of business in Springfield, Missouri. Omni
Specialty Packaging, LLC is for-profit company with its principal
place of business in Northbrook, Illinois. Defendant Omni has
advertised and sold its products, including the O’Reilly 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, at O'Reilly Auto Parts Stores at 10318
State Line Road in Leawood, Kansas, 6136 Nieman Road in Shawnee,
Kansas, 19615 West 65th Terrace in Shawnee, Kansas, throughout the
State of Kansas, and throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Carr, Esq.
     Bryan T. White, Esq.
     WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, LLC
     19049 East Valley View Parkway
     Independence, MO 64055
     Telephone: (816) 373-9080
     Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
     E-mail: bcarr@wagblaw.com
             bwhite@wagblaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
     Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
     HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
     2600 Grand, Ste. 1100
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Telephone: (816) 421-0700
     Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
     E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com
             dhubbard@hab-law.com


OHIO NATIONAL: Advisor Files Class Suit Over Cut Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Britton, writing for WealthManagement.com, reports that a
Dallas-based advisor filed a class-action lawsuit against Ohio
National Life Insurance for cutting trailing commissions on some
annuity contracts, the first one representing all advisors.  It may
not be the last.

Stephen Cook, a Dallas-based financial advisor affiliated with
Triad Advisors, has filed a class action lawsuit against Ohio
National Life Insurance Company and its affiliates for cutting
trail commissions on annuity contracts with guaranteed minimum
income benefit riders. The class is being represented by
Cincinnati-based law firm Helmer, Martins, Rice & Popham, Co.,
L.P.A. and New York-based Sarraf Gentile.

The suit, filed in the Southern District of Ohio, is currently the
only pending class action representing all advisors affected by
Ohio National's decision to cut commissions. There are currently
two other pending class actions against Ohio National based on
similar complaints. Advisor Lance Browning originally brought his
class action on behalf of all securities reps in November, but
amended his complaint later on, limiting his class to LPL Financial
reps. Veritas Independent Partners filed a class action against the
insurer on behalf of broker/dealers.

As of yet, none of the proposed classes have been certified by
judges.

Ohio National spokeswoman Angela Meehan declined to comment.

In September, Ohio National notified broker/dealers that it was
terminating selling agreements as of Dec. 12 and ceasing payments
of trail commissions on annuity contracts with a GMIB rider. An
Oct. 29 email from Ohio National said the company would offer
clients a buyout of their variable annuity contract with GMIBs from
Nov. 12, 2018 to Feb. 11, 2019. The firm has tried to replace these
contracts with new ones, but several broker/dealers refuse to sign
the new ones, according to published reports.

The Cook suit is the latest in a string of legal actions filed
against the insurer by both b/ds and advisors. Late last year,
Jackson, Miss.-based LPL broker Chris Noone filed suit against Ohio
National, claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious
interference with business relations, promissory estoppel and
declaratory relief. A number of broker/dealers, including UBS,
Commonwealth Financial Network and RBC Capital Markets, have sued
over the lost commissions. Cetera Financial Group filed FINRA
arbitration claims in late November.  

The suit claims breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
declaratory judgment.  

"Defendants' retention of such commissions would be unjust and
inequitable because they are the result of efforts expended by
Plaintiff and the Class which Defendants seek to retain for
themselves," the complaint says. [GN]


ONTARIO PC PARTY: Sued for Canceling Guaranteed Income
------------------------------------------------------
Regina Leader-Post reports that four people who had been receiving
a basic guaranteed income under a pilot project have launched a
proposed class action against the Progressive Conservative
government for cancelling it.

The proposed lead plaintiffs argue that the cancellation amounts to
a breach of contract and has caused panic attacks, anxiety and
depression among participants, and has meant some people can't
continue paying tuition, for medical expenses or investing in a
business.

"It was foreseeable by the defendant that ceasing the (basic
income) payments early would cause the class members to suffer
damages and to suffer injury due to the frustration and emotional
upset associated with being told that BI Payments were ceasing
prematurely," lawyer Stephen Moreau, Esq. -- smoreau@cavalluzzo.com
-- writes in a statement of claim filed on March 28.

"Further, all class members were in a position of reliance upon the
defendant . . . that the defendant and the (ministry) would
administer the BI Pilot with reasonable diligence, especially as
all members of the class were persons in vulnerable positions as
low income earners and as persons living with disabilities."

The former Liberal government announced the project in April 2017
to provide a guaranteed annual income to participants in three
Ontario cities -- Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay -- with the
intent of making it a three-year study. Single participants
received up to $16,989 a year while couples received up to $24,027,
less 50 per cent of any earned income.

Though the Tories had promised to preserve the pilot project, they
announced in July that they were cancelling it.

Children, Community and Social Services Minister Lisa MacLeod has
suggested the program discouraged participants from finding work.

The monthly payments were greater than what the participants had
received from various sources, including from work, employment,
disability payments and welfare, Moreau wrote in the statement of
claim.

Dana Bowman, one of the proposed lead plaintiffs, could afford
proper food, basic clothing and to travel so she could help care
for her grandchildren, Moreau wrote. Her income increased by about
$13,000 to $14,000 a year. When she learned the pilot was being
cancelled, she experienced a manic episode from which she has not
yet fully recovered, he wrote.

Grace Marie Doyle Hillion was able to enrol in a broadcasting
program at Durham College due to the pilot, and when she learned it
was cancelled she experienced increased anxiety and depression,
Moreau wrote. [GN]


P.F. CHANG'S: Denial of Class Certification Bid in Gammella Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FELICE GAMMELLA, vs. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC,
Case No. SJC-12604 (Mass.), Judge Scott L. Kafker of the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, reversed the denial of
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the granting of
the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Gammella worked greeting customers, helping out behind
the bar, taking food to tables, and assembling delivery orders at
several Boston-area restaurants operated by the Defendant P.F.
Chang's.  He alleges on behalf of himself and a putative class of
similarly situated employees that the Defendant had a common
practice of violating the "reporting pay" or "three-hour"
requirement of 454 Code Mass. Regs. Section 27.04(1) (2015), which
requires employers to pay employees three hours' wages at no less
than the minimum wage if they report for a scheduled shift of three
or more hours but are involuntarily dismissed before they have
worked three hours.  The Plaintiff brings suit under the Wage Act,
and what is known as the minimum fair wage law.

The Plaintiff moved to certify a class comprising all the
Defendant's hourly employees who worked in Massachusetts at any
time from Nov. 25, 2011 to the present, and who had at least one
shift where they were scheduled to work three or more hours but
worked less than three hours, including without limitation" all the
employees identified by employee number on the Defendant's report
who had worked less than three hours of a scheduled shift without
receiving reporting pay.

The Defendant opposed the motion.  After a hearing on the motion,
the Judge denied class certification.  The judge determined that
the the Defendant neither provided the Plaintiff with reporting pay
nor, based on its timekeeping records, had it identified a single
instance from 2011 to 2015 where it had provided reporting pay to
any other Massachusetts employee who had been scheduled for a shift
of three or more hours but worked less than three hours.  The Judge
nonetheless concluded that, pursuant to an opinion letter from the
Executive Office of Labor and Workforce interpreting the reporting
pay requirement, an employer did not have to provide reporting pay
where an employee chose to leave work before three hours of a
scheduled shift had elapsed completely on a voluntary basis, free
from any express or implied pressure from the employer.

Relying on the opinion letter, the Judge redefined the Plaintiff's
proposed class to contain only employees who were involuntarily cut
before three hours and employees who were offered a choice to leave
before three hours, but that choice was `not free from express or
implied pressure from the employer' (i.e., the employee was
essentially involuntarily cut).  He found that it was impossible to
determine from the time-keeping records whether there are any
employees who would fall into the class.  He thus concluded that
the class was insufficiently numerous to satisfy the certification
requirements of rule 23.

After the Plaintiff's class certification motion had been denied,
the Defendant made two offers to the Plaintiff that purported to
provide complete relief on his individual claim.  Pursuant to rule
68, it first made an offer to have judgment entered against it for
$962.08 plus prejudgment interest as well as costs and attorney's
fees associated with the Plaintiff's individual claim, while
expressly excluding any fees related to his class-based claims.
The Plaintiff did not accept the offer.

Subsequently, the Defendant made an offer in the form of a
certified check for $1,732.50 and an accompanying letter that were
both hand delivered to the Plaintiff's counsel.  Like the rule 68
offer, the letter stated that the Defendant would pay reasonable
attorney's fees, costs, and interest with respect to the
Plaintiff's individual claim.  As with the rule 68 offer, the
tender offer was rejected by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant then moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that
through its rule 68 offer and tender offer it had voluntarily
presented the Plaintiff all available statutory damages for his
individual claims.  The Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that
unaccepted settlement offers could not render moot the claims of a
named plaintiff in a class action and that, because he had no right
to take an interlocutory appeal, his right to appeal the denial of
his motion for class certification remained a live issue.

The motion judge held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  The
Judge granted the Defendant's motion on the grounds that the
Plaintiff has been provided with complete relief as to his
individual claims by the Defendant and accordingly those claims are
moot.  The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
the matter.  The Judge also noted that the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification had earlier been denied.

In his order of dismissal, the Judge instructed the Plaintiff to
submit an affidavit and documents supporting an award of fees and
costs.  The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation for
attorney's fees and costs with respect to the Plaintiff's
individual claim.  The stipulation was incorporated into the final
judgment entered by the judge.  The Court transferred the
Defendant's appeal from the Appeals Court on its own motion.

At issue is whether (1) either of the wage laws specify a different
standard for class certification from that set forth in Mass. R.
Civ. P. 23, as amended, 471 Mass. 1491 (2015); (2) the numerosity
requirement for class certification under rule 23 is satisfied when
a plaintiff provides reasonable information to infer that there are
hundreds of employees who reported for their scheduled shifts of
three or more hours but received less than three hours of pay, but
there are a variety of potential reasons why an employee would not
receive the three hours of pay, some of which are justified and
others of which are not, and the Defendant has failed to identify
in its records why any employee received less than three hours of
pay and refused to provide in discovery the names of the employees
involved; (3) an offer of judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 68,
365 Mass. 835 (1974) or tender of an offer to the only named
Plaintiff in a putative class action can cause the Plaintiff's
claim to become moot when the Plaintiff rejects the offers and
informs the court of his intention to appeal the denial of class
certification.

Judge Kafker concludes that rule 23 provides the correct standard
for determining class certification in a claim under the wage laws.
Because he holds that the Plaintiff met his burden of
demonstrating numerosity under that rule, he reversed the denial of
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on this ground.  And
because the Plaintiff did not accept either of the Defendant's
offers and informed the court of his intention to appeal from the
denial of class certification, the Judge also holds that the
Defendant's motion to dismiss for mootness was improperly granted.
He accordingly reverses the motion judges' orders and remanded the
case for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/EdozGa from Leagle.com.

Stephen S. Churchill -- steve@fairworklaw.com -- for the
plaintiff.

Lisa Stephanian Burton -- lisa.burton@ogletree.com -- (Danielle Y.
Vanderzanden -- dani.vanderzanden@ogletree.com -- also present) for
the defendant.

The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Mark D. Stern for
Mark D. Stern P.C.

Audrey Richardson, Joseph Michalakes, & Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- for Immigrant Worker Center Collaborative &
another.

Ben Robbins & Martin J. Newhouse for New England Legal Foundation.

Kevin Costello for Center for Health Law & Policy Innovation of
Harvard Law School.


PARKING REIT: May not Answer Sipda Until Lead Plaintiff is Named
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIPDA REVOCABLE TRUST, by Trenton J. Warner, Director,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. THE PARKING REIT, INC., MICHAEL V. SHUSTEK, ROBERT J. AALBERTS,
DAVID CHAVEZ, JOHN E. DAWSON, SHAWN NELSON, NICHOLAS NILSEN and
ALLEN WOLFF, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00428-APG-NJK (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada

On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the complaint, a putative
class action arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), against the Defendants.  It is possible that additional
related actions also arising under the Exchange Act and the PSLRA
may be filed in the Court or other U.S. District Courts against the
same Defendants and asserting substantially similar allegations.
There may be a motion or stipulation to consolidate such Potential
Related Actions into a single action before the Court.

Pursuant to the PSLRA, on March 13, 2019, the Plaintiff's counsel
caused a notice of pendency to be published on Globe Newswire
announcing the filing of the Action, and further informing
potential class members that motions for appointment as the Lerad
Plaintiffs are due to be filed in connection with the Action by no
later than May 13, 2019.

On March 14, 2019, the Defendants waived service of the Sipda
Complaint, such that the time to respond to the Sipda Complaint has
begun to run.  The parties agree that in the interests of judicial
economy, conservation of time and resources, and orderly management
of the action, the Defendants should not answer or otherwise
respond to the Action until after (i) a Lead Plaintiff and a Lead
Counsel are appointed by the Court pursuant to the PSLRA, (ii) such
the Lead Plaintiff designates or serves an operative complaint, and
(iii) the Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants have conferred in good
faith concerning a schedule for the Defendants to respond to the
operative complaint and a scheduling order has been entered by the
Court.

The parties stipulated and Magistrate Judge Leen granted that the
Defendants will not be required to answer or otherwise respond to
the Action until (1) after a Lead Plaintiff and a Lead Counsel are
appointed by the Court, (2) the Lead Plaintiff serves or designates
an operative complaint, and (3) the Defendants and the Lead
Plaintiff confer regarding a schedule for the Defendants to respond
to the operative complaint and the Court enters a scheduling order
for any anticipated briefing.

Nothing in the Order will be deemed to constitute a waiver of any
rights, defenses, objections, or any other application to any court
that any Party may have with respect to the claims asserted in the
Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2UZxPlm from Leagle.com.

SIPDA Revocable Trust, by Trenton Warner, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher J. Gray -- chris@investorlawyers.net -- Law Office of
Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro hac vice, Donald J. Enright --
denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice & Martin L.
Welsh -- mwelsh@lvlaw.com -- Law Office of Hayes & Welsh.

The Parking Reit, Inc., Michael Shustek, Robert J. Aalberts, David
Chavez, John Dawson, Shawn Nelson, Nicholas Nilsen & Allen Wolff,
Defendants, represented by David L. Edelblute --
dedelblute@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer & John S. Delikanakis --
delikanakis@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP.


PENN CREDIT: Gurzi Files Suit Over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------
Angela Gurzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PENN CREDIT, CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 6:19-cv-00823 (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2019) is am action against
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

The Defendant has initiated multiple automated, "robocall"
telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an attempt to
collect a debt.

Plaintiff did not consent to receiving these telephone calls.
Plaintiff did not give her cell phone number to Defendant or any
other person as to any transaction that might have been the subject
of the calls. Plaintiff and the class have been substantially
damaged by defendant's calls, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, ANGELA GURZI, is a citizen of Florida.

PENN CREDIT, CORPORATION, is a corporation that is primarily
engaged in the business of debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Marco, Esq.
     SMITHMARCO, P.C.
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 361-1690
     Fax: (312) 602-3911
     Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com
            www.SmithMarco.com

          - and -

     Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
     BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
     155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 729-5288
     Fax: (312) 729-5289
     Email: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com
            www.BurkeLawLLC.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Pa. Cmmw. Affirms Dismissal of Thornton Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joanne Thornton, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Appellant, v. City of Philadelphia, and Sheriff
Jewell Williams and Philadelphia Sheriff's Office, Case No. 987
C.D. 2018 (Pa. Cmmw.), Judge Fizzano Cannon of the Commonwealth
Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the April 17, 2018 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing Thornton's
class action complaint.

Thornton owned property located at 1609 Christian Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and fell behind on her mortgage
payments.  The mortgage lender filed a complaint to foreclose on
the property.  Thereafter, Thornton's property was sold at a
sheriff's sale on Sept. 9, 2014 in the amount of $305,000.  

On the same day, the Sheriff issued a proposed schedule of
distribution as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
No. 3136, Pa.R.C.P. No. 3136, which governs the distribution of
proceeds from the sheriff's sale.  The proposed schedule of
distribution provided that Thornton was entitled to receive excess
proceeds in the amount of $11,968.17 and also indicated that the
distribution will be made in accordance with the above schedule
unless exceptions are filed by Sept. 19, 2014.  No exceptions were
filed to the proposed schedule of distribution.

On Nov. 29, 2014, the Sheriff purchased a title insurance policy
for $1,317.50, which insured him against any losses sustained by
reason of his distribution of the fund arising from the sale by him
of the premises to ensure that the Sheriff distributes proceeds as
described in the attached list of liens.  On Aug. 17, 2016,
Thornton submitted a DART claim6 with the Sheriff, seeking to
obtain the excess sale proceeds.  The Sheriff delivered a check to
Thornton, which she received on Nov. 22, 2016, and, included with
it, a breakdown of costs.  According to the breakdown of costs, the
Sheriff charged Thornton $1,317.50 to cover the premium on the
title insurance policy.

Subsequently, Thornton filed the five-count class action complaint
in equity giving rise to the matter, alleging that the Sheriff
imposed procedures not required by Rule 3136 on her and other
owners whose properties had been foreclosed.  Specifically,
Thornton complains that the Sheriff required her to file a DART
claim prior to distributing her excess proceeds and charged her a
premium on the title policy, but neither procedure is expressly
provided by Rule 3136.  In her request for relief, Thornton seeks:
an order certifying this action as a class action; a declaration
that the DART procedure and the imposition of a premium charge is
unconstitutional; the imposition of compensatory and punitive
damages, attorney's fees and costs; and any other relief that is
deemed appropriate.

City Appellees responded by filing four preliminary objections to
the complaint, in the nature of a demurrer, asserting that: (1)
Thornton failed to exhaust her remedies provided by Rule 3136 and
the Local Agency Law; (2) Thornton failed to allege facts to
support her claims against the Sheriff, individually, as the
Sheriff is not a legal entity separate from the City; (3) Thornton
failed to allege any facts to show that the Sheriff took any action
outside of his office to deprive Thornton of her claimed excess
proceeds to support her claim against him individually; and (4)
Thornton failed to state a claim for conversion.

The trial court, after reviewing the pleadings, sustained City
Appellees' objections and dismissed the complaint, with prejudice.
In dismissing the complaint, the trial court concluded that
Thornton failed to exhaust her statutory remedies provided by Rule
3136 and further noted that Thornton concedes that a former
property owner may appeal an adverse DART claim decision to the
Court of Common Pleas under Pennsylvania Local Agency Law, which
provides that a person may appeal a final adjudication of a City
Agency to the Court of Common Pleas.

Thornton appeals to the Court.  On appeal, Thornton contends that
the trial court erred by concluding that she had to exhaust the
remedies provided by Rule 3136 and the Local Agency Law because the
remedies provided therein are inadequate to address her claims.
The City Appellees counter that the trial court correctly concluded
that Thornton had to exhaust the remedies provided by Rule 3136 and
the Local Agency Law before bringing her class action and, in
support thereof, assert that the Court's decision in In re:
Sheriff's Excess Proceeds Litigation is dispositive.

Judge Cannon agrees that Thornton could not file a timely objection
to the proposed distribution within the Rule 3136 10-day exception
period because she was unaware of the title insurance premium
charge and had not yet filed the DART claim.  However, Thornton
fails to explain how the remedy provided by Section 752 of the
Local Agency Law is inadequate to address her claims relating to
the cost charged and procedures used by the Sheriff's Office.

Thornton also offers no explanation as to why the trial court could
not order the relief she requests as a result of a Section 752
appeal, nor does she provide the Court with analysis explaining how
a Section 752 appeal is unavailable, defective or inadequate for
her to obtain full relief on her claims.  Thornton states that an
appeal under the Local Agency Law would not effectively address the
corrective declaratory relief that she seeks, would not provide any
"expertise or guidance" to the Court, and would ultimately put her
in the "same Court."  But, as explained by the trial court,
Thornton offered her conclusion that the remedy is inadequate, and
this, without more, is not sufficient to meet her burden.

Furthermore, it is well-settled that where the Legislature has
provided a specific statutory remedy, the asserted need for a class
action will not justify a deviation from the statutory remedy.
Thornton has an adequate remedy to address her claims through
Section 752 of the Local Agency Law.  Thornton's asserted need for
a class action does not justify a deviation from that remedy.

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion or err as
a matter of law by granting City Appellees' preliminary objections
and dismissing Thornton's complaint.  Judge Cannon affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/sKOkpi from Leagle.com.

Daniel Caleb Levin , Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, Christopher G.
Hayes, Law Office of Christopher G Hayes, for Appellant, Joanne
Thornton.

Dimitrios Mavroudis, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Jennifer
MacNaughton, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Appeals Unit, for
Appellees, Jewell Williams, Philadelphia Sheriff's Office and City
of Philadelphia.


PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit in Brazil vs. Unit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in Brazil entitled, The
Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and
Philip Morris Marketing, S.A.

In a class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts
of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25,
1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all
addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. In
2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$255) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate
of 1 percent per month, as of the date of the ruling.

The court did not award actual damages, which were to be assessed
in the second phase of the case. The size of the class was not
estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals,
which annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial
court had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and
returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In
May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim.

In February 2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed
plaintiff's appeal. In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the
Superior Court of Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of
the Superior Court of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal. In March
2017, plaintiff filed an en banc appeal to the Superior Court of
Justice. In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal
to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not
have standing to bring the lawsuit.

Both appeals are still pending.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: City of Westland, Shareholder Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has
consolidated the City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System
v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., with the other
putative shareholder class action lawsuits pending in the Southern
District of New York.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, City of Westland
Police and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International
Inc., et al., was filed in September 2018, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly
on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International Inc. stock
between February 8, 2018 and April 18, 2018.  

The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers as defendants and includes allegations that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
information about PMI's business, operations, financial condition,
and prospects related to product sales, including those of PMI's
Platform 1 products. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief,
including damages.

Philip Morris said, "We believe that this lawsuit is without merit
and intend to defend it vigorously. In November 2018, the Court
consolidated this lawsuit with the other putative shareholder class
action lawsuits pending in the Southern District of New York.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Class Cert. Hearing in Ringer Suit in Sept. 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that pre-class
certification hearings in the cases, Aharon Ringer v. Philip Morris
Ltd. and Globrands Ltd., began in March 2019, and the next hearing
has been scheduled for September 2019.

An individual plaintiff filed a purported class action
certification motion, Aharon Ringer v. Philip Morris Ltd. and
Globrands Ltd., on July 18, 2017, in the Central District Court of
Israel. The company's Israeli affiliate and an Israeli importer and
distributor for other multinational tobacco companies are
defendants.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of smokers in Israel who have
purchased cigarettes imported by defendants since July 18, 2010.
Plaintiff estimates the class size to be 7,000,000 smokers.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants misled consumers by not
disclosing sufficient information about carbon monoxide, tar, and
nicotine yields of, and tobacco contained in, the imported
cigarettes.

Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including an order for
defendants to label cigarette packs in accordance with plaintiff's
demands, and damages for misleading consumers, breach of autonomy
and unjust enrichment. Pre-class certification hearings began in
March 2019, and the next hearing has been scheduled for September
2019.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Gilchrist Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Gilchrist v.
Philip Morris International Inc., et al.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Gilchrist v. Philip
Morris International Inc., et al., was filed in October 2018, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris
International Inc. stock between February 8, 2018 and April 18,
2018.

The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers as defendants and includes allegations that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
information about PMI's business, operations, financial condition,
and prospects related to product sales, including those of PMI's
Platform 1 products. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief,
including damages.

Philip Morris said, "We have not yet been served with the
complaint, but believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to
defend it vigorously."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Narrows Decision in Letourneau Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of Appeal
in Canada has issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's
findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages
awarded allocating CAD 57 million including interest (approximately
$42.7 million) to Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH).

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and
JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in
September 1998, RBH and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.  

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. The trial
court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015.

The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers
liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $98.1
million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million
(approximately $34.4 million) to RBH. The trial court estimated the
size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to
award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the
evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy.

The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded
punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive
and difficult to administer.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the total
amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million
including interest (approximately $42.7 million) to RBH.

Philip Morris said, "RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability
and damages in both Letourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect
and in contravention of applicable law on several grounds including
the following: (i) defendants had no obligation to warn class
members who knew, or should have known, of the risks of smoking;
(ii) defendants cannot be liable to class members who would have
smoked regardless of what warnings were given; and (iii) defendants
cannot be liable to all class members given the individual
differences between class members."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court of Appeals Narrows Decision in Blais Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of Appeal
in Canada has issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's
findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages
award while reducing the total amount of compensatory damages to
approximately CAD 13.5 billion including interest (approximately
$10.1 billion) due to the trial court's error in the calculation of
interest.

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian
manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald
Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued
its judgment on May 27, 2015.

The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers
liable and found that the class members' compensatory damages
totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment
interest (approximately $11.6 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately
CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately
$2.32 billion)).

In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately
$67,370) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately
$22,460) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at
99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish
security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $169.2 million) to
cover both the Letourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in
installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered
Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758
million (approximately $567.4 million) in installments through June
2017.

JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in
accordance with plaintiffs' motion. The Court of Appeal ordered
that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of
Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or upon further order
of the Court of Appeal.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the
compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total
amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion
including interest (approximately $10.1 billion) due to the trial
court's error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory
damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of
20 percent to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion, including
pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.02 billion)).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act
by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by
conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of
smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs
either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults
were a cause of the class members' injuries.

In accordance with the judgment, defendants are required to deposit
their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the
Letourneau case and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion
(approximately $823.4 million), into trust accounts within 60 days.


RBH's share of the deposit is approximately CAD 257 million
(approximately $192.4 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of
$194 million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million
net of tax, as tobacco litigation-related expense, in the first
quarter of 2019.

The charge reflects PMI's assessment of the portion of the judgment
that it believes is probable and estimable at this time and
corresponds to the trust account deposit required by the judgment.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Philip Morris International Inc., et
al., was filed in September 2018, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf
of purchasers of Philip Morris International Inc. stock between
July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018.

The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers as defendants and seeks to combine the allegations and
putative classes of the two cases discussed immediately above. The
lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including damages.

Philip Morris said, "We believe that this lawsuit is without merit
and intend to defend it vigorously."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Natan Class Action in Israel Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit in Israel
entitled, Adir Natan vs. Philip Morris Ltd.

In Israel, an individual filed a purported class action
certification motion, Adir Natan vs. Philip Morris Ltd., in June
2017 against the company's subsidiary with the Israeli District
Court of Haifa related to the marketing of the Company's Platform 1
product.

Plaintiff alleges that the company's affiliate misleads consumers
by marketing such a product as a "better alternative to smoking"
and as a reduced-risk product, while not disclosing the risks
associated with the product. Plaintiff alleges that this product is
more addictive and more dangerous than cigarettes. Plaintiff claims
that the first time he used this product, he experienced tightness
in the chest, difficulty breathing, chills, nausea and dizziness.
Plaintiff seeks damages on his behalf, and on behalf of the class
(defined as all Platform 1 consumers in Israel), for personal
injuries, emotional distress, breach of autonomy, and unjust
enrichment.

Pre-class certification hearings have been scheduled to begin in
May 2019.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Rubenstahl Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Rubenstahl v. Philip Morris International Inc., et
al., was voluntarily dismissed.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip
Morris International Inc., et al., was filed in December 2017, in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International
Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and December 20, 2017.  

The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers as defendants and includes allegations that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
information about PMI's business, operations, financial condition,
and prospects, related to alleged irregularities in clinical
studies of PMI's Platform 1 product.  The lawsuit sought various
forms of relief, including damages.

On March 4, 2019, this lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PILOT CORPORATION: Appeals Decision in Taylor Suit to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, filed
an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Arvion Taylor
v. Pilot Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02294, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.

The appellate case is styled as Arvion Taylor v. Pilot Corporation,
et al., Case No. 19-5410, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
appealed a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
captioned as Arvion Taylor v. Pilot Corporation, et al., Case No.
18-6270.

Pilot operates a large, nationwide chain of truck stops.  Some
locations house both a convenience store and a fast food
restaurant.  As a result, Pilot employs tens of thousands of
workers to man cash registers, stock shelves, and make sandwiches,
many positions are on hourly rate basis.

Plaintiff Arvion Taylor worked at a Pilot truck stop for about two
years.  She says that during such time her managers routinely
altered her time sheets to avoid paying her overtime.  According to
her, Pilot's managers rolled back workers' hours at locations
across the country as a matter of policy. She sought to recover
from Pilot for such alleged overtime violations by bringing a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee ARVION TAYLOR, on her own behalf and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Eleanor Emmons Frisch, Esq.
          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW
          3217 Hennepin Avenue, S., Suite 7
          Minneapolis, MN 55408
          Telephone: (612) 217-4876
          E-mail: eleanor@apollo-law.com
                  adam@apollo-law.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          14 N.E. First Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants PILOT CORPORATION, a Tennessee Corporation,
and PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, are represented by:

          Zachary B. Busey, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          E-mail: zbusey@bakerdonelson.com


PIONEER WELL SERVICES: Nugent Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Pioneer Well Services, LLC for an alleged violation of the overtime
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned
WILLIAM NUGENT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PIONEER WELL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01409 (S.D. Tex., April 18, 2019). Until August 2017,
Plaintiff William Nugent worked in Pioneer as a tool pusher
performing a variety of manual labor, such as operating equipment
in connection with drilling activities. Nugent regularly worked far
more than 40 hours per workweek but was not paid any overtime
compensation. Instead, Pioneer willfully misclassified Nugent and
other similarly situated workers as exempt from the FLSA. However,
Nugent's job duties, as well as similarly situated workers, do not
fit within any exemption to the FLSA's overtime requirements.
Nugent brings this suit on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, and any other relief the
court deems just and proper.

Pioneer Well Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability company
engaged in drilling services at oil and gas wells located
throughout the state of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Medearis, Esq.
     H. Dan Johnston, Esq.
     SULLINS, JOHNSTON, ROHRBACH & MAGERS
     3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2200
     Houston, TX 77027
     Telephone. (713) 521-0221
     Facsimile: (713) 521-3242
     E-mail: dmedearis@sjrm.com
             djohnston@sjrm.com


PNC BANK: Dan-Harry Appeals D.R.I. Decision to 1st Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dawari Dan-Harry filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Dan-Harry v. PNC Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:17-cv-00136-WES-PAS, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Rhode Island, Providence.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff's principal claim is that PNC Bank failed to comply with
its contractual and regulatory duty as mortgagee to hold a
face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor before foreclosing as
required by 24 C.F.R. Section 203.604(b), a regulation promulgated
by the United States Department for Housing and Urban Development
(HUD regulations).  The HUD regulations are applicable to
Plaintiff's mortgage because it is insured by the Federal Housing
Authority (FHA).  The Plaintiff also claimed that the foreclosure
was tainted both because the mortgagee lacked a power of attorney
from the note holder and because of PNC Bank's alleged deceptive
practices in violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws Section 6-13.1-2.

The appellate case is captioned as Dan-Harry v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 19-1393, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Transcript
Report/Order form was due May 6, 2019.

Plaintiff-Appellant DAWARI DAN-HARRY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, of Providence, Rhode Island, appears pro
se.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee PNC BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          Brett J. Natarelli, Esq.
          Arthur F. Radke, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          115 S LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 626-1812
          E-mail: bnatarelli@manatt.com
                  aradke@manatt.com

               - and -

          Harris K. Weiner, Esq.
          SALTER MCGOWAN SYLVIA & LEONARD, INC.
          56 Exchange Terrace
          Providence, RI 02903-0000
          Telephone: (401) 274-0300
          E-mail: hweiner@smsllaw.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Field Files Suit to Recoup Unpaid Wages, Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AARON FIELD on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00617-NJ (E.D. Wis., April 29, 2019) is a collective and
class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
("WWPCL"), by Plaintiff, for purposes of obtaining relief under the
FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid wages, including overtime compensation,
unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, declaratory and/or  injunctive relief, and/or any such other
relief the Court may deem appropriate.

Polaris Industries, Inc., is a Medina, Minnesota corporation that
manufactures and produces power-sports vehicles. Plaintiff was
employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly-paid "manufacturing
employee" working primarily at Defendant's Osceola, Wisconsin
manufacturing facility in approximately April 2016.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant operated (and continues to
operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprives current and
former non-exempt Manufacturing employees of their wages earned for
all compensable work performed each workweek, including the
requisite overtime pay premium for each hour worked over 40 hours
in a workweek.

Specifically, Defendant's unlawful policies failed to compensate
current and former non-exempt Manufacturing employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay, by: (1) failing to compensate Manufacturing employees
when compensable work commences and ceases by shaving time from
said employees' timesheets by impermissibly rounding recorded hours
of work for its own benefit (and to the detriment of said
employees), in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to
compensate Manufacturing employees for meal periods during which
they were not completely relieved of duty or free from work for at
least 30 consecutive minutes, in violation of the WWPCL, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Walcheske, Esq.
     Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
     David M. Potteiger, Esq.
     WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
     15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
     Brookfield, WI 53005
     Phone: (262) 780-1953
     Fax: (262) 565-6469
     Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
            sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
            dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


PORTARO GROUP: Griffin Stayed Pending Arbitration Ruling in Lamps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Portaro Group's Motion to Stay
the case, SATONJA GRIFFIN, et al., Plaintiff, v. PORTARO GROUP,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-2786 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Griffin was employed by Portaro Group as an Agent from
May 2017 through October 2018.  Plaintiff Minor was employed by
Portaro Group as an Agent, Team Lead, Administrative Manager, and
Sales Manager from March 2015 until April 2018.  As Agents, the
Plaintiffs were paid hourly.  They allege that throughout their
employment at Portaro Group, they were required to work a
substantial amount of unpaid time, including overtime as part of
their jobs.

Both the Plaintiffs signed an Arbitration Agreement as a condition
of their employment with Portaro Group.  In these Agreements, the
Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate any and all claims under or relating
to any and all employment compensation, employee benefits, employee
severance, or employee incentive bonus plans and arrangements.

On Dec. 3, 2018, Plaintiffs Griffin and Minor filed the instant
collective and class action against Portaro Group, alleging
violations of federal and state overtime wage laws.  They filed a
Motion for Class Certification on Jan. 25, 2019.  

On Feb. 7, 2019, Portaro Group filed the instant Motion to Stay.
The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition brief on Feb. 21, 2019.
Portaro Group filed its Reply brief on Feb. 28, 2019.

Portaro Group asks the Court to stay the case pending the Supreme
Court's ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Varela.  In Varela v.
Lamps Plus, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that an arbitration
agreement was ambiguous as to whether class-wide arbitration was
permitted, and thus would be construed against the employer to
allow class-wide arbitration.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari
to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a
state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would
authorize class arbitration based solely on general language
commonly used in arbitration agreements.  The Plaintiffs signed
arbitration agreements that were silent as to whether they
authorize class arbitrations.  Thus, Portaro Group argues that the
Supreme Court's ruling in Lamps Plus will determine whether this
case proceeds in court or through arbitration.  Accordingly,
Portaro Group asks the Court to stay the case until the Supreme
Court issues its ruling.

First, Judge Polster finds that the Plaintiffs will not suffer any
prejudice if a stay is granted.  The stay will last no longer than
a few months.  Second, Portaro Group -- and really the Plaintiffs,
too -- will be prejudiced by not knowing whether the Court or an
arbitrator should decide the issues presented in the case,
including whether class arbitration is appropriate.  The Court will
not have to expend any additional resources on the case until the
Supreme Court has provided guidance on how the case should proceed.


Accordingly, Judge Polster granted Portaro Group's Motion to Stay.
The case is stayed until the Supreme Court issues its ruling in
Lamps Plus.  Further, the statute of limitations on the Plaintiffs'
claims is tolled from today until the Court lifts its stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/3v1Ish from Leagle.com.

Satonja Griffin, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated & Bianca Minor, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, Jessica R. Doogan --
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, Rod M. Johnston -- rjohnston@sommerspc.com -- Sommers
Schwartz & Robert E. DeRose, II -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com --
Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz.

Portaro Group, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by
Mark S. Fusco -- mfusco@walterhav.com -- Walter & Haverfield, Rina
R. Russo -- rrusso@walterhav.com -- Walter & Haverfield & Sara
Ravas Cooper -- scooper@walterhav.com -- Walter & Haverfield.


PRIME LEAD: Shapiro Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Prime Lead
Solutions, LLC for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA). The case is captioned DONALD SHAPIRO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PRIME
LEAD SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21485-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2019).
Prime Lead utilizes telemarketing calls and bulk SPAM text messages
to market and advertise Prime Lead's business, including at least
one pre-recorded call and one unsolicited text message to Plaintiff
Donald Shapiro. The company has allegedly violated Sec.
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell
phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class
without their prior express written consent.

Prime Lead Solutions, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company
and citizen of the state of Florida, listing its principal address
at 975 North Miami Beach Blvd., North Miami Beach, Florida. It is a
real estate investment firm and solutions company that provides a
wide range of services to homeowners, real estate brokerages and
investors throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
     EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
     425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: 954-524-2820
     Facsimile: 954-524-2822
     E-mail: seth@epllc.com


PROTECTIVE INDUSTRIES: Arciniega Hits Missing OT Pay, Pay Slips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faustino Arciniega, as an individual, and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Protective Industries,
Inc., Caplugs, Evergreen Industries, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV08558 (Cal. Super., March 13,
2019), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal
periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and
accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of business-related expenses
resulting from unfair business practices, waiting time penalties
for unpaid wages due upon termination, including declaratory
relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys'
fees for violation of the California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code.

Arciniega worked for the Defendants as a materials handler.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Alexander Perez, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             aperez@mahoney-law.net


PURDUE PHARMA: Agrees $270MM Opioid Settlement with Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gonzales, writing for The Sideline Observer, reports that in
the last year, a slew of class action lawsuits has been filed
against prominent painkiller distributors by counties and states
stricken by the opioid crisis. These suits allege that large
pharmaceutical corporations like Purdue, Teva, Johnson & Johnson,
and Actavis, among others, knowingly flooded the market with
addictive painkillers, creating a nationwide opioid epidemic.

While most of these cases are yet to be litigated, Purdue has
already paid a hefty price, agreeing to a $270 million settlement
to the state of Oklahoma on April 5 for their role in the state's
worsening addiction and overdose rates. As devastated communities
around the country scramble to stop the bleeding, accountability
for their pain appears to finally be on the horizon.  

Far too many Americans know, opioid addiction doesn't discriminate.
Regardless of socioeconomic status, support systems, or previous
drug use, one overzealous prescription for Oxycontin after a broken
arm can be all it takes to completely consume and devastate
someone's life beyond repair. With each overdose death, families
and friends are left traumatized, wondering how a prescription for
a non-fatal injury could lead to a fatal addiction, and who's to
blame for it.

While the opioid crisis is a nuanced and complex issue, it's deeply
rooted in the pharmaceutical industry's inherent prioritization of
profit over human life. Because the system is designed to reward
companies for selling as much product as possible, many
pharmaceutical titans act opportunistically, disregarding the
dangers of aggressively distributing highly addictive painkillers.

The primary benefactor from the massive uptick in opioid
circulation has been Purdue Pharmaceuticals -- the manufacturer of
Oxycontin that's owned and operated by the multi-billion-dollar
Sackler family.

Dating back to Oxycontin's release in 1996, the Sacklers have
consistently mislead investors, doctors, and patients about the
drug's addictive properties. Despite having scientific data to
support Oxycontin's fatal side effects, members of the Sackler
family pushed tenacious marketing campaigns, advocating for its
heavy consumption.

Even after a 2007 federal court case in which the company plead
guilty to understating the addictive properties of Oxycontin,
Purdue continued the drugs mass distribution.

In promotional videos during the late 1990's and early 2000's,
Purdue continuously downplayed Oxycontin's risks, often claiming
that the drug has less than a 1% addiction rate, a statistic that
their own data disproves. In 2000, they ran a TV ad campaign where
a licensed doctor looks into the camera and says "We doctors were
wrong in thinking that opioids can't be used long term. They can
and they should be."

But given the gradual rise in opioid addiction and overdoses in the
years before this ad was released, it's unclear how they got away
with such a blatant and dangerous lie.

Beyond the Sacklers' ruthless exploitation of addiction, the family
sought to profit from addiction relief. Uncovered in court
documents from late January, Purdue had secretly launched a plan
called "Project Tango," to manufacture drugs for recovering opioid
addicts. By profiting on both the cause and treatment for
addiction, Purdue was in control of a consumer base that risked
death without their products. In emails to employees regarding the
plan, Dr. Kathe Sackler explained that she wanted the company to
become an "end-to-end pain provider," a quote almost as disgusting
as it is ironic.

Between 1996 and now, more than 400,000 American people have died
from opioid overdoses, the amount of opioids in circulation has
tripled, and the Sacklers have amassed a $14 billion fortune. With
each life lost and family ripped apart by addiction, the Sacklers'
value and Purdue's stock price increased. To put it simply,
Purdue's bottom line is reliant on the suffering of its clients.

For more than two decades, the Sacklers have weathered PR storms by
lying, cutting corners, and deflecting blame onto addicts. Every
year, tens of thousands of Americans fall victim to drug overdoses
from reckless prescriptions while massive corporations like Purdue
accrue billions in profit.

For much of the country, more than 20 years of massive opioid
circulation has done irreparable damage. The Sackler family have
enjoyed anonymity and wealth for far too long, but justice is
better served late than never. [GN]


RAG & BONE: Gabriyelian Says Website not Blind-Friendly
-------------------------------------------------------
Sedrak Gabriyelian, individually and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rag & Bone Industries,
LLC and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01820
(C.D. Cal., March 13, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such
other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act
and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Defendant offers its clothing line via its website
https://www.rag-bone.com/. Gabriyelian is legally blind and claims
that Rag & Bone's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason Christopher Martinez, Esq.
     RM LAW GROUP, LLP
     3200 E. Guasti Rd. Ste. 100
     Ontario, CA 91761-8661
     Tel: (909) 345-5645
     Fax: (866) 494-2073
     Email: ADA@rmlawgroupllp.com


RAINBOW DISPOSAL: Class of Participants Certified in Hurtado Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Josephine L. Staton grants the Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit styled Antonio Hurtado, et al. v.
Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan Committee,
et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01605-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.).

The Rule 23(b)(1) certified class is defined as:

     All persons who were vested participants in the Rainbow
     Disposal Co., Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan as of
     October 1, 2014 and the beneficiaries of any such
     participants, excluding Defendants and persons who were
     named fiduciaries of the Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Employee
     Stock Ownership Plan, who are alleged in this action to have
     engaged in prohibited transactions or breaches of corporate
     fiduciary duties, or who had decision-making or
     administrative authority relating to the administration,
     modification, funding, or interpretation of the Rainbow
     Disposal Co., Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or who had
     such authority relating to the decision to sell assets of
     the Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan
     on or about October 1, 2014.

Plaintiffs Antonio Hurtado, Christopher Ortega, Jose Quintero,
Maritza Quintero, Jorge Urquiza, and Maria Valadez are appointed as
Class Representatives.

Joseph Barton, Esq., of Block & Leviton LLP and Joseph A. Creitz,
Esq., of Creitz & Serebin LLP are appointed as Class Counsel.[CC]


ROBERT PEARCE: Fabbrocini Sues for Gender Inequality at Work
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Mina Fabbrocini, M.D., individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Robert Pearce,
M.D., individually, and Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00198, (W.D. Wisc.,
March 13, 2019), seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys' costs and fees pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Fabbrocini is an anesthesiologist employed by the University of
Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health within the
Department of Anesthesiology. She claims that women physicians are
paid less than their comparable male counterparts, denied equal
opportunity and subjected to a non-hostile work environment. Pearce
is the former Chair of the Department of Anesthesiology at the
School of Medicine and Public Health. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tamara B. Packard, Esq.
      Lester A. Pines, Esq.
      Beauregard W. Patterson, Esq.
      PINES BACH LLP
      122 West Washington Ave., Suite 900
      Madison, WI 53703
      Tel: (608) 251-0101
      Fax: (608) 251-2883
      Email: lpines@pinesbach.com
             tpackard@pinesbach.com
             bpatterson@pinesbach.com


SANTANDER: Lawyers Prepare Class Action Over Film Tax Schemes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ravender Sembhy, writing for Press Association, reports that
Santander has become the latest bank to be dragged into a
multimillion-pound lawsuit over alleged tax avoidance schemes used
by wealthy celebrities.

The Spanish bank is to be sued over the Imagine film-financing
scheme that was part-funded by Alliance & Leicester, which it
acquired at the height of the financial crisis.

It is claimed investors in Imagine were invited to participate in
the exploitation of Hollywood feature films from studios such as
Disney in return for making one-off investments, over 80% of which
were funded by bank loans.

Along with similar schemes, it promised to enable clients to seek
tax breaks. However, HMRC has since written to investors to state
that it considers them to be a form of tax avoidance and they are
now deemed illegal.

This means investors are now potentially liable for penalties well
in excess of the value of their original investments, which are now
worthless.

Barclays also faces legal action over a similar scheme known as
Timeless Releasing.

On April 8, lawyers acting for clients of Newport Tax Management,
which is managing a class action, said they are preparing letters
before action to be sent to Santander and Barclays over the
schemes.

Nick Wood of Newport Tax Management estimates that across the
financial sector as a whole, compensation claims could total as
much as £11 billion.

He added: "These are the latest examples of failed tax deferral
schemes that were miss-sold on an epic scale. We are working with
our partners at CFS Capital to secure significant funding in order
to sue a number of other high street banks that provided financing
and gave credibility to these types of investment.

"The majority of people who invested were not the super-rich, but
hardworking individuals who believed it would entitle them to
legitimate tax breaks. Instead, they lost all their cash and now
face huge penalties from HMRC."

Imagine and Timeless Releasing were both promoted by Future Films
Ltd, the defunct company that was also behind a film-financing
scheme known as Eclipse.

Solicitors at Edwin Coe have already sent letters before action to
HSBC, Barclays, and Bank of Ireland as part of a GBP180 million
lawsuit over Eclipse.

David Greene of law firm Edwin Coe, which is preparing the fresh
letters, said: "The manner in which these schemes were marketed was
shameful. In essence a wholly fictional creation was proffered as
reality.

"Investors were told to expect income from film rights to pay off
loans taken from banks and to provide further income. There were in
fact no real loans and no income.

"Many hundreds of investors were affected with losses of GBP100
million."

A Santander spokesman said: "We have yet to receive notice from
Edwin Coe of any action relating to Alliance & Leicester but we
will review the claim when we have further details." [GN]


SHARP HEALTHCARE: Faces Snodgrass Suit over Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Sharp Healthcare
and Sharp Grossmont Hospital for several causes including invasion
of privacy, violations of Sections 632 and 637.2 of the California
Penal Code, gross negligence, and failure to warn, train and
educate. The case is captioned AMBER SNODGRASS, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHARP
HEALTHCARE, and SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00702-L-LL (S.D. Cal., April 17, 2019). Defendants grossly
breached their patients' right to privacy by installing hidden
cameras in all three operating rooms of the Women's Health Center
at Sharp Grossmont Hospital. Allegedly, Defendants did not obtain
Plaintiff's or Class members' consent to record their Caesarean
births, birth complications, dilatation and curettage to resolve
miscarriages, hysterectomies, sterilizations, or other medical
procedures. In a further breach of trust and duty, after the
recordings were completed, Sharp stored the files on computers
accessible by multiple users, some without password protection.
Sharp also allegedly destroyed some recordings, but has not
confirmed when or how it deleted the files, whether anyone took the
files, or whether the files are nonetheless recoverable. Plaintiff
and the Class members have suffered a gross invasion of privacy,
which has caused severe emotional distress, pain and suffering.
Accordingly, they seek to recover damages for pain and suffering,
and compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs from the Defendants.

Sharp HealthCare is a corporation organized under the laws of
California and maintains its principal place of business at 8695
Spectrum Center Boulevard, San Diego, CA. Sharp Grossmont Hospital
is an affiliate of Sharp HealthCare. The hospital is located at 555
Grossmont Center Drive, La Mesa, CA. It is considered as the
largest health care facility in East San Diego County with a
service area covering 750 square miles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

     Kevin K. Green, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     533 F Street, Suite 207
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 929-3340
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: keving@hbsslaw.com

            - and -  

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


SHAW'S SUPERMARKETS: Faces Suit over Pay Insurance Policy Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW S. GARLICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAW'S SUPERMARKETS, INC.; NEW
ALBERTSONS, INC.; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; STANDARD INSURANCE
CO.; and CONDUENT HUMAN RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 19-1017C (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., April 1, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay life insurance
policy.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants worked
together to deprive the Plaintiff of the death benefit on an
insurance policy he had taken out on his wife's live, a policy that
he had paid into each and every week of his 30 year career working
with the Defendants. The Defendants failed to disclose all
information about the Optional Spouse Life Insurance Policy so as
to inform them that they would not pay a claim for a spouse if the
spouse also worked for an affiliate of the Defendants.

Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. owns and operates supermarkets. It offers
bakery and deli products; cakes; pharmacy and wellness products;
gifts and floral products; seafood and butcher products; grocery
products; beers and liquors; health and beauty products; wine; and
salad bars. The company sells its products through store and
online. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. was formerly known as BPM Stores
and changed its name to Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. in January 1979.
The company was founded in 1860 and is based in West Bridgewater,
Massachusetts. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of New Albertsons L.P.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented:

          Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, P.C.
          34 Salem Street, Suite 202
          Reading, MA 01867
          Telephone: (617) 600-7520
          E-mail: Joshua@GarickLaw.com


SK FOODS: Ingomar Packing Junked as Defendant in Bruce Foods Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SK FOODS, L.P., INGOMAR
PACKING COMPANY, LOS GATOS TOMATO PRODUCTS, SCOTT SALYER, STUART
WOOLF and GREG PRUETT, Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-00027 KJM EFB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division,
dismissed with prejudice Defendants Ingomar Packing, Gregory
Pruett, Los Gatos and Stuart Woolf.

On March 12, 2009, an Order was entered consolidating the class
action cases Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB), Diversified Foods and Seasoning, Inc. v. SK
Foods, et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-03074 KJM-EFB), Bruce Foods
Corporation v. SK Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:09-cv-00027-KJM-EFB), and Cliffstar Corporation v. SK Foods, LP,
et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-00442-KJM-EFB) for pretrial purposes.

On March 20, 2009, Hausfeld LLP and Quinn Emanuel were appointed as
the Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Consolidated Cases and a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on Nov. 9, 2009.

On Aug 18, 2014, the Court issued an Amended Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement between
Class Counsel and Defendants Ingomar Packing Company, Gregory
Pruett, Los Gatos Tomato Products, and Stuart Woolf in the lead
case Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB) resolving all claims in the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint as to the Settled Defendants.

All funds from the Class settlements with the Settled Defendants
have been paid and distributed to the Class, and the only funds
left to be distributed to the Class are those pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Plan in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy action filed by
Defendant SK Foods in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of California (Case No. 09-29162-D-11).

On Aug. 7, 2017, the Court issued a Final Judgment Order in lead
case Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB) dismissing on the merits and with prejudice
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint against the Settled
Defendants.

The parties stipulated, and Judge Mueller granted, that the Settled
Defendants be dismissed with prejudice from the action.  The action
remains active and pending as to Defendants SK Foods, L.P. and
Scott Salyer.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2J4u3FY from Leagle.com.

Bruce Foods Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer --
asteyer@steyerlaw.com -- Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Arthur N. Bailey -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld
LLP, Bruce L. Simon --bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon, Warshaw
& Penny, Christopher L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld Llp, Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios
Pacher & Silva, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason,
LLP, Francis O. Scarpulla, Law Offices Of Francis O. Scarpulla,
Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Hilary
K. Ratway, Hausfeld, LLP, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Michael P. Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld Llp &
Roger M. Schrimp, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva.

Cliffstar Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce L. Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny.

SK Foods LP, Defendant, represented by Paul Robert Griffin, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Robert Bernard Pringle -- rpringle@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn & Jonathan E. Swartz, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Intramark USA, Inc. & Randall Lee Rahal, Defendants, represented by
David Warren Dratman, Attorney at Law.

Bradley D. Sharp, Chapter 11 Trustee for SK Foods, LP, Trustee,
represented by Gregory C. Nuti -- gnuti@nutihart.com -- Nuti Hart
LLP.

Bruce Foods Corporation, Neutral, represented by Roger M. Schrimp,
Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva.

Morning Star Packing Company, Neutral, represented by Alex James
Kachmar, Jr., Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin.

L'Ottavo Ristorante, et al., Neutral, represented by Jeff S.
Westerman, Westerman Law Corp.


SK FOODS: Ingomar Packing Junked as Defendant in Cliffstar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLIFFSTAR CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SK FOODS, L.P., INGOMAR
PACKING COMPANY, LOS GATOS TOMATO PRODUCTS, SCOTT SALYER, STUART
WOOLF and GREG PRUETT, Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-00442 KJM EFB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division,
dismissed with prejudice Defendants Ingomar Packing, Gregory
Pruett, Los Gatos and Stuart Woolf.

On March 12, 2009, an Order was entered consolidating the class
action cases Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB), Diversified Foods and Seasoning, Inc. v. SK
Foods, et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-03074 KJM-EFB), Bruce Foods
Corporation v. SK Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:09-cv-00027-KJM-EFB), and Cliffstar Corporation v. SK Foods, LP,
et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-00442-KJM-EFB) for pretrial purposes.

On March 20, 2009, Hausfeld LLP and Quinn Emanuel were appointed as
the Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Consolidated Cases and a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on Nov. 9, 2009.

On Aug 18, 2014, the Court issued an Amended Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement between
Class Counsel and Defendants Ingomar Packing Company, Gregory
Pruett, Los Gatos Tomato Products, and Stuart Woolf in the lead
case Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB) resolving all claims in the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint as to the Settled Defendants.

All funds from the Class settlements with the Settled Defendants
have been paid and distributed to the Class, and the only funds
left to be distributed to the Class are those pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Plan in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy action filed by
Defendant SK Foods in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of California (Case No. 09-29162-D-11).

On Aug. 7, 2017, the Court issued a Final Judgment Order in lead
case Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB) dismissing on the merits and with prejudice
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint against the Settled
Defendants.

The parties stipulated, and Judge Mueller granted, that the Settled
Defendants be dismissed with prejudice from the action.  The action
remains active and pending as to Defendants SK Foods, L.P. and
Scott Salyer.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2vIFxWA from Leagle.com.

Cliffstar Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce L. Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny.

Bradley D. Sharp, Chapter 11 Trustee for SK Foods, LP, Trustee,
represented by Gregory C. Nuti -- gnuti@nutihart.com -- Nuti Hart
LLP.

SK Foods LP, Defendant, represented by Paul Robert Griffin, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Robert Bernard Pringle -- rpringle@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn & Jonathan E. Swartz, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Intramark USA, Inc. & Randall Lee Rahal, Defendants, represented by
David Warren Dratman, Attorney at Law.

Bruce Foods Corporation, Neutral, represented by Roger M. Schrimp,
Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva.

diversified foods, Neutral, represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc.

L'Ottavo Ristorante, et al., Neutral, represented by Jeff S.
Westerman, Westerman Law Corp.


SK FOODS: Ingomar, et al., Junked as Defendants in Diversified Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIVERSIFIED FOODS AND SEASONING, INC., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SK FOODS,
L.P., INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY, LOS GATOS TOMATO PRODUCTS, SCOTT
SALYER, STUART WOOLF and GREG PRUETT, Defendants, Case No.
08-cv-03074 KJM EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Sacramento Division, dismissed with prejudice Defendants Ingomar
Packing, Gregory Pruett, Los Gatos and Stuart Woolf.

On March 12, 2009, an Order was entered consolidating the class
action cases Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB), Diversified Foods and Seasoning, Inc. v. SK
Foods, et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-03074 KJM-EFB), Bruce Foods
Corporation v. SK Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:09-cv-00027-KJM-EFB), and Cliffstar Corporation v. SK Foods, LP,
et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-00442-KJM-EFB) for pretrial purposes.

On March 20, 2009, Hausfeld LLP and Quinn Emanuel were appointed as
the Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Consolidated Cases and a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on Nov. 9, 2009.

On Aug 18, 2014, the Court issued an Amended Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement between
Class Counsel and Defendants Ingomar Packing Company, Gregory
Pruett, Los Gatos Tomato Products, and Stuart Woolf in the lead
case Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB) resolving all claims in the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint as to the Settled Defendants.

All funds from the Class settlements with the Settled Defendants
have been paid and distributed to the Class, and the only funds
left to be distributed to the Class are those pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Plan in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy action filed by
Defendant SK Foods in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of California (Case No. 09-29162-D-11).

On Aug. 7, 2017, the Court issued a Final Judgment Order in lead
case Four in One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB) dismissing on the merits and with prejudice
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint against the Settled
Defendants.

The parties stipulated, and Judge Mueller granted, that the Settled
Defendants be dismissed with prejudice from the action.  The action
remains active and pending as to Defendants SK Foods, L.P. and
Scott Salyer.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2H3y0s1 from Leagle.com.

Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew Kingsdale, Arthur N. Bailey -- abailey@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Austin B. Cohen -- acohen@lfsblaw.com -- Levin
Fishbein Sedran and Berman, pro hac vice, Brendan P. Glackin --
bglackin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Eric B. Fastiff -- efastiff@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein, Howard J. Sedran -- hsedran@lfsblaw.com -- Levin
Fishbein Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Robert
A. Kutcher -- rkutcher@nolacounsel.com -- Chopin Wagar Richard &
Kutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Charles C. Sweedler --
csweedler@gelaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman, pro hac
vice & Kenneth C. Mennemeier, Jr., Mennemeier Glassman LLP.

Cliffstar Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce L. Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny.

SK Foods LP, Defendant, represented by Paul Robert Griffin, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Robert Bernard Pringle -- rpringle@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn & Jonathan E. Swartz, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Intramark USA, Inc. & Randall Lee Rahal, Defendants, represented by
David Warren Dratman, Attorney at Law.

Bradley D. Sharp, Chapter 11 Trustee for SK Foods, LP, Trustee,
represented by Gregory C. Nuti -- gnuti@nutihart.com -- Nuti Hart
LLP.

Bruce Foods Corporation, Neutral, represented by Roger M. Schrimp,
Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva.

Morning Star Packing Company, Neutral, represented by Alex James
Kachmar, Jr., Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin.

L'Ottavo Ristorante, et al., Neutral, represented by Jeff S.
Westerman, Westerman Law Corp.


SPERIAN ENERGY: Pa. Court Dismisses Corsale Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN CORSALE and DAVID TAYLOR, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPERIAN
ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-996 (W.D. Pa.),
Judge Marilyn J. Horan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant 's Motion to
Dismiss.

The named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, bring a putative class action against the
Defendant under Pennsylvania common law and Pennsylvania's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL").  The
Complaint was first filed by Plaintiff Corsale on May 24, 2018 in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

The Plaintiffs bring three claims under Pennsylvania law,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, in order
to redress the Defendant's deceptive pricing practices that have
caused thousands of Pennsylvania consumers to pay more for their
electricity than they should otherwise have paid.  In Count I, the
Plaintiffs assert a claim for breach of contract, and in the
alternative, in Count III, they assert a claim for unjust
enrichment.  In Count II, they allege a claim under Pennsylvania's
UTPCPL.

The Defendant moved to transfer venue to the Western District of
Pennsylvania, which the court granted on July 19, 2018.

On Aug. 21, 2018, Plaintiff Corsale, now joined by Plaintiff
Taylor, filed an Amended Complaint with leave of court.  On Sept.
25, 2018, the Defendant moved to dismiss all claims for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The parties
subsequently filed briefs and notice of supplemental authority for
the Court's consideration.  In addition to its brief in support of
the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant submitted additional evidence
for the Court's consideration.

On March 15, 2019, the Court notified the parties that, in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), it would be treating the
Motion to Dismiss, at least in part, as a Motion for Summary
Judgment.  As explained again by the Court at the April 2, 2019
oral argument, the only matter that would be considered in the
nature of summary judgment would be the materials that the
Defendant attached to its Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs were
given notice of the Court's potential consideration of these
materials in order to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond
and argue.

After careful consideration, however, the Court finds it does not
need the extra-pleading materials to decide this Motion, as these
materials ultimately do not alter the Court's analysis of the
present issues.

Judge Horan finds that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is
based, in large part, on specific language in the Initial Terms and
Conditions that is not present in the Updated Terms and Conditions.
The Plaintiffs' claim does not plead the breach of any specific
duty imposed by the governing contract, the Updated Terms and
Conditions.  Moreover, even if the Plaintiffs' allegations in Count
I did address the relevant language of the Updated Terms and
Conditions, the claim still fails.  Therefore, the breach of
contract claim in Count I of the Amended Complaint must be
dismissed.

In addition to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim in Count I fails because the claim is based on the
Initial Terms and Conditions, Count I also fails to the extent that
the claim can be analyzed in light of the governing contractual
language found in the Updated Terms and Conditions.  Furthermore,
in light of the express language of the price term in the Updated
Terms and Conditions and the facts alleged by Plaintiffs regarding
Defendant Sperian Energy's performance of its contracts, the Judge
concludes that any attempt by the Plaintiffs to reframe the Amended
Complaint to sufficiently plead a breach of contract claim would be
futile.  Therefore, Count I of the Amended Complaint will be
dismissed, without leave to amend, because amendment of this claim
would be futile.

Because she finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a breach of
contract, the Defendant's arguments regarding the voluntary payment
doctrine and the applicability of the UCC's pre-suit notice
requirement are not reached.

Next, the Defendant moves to dismiss Count III of the Amended
Complaint, in which the Plaintiffs assert a claim of unjust
enrichment, arguing that the existence of a valid and enforceable
contract precludes such a claim.  The parties agree that express,
written contracts controlled their relationships, and the Judge
finds that the existence of enforceable written contracts is beyond
dispute.  Therefore, Count III of the Amended Complaint is
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

Lastly, the Defendant moves to dismiss Count II of the Amended
Complaint, in which the Plaintiffs bring a claim under the
catch-all provision of the UTPCPL.  The Judge finds that the facts
alleged in the Amended Complaint do not support the Plaintiffs'
allegation that the Defendant failed to inform customers that its
rates are substantially higher.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim under the UTPCPL on this basis.  The Defendant's
charging of the monthly fee also does not constitute deceptive
conduct.  The Judge gives the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
Amended Complaint should they decide to continue to pursue this
UTPCPL claim.  

Having decided that the Plaintiffs' UTPCPL claim fails on all
grounds, the Jduge does not need to address the applicability of
the parol evidence rule, the gist of the action doctrine, nor the
economic loss doctrine at this time.  In conclusion, Count II of
the Amended Complaint, in which the Plaintiffs alleged violations
of the UTPCPL, will be dismissed.  The Plaintiffs will be given
leave to amend in accordance with the opinion.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Horan granted the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.  She finds that amendment as to Counts I and III would
be futile.  The Plaintiffs are afforded leave to amend Count II, on
April 24, 2019, in accordance with the foregoing opinion.  Absent
an amendment, the case will be terminated.  If the Plaintiffs amend
their complaint, Defendant Sperian Energy will file an answer on
May 8, 2019.

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

JOHN CORSALE & DAVID TAYLOR, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jamie E.
Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac vice, Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac vice,
Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran &
Berman, Daniel C. Levin -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran &
Berman, pro hac vice, Kevin Laukaitis -- klaukaitis@kohnswift.com
-- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard J. Burke,
Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac vice & Zachary A. Jacobs, Quantum Legal
LLC, pro hac vice.

SPERIAN ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Charles A.
Fitzpatrick, IV -- fitzpatrick-c@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP,
Huaou Yan -- hyan@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Jason A.
Snyderman -- snyderman@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP &
Christopher A. Lewis -- lewis@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, pro
hac vice.


ST. PAUL FIRE: 11th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, G.M. SIGN, INC., as Judgment Creditor; and assignee of
MFG.com, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. ST. PAUL FIRE &
MARINE INS. CO., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee, Case No.
17-14247 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting St. Paul
summary judgment.

G.M. Sign brought a putative class action against MFG in Illinois
state court, alleging among other things violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint alleged that MFG
had on several occasions sent fax advertisements to G.M. Sign and
the other members of the putative class, without the recipients'
permission.

After MFG notified St. Paul of the lawsuit and demanded a defense
and coverage, St. Paul notified MFG that it was denying MFG's
demands.  MFG removed G.M. Sign's action to federal court and moved
to dismiss.  After the district court denied the motion, the
parties jointly stipulated to dismissal without prejudice of all
the claims, which the court accepted.  G.M. Sign then brought
another action in state court, asserting the same claims against
MFG on behalf of the same class of Plaintiffs.

MFG and G.M. Sign eventually settled, agreeing that MFG was liable
to the class in the total amount of $22,536,500.  As part of the
settlement agreement, MFG agreed to pay $460,000 of the amount.
The parties further stipulated that the remaining amount MFG owed
the class could only be satisfied from the Policies.  MFG assigned
to the class its claims against and rights to payment from St. Paul
under the Policies.

G.M. Sign, on behalf of itself and the other class members, brought
the action in Georgia state court, requesting a declaratory
judgment that the Policies covered the settled claims.  St. Paul
removed the case to federal district court and filed a counterclaim
requesting a declaratory judgment that it owed no coverage.  The
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the district
court concluded that MFG had failed to notify St. Paul of G.M.
Sign's second suit, which was a condition precedent for coverage.
The district court thus granted St. Paul's summary judgment motion,
denied G.M. Sign's motion, and entered judgment in St. Paul's
favor.  G.M. Sign appealed, and the Court vacated the district
court's order granting St. Paul summary judgment on the notice
issue and remanded for further consideration.

On remand, the parties again filed cross-motions for summary
judgment.  The district court again granted summary judgment to St.
Paul, this time on the ground that the Policies did not cover the
property damage MFG caused.  Specifically, the district court ruled
that under Mindis Metals, the intentional delivery of fax
advertisements does not qualify as an 'accident' under Georgia law,
even if the sender erroneously believed that it had consent to send
the fax advertisements.

G.M. Sign again appeals.  G.M. Sign argues that St. Paul is
required to indemnify MFG for its TCPA liability because the term
"accident" under Georgia law covers injuries resulting from
negligence.  According to G.M. Sign, MFG sent the faxes negligently
because it never intended to send any faxes without the recipients'
consent.  Thus, according to G.M. Sign, MFG had no intent to injure
the recipients.

St. Paul responds that no accident occurred when MFG sent the faxes
because by sending the faxes, MFG intended to cause the relevant
property damage: the use of the recipients' fax machines and the
depletion of their ink and paper.  According to St. Paul, MFG's
mistaken belief that the recipients agreed to receive the faxes is
immaterial.

The Eleventh Circuit concludes that the Policies provided MFG with
no coverage because no accident occurred when MFG intentionally
sent faxes with the mistaken belief that the recipients had
consented to receive them.  It further concludes that St. Paul is
not estopped from denying coverage.  The Court therefore affirmed
the district court's grant of summary judgment to St. Paul.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eHRhQ5 from Leagle.com.

Anthony C. Lake -- aclake@gwllawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

David M. Atkinson -- David.Atkinson@swiftcurrie.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Jonathan J. Kandel, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jeffrey A. Berman -- jberman@seyfarth.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

David Max Oppenheim, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Phillip Andrew Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Charles E. Spevacek -- cspevacek@meagher.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Amy Jane Woodworth -- awoodworth@meagher.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


STATE FARM: Arnold Seeks Certification of Policyholders Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ANNIE ARNOLD, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:17-cv-00148-TFM-C (S.D. Ala.), seeks
certification of a class, defined as:

     All State Farm policyholders who made: (1) a structural
     damage claim for property located in the State of Alabama;
     and (2) which resulted in an actual cash value payment
     during the class period from which "non-material
     depreciation" was withheld from the policyholder; or which
     should have resulted in an actual cash value payment but for
     the withholding of "non-material depreciation" causing the
     loss to drop below the applicable deductible.

     The class period only includes policyholders with claims
     having a date of loss on or after March 8, 2011 (six years
     before the filing of the complaint) but before August 3,
     2017 (before State Farm changed its Alabama statewide
     practices in response to the Order of this Court).

     The class excludes all claims arising under policies with
     State Farm coverage form WH-2101 or endorsement form
     FE-3650, or any other policy form expressly permitting the
     "depreciation" of "labor" within the text of the policy
     form.

     The class also excludes any claims in which the actual cash
     value payments exhausted the applicable limits of insurance.

The Class would also exclude members of the judiciary and their
staff to whom this action is assigned; State Farm and its
affiliates, officers and directors; and Plaintiff's counsel.

Ms. Arnold further asks that she be appointed as class
representative and that Bobby Abney, Tina Daniel, and Kenneth
Scruggs be appointed as additional class representatives, and that
her counsel be appointed as counsel for the class.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Austin Mehr, Esq.
          Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
          E-mail: amehr@austinmehr.com
                  pgf@austinmehr.com
                  edp@austinmehr.com

               - and -

          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 7th Street E., Suite 800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6510
          E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com

               - and -

          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          Gilbert McWherter Scott, Esq.
          BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          David Martin, Esq.
          THE MARTIN LAW GROUP, LLC
          2117 Jack Warner Parkway, Suite 1
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 343-1771
          Facsimile: (205) 343-1781
          E-mail: david@erisacase.com


STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Rent Increase
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Geiger, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports that
in the fall of 2013, when apartment 1E at 171 W. 81st St. was
vacated, the owner did what landlords have done with tens of
thousands of other rent-regulated units in the city. Stellar
Management claimed it had spent a bundle on renovations, which --
combined with the 20% rent increase permitted when a tenant leaves
-- allowed it to push the $647 regulated monthly rent above $2,500
-- to the threshold at the time to make it a market-rate unit. A
few months later Stellar rented the Upper West Side pad to massage
therapist Jonathan Saballos for $3,300 a month.

It seemed like a routine example of the steady exodus of such units
from the city's pool of about 900,000 rent-regulated apartments.
Except that in January, after Saballos lost his roommate and then
his job and was taken to housing court by Stellar for failing to
pay rent, a judge ruled that apartment 1E shouldn't have been
deregulated at all.

In the written ruling, Judge Sabrina Kraus of Manhattan Civil Court
determined that Stellar had inflated its renovation costs of more
than $71,600 by almost $45,000 -- including $3,500 for a bathtub
that was never installed -- and had overcharged Saballos at least
$41,193. The judge ordered the owner of the 20-unit building to pay
triple damages -- $123,578 -- and place the apartment back into
regulation with a monthly rent of $1,524.

Housing advocates say such episodes are common in a system where
loopholes and lax oversight practically invite owners to pull units
out of regulation. A review of several lawsuits against Stellar
reveals how expensive or dubious renovations enabled the owner to
convert rents to market-rate.

"The city or the state doesn't even know how many illegally
deregulated apartments are out there, because they're only really
examined when cases like this come up in court," said Mark Hess, an
attorney who represented Saballos in the eviction proceeding.
"Stellar thought it was going to be business as usual and they were
going to throw my client out of his apartment. Instead we called
them out."

Stellar is appealing and will not comment on ongoing litigation,
said a spokeswoman for the company, which owns roughly 100
buildings, most of which are in the city.

Allegations of abuses by landlords are not new. In one high-profile
case last year, the Associated Press reported, the family business
of White House adviser Jared Kushner failed to disclose
rent-regulated units in buildings it owned, then began disruptive
renovations that some of those tenants saw as an effort to push
them out. Kushner Cos. blamed a third-party document preparer for
the erroneous filing and said its renovations were proper, but the
episode led to a fine, a lawsuit by tenants and City Council
legislation to deter harassment by construction.

Less focus, however, has been given to the method used in Saballos'
case, which may have allowed landlords to improperly deregulate
tens of thousands of city apartments -- and even more of them
legally.

Big fix
After neglect brought affordable-housing stock in some
neighborhoods to the point of dilapidation, laws were passed in the
1970s permitting owners to raise regulated rents if they spent
money on upgrades. A vacant, rent-stabilized apartment's monthly
rent can be lifted by one-sixtieth of the cost of renovating the
unit, or one-fortieth in buildings with 35 or fewer units. Such
upgrades are called individual apartment improvements, or IAIs.

According to the state's Division of Homes and Community Renewal
(HCR), the agency responsible for monitoring rent-regulated
apartments, some 167,000 units have been pulled out of regulation
in the past 26 years using IAIs, often in combination with
buildingwide major capital improvements and other programs that
allow for rent increases. That's roughly 50,000 units more than
Mayor Bill de Blasio's signature affordable-housing initiative aims
to create over 12 years. But many housing advocates and lawyers
suspect the volume of apartments deregulated via IAIs is far
greater than state records show.

"Many people believe HCR's numbers are low," said Ronald Languedoc,
a tenant attorney at Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue &
Joseph. "They're based on the number of exit registrations, but not
all landlords file those registrations, because the law doesn't
penalize them if they don't. In my practice, I would have to say
that only about half the apartments taken out of regulation have
histories that show they exited."

IAIs have been a potent tool for landlords because they allow as
much spending as is necessary to boost an apartment's rent past a
threshold known as high-rent deregulation, which permits a unit to
become market-rate. That tipping point was $2,000 before 2011, when
state lawmakers raised it to $2,500 and then $2,700. Built-in
annual escalations have since lifted it to $2,775.

But housing experts say deep flaws in the IAI program allow it to
be not only the most common way to bring a unit out of regulation
but also the most prone to manipulation. One big reason is that a
landlord need not prove up front that the work it claims to have
done was actually completed. Instead, the state relies on tenants
to sniff out impropriety and initiate a challenge. That rarely
happens, because a renter who leases a newly market-rate unit may
not be aware it was previously rent-stabilized let alone whether
any supposed upgrades match up with what the owner reported to the
state.

"A landlord can replace kitchen cabinets, a stove and fridge for a
few thousand dollars or $20,000 and who's to know?" said James
Fishman, a tenant attorney. "Landlords have long known they can do
whatever they want, and even if they get caught one out of 50
times, it's still worth it. You have to be nuts not to be breaking
the law, because the chances of getting caught are so slim."

A tenant who suspects fraud faces a tedious, unfamiliar and
potentially costly process to expose it. The first step is
inquiring whether an apartment has a regulated rental history with
HCR and whether rent increases might be justified by
renovations—a difficult evaluation for any tenant. Pressing a
case can involve legal fees of thousands of dollars and may sully a
renter's relationship with the landlord, who might choose not to
renew their lease. Tenants also fear ending up on a blacklist of
problematic renters.

"Putting the burden on the tenant isn't a fair or effective way of
having a watchdog for the system," said Oksana Mironova, a housing
policy analyst with the Community Service Society of New York. "I
do this work every single day, and there are times where this
system doesn't make any sense even to me."

Privacy rules further hinder policing of the system. Per state law,
HCR can release an apartment's rental history only to its current
occupant. The lack of a public database of regulated units and
their rents means there is usually no way to know when, where or
how an apartment was pulled from regulation. Tenant advocates say
the lack of transparency prevents them from proactively ferreting
out abuses and helping more renters.

Landlords say that's how it should be.

"This is proprietary information, and owners don't necessarily want
the whole world knowing their business—and that's
understandable," said Mitch Posilkin, an attorney with the Rent
Stabilization Association, a trade group that represents landlords,
including many who own regulated units. "We don't believe the
system is fundamentally flawed. We lived through a time that
predates many people's memory, in the 1970s and '80s, when there
was widespread abandonment of housing. You need to encourage owners
to invest."

Posilkin said scaling back or doing away with IAIs would sour
landlords on investing in rent-regulated buildings. The result, he
said, would be that thousands of properties could slip into the
kind of disrepair common in the city's public housing system, which
is tens of billions of dollars behind on maintenance and capital
investment.

Installing a new toilet in one apartment at 1795 Riverside Drive
cost $4,000, according to the landlord. New doorknobs were $1,350.

Doorknobs and countertops
The opacity of individual apartment improvements, however, makes
them ripe for exploitation. Tenants, advocates and attorneys say it
can take a court battle to unearth the details of a purported
improvement. In the case of Stellar, which owns 12,000 units, some
of that information has come to light during recent litigation and
appears to demonstrate how ordinary upgrades can boost rents by
extraordinary amounts.

At 1795 Riverside Drive, a 70-unit building in Upper Manhattan,
Stellar reported renovating apartments 1A in 2012 and 5H in 2013,
raising their rents to $2,700 a month each, according to listings.
Mayra Mahmood, who lived in 1A, and P.G. Lyne of 5H sued Stellar in
2017 as part of an ongoing class-action suit by 59 renters in 18
Stellar-owned buildings.

According to invoices provided by Stellar during the discovery
process of the suit, in apartment 1A the landlord paid $2,200 to
install a kitchen sink, $4,500 for a granite countertop, $1,500 for
a toilet and $500 for doorknobs. In 5H the kitchen sink cost
$2,500; the granite countertop, $7,500; the toilet, $4,000; and the
doorknobs, $1,350.

In total, the invoices show Stellar spent $52,000 upgrading
apartment 1A and $98,500 on 5H, vastly more than its own architects
estimated the renovations would cost, according to filings with the
city's Department of Buildings. WAW Architects pegged the work in
1A at about $35,000, and Atelier New York Architecture estimated
that upgrading 5H together with similar work in another apartment
in the building would cost $78,870.

Saballos' unit on West 81st Street, where Stellar reported
installing a bathtub for $3,500, only had a shower, said his
attorney, who visited the apartment. Stellar's architect for that
job estimated in a DoB filing that the work would cost $26,000, a
bit more than a third of what Stellar said it ultimately spent.

Some tenant advocates say IAI regulations are counterproductive to
the goal of preserving affordable housing because they allow even
legitimate renovations to raise rents far more than necessary to
ensure units are adequately maintained.

"I always had to meet a target renovation budget, and so, yeah, I
would get the better stove and things like that to add to the cost
of the work," a landlord who used to own a portfolio of
rent-regulated apartment buildings in the city told Crain's. "Our
business plan was, spend enough to achieve fair-market rents. But
we were following the rules, and the tenants got a better unit."

Inside jobs
Another point of contention is that in several Stellar apartments
where IAIs have been challenged, the contractors who did the work
appear to be owned by the company.

CMS Renovation, listed in records as based in Fresh Meadows,
Queens, was used to renovate apartment 5H at 1795 Riverside Drive
and 1E at 171 W. 81st St. In the lawsuit involving the latter unit,
the judge noted in her ruling that a Stellar employee acknowledged
the contractor was owned and controlled by Stellar.

"These landlords are inflating costs and creating sham contracting
companies so they can do it," said Hess, who is a supervising
attorney for tenants' rights at the New York Legal Assistance
Group. "When the contractor and the landlord [are] essentially one
entity, they're not driving down costs. The incentive is to inflate
the costs."

Apartment 1A at 1795 Riverside Drive was renovated by Wurtsboro
Construction Corp. of Wurtsboro, New York, about 70 miles north of
the city. The firm has done several jobs for Stellar, according to
filings with the Department of Buildings. A search of agency
records for Wurtsboro found only work it did for Stellar. Wurtsboro
Construction's director is Selim Srdanovic, according to his
LinkedIn page. He shares a surname with Smajlje Srdanovic, a
director of facilities management at Stellar. A call to Smajlje was
referred to Amanda Gluck, the daughter of Stellar co-founder Larry
Gluck, but she did not return calls or emails.

Another contractor used by the company for several renovations, MJA
Services, has the same Manhattan address as Stellar's corporate
offices: 156 Williams St. And, according to Department of Buildings
filings, it is controlled by Stacey Ruggeri, a vice president of
construction and development at Stellar. City records show Smajlje
Srdanovic also has applied for permits on behalf of MJA. Stellar
declined to comment.

Other landlords accused in separate litigations of exploiting IAIs
also appear to use in-house contractors. Large residential landlord
A&E Real Estate, for instance, seems to exclusively use JW
Development Group Holdings for renovation work, according to a
Crain's review of Department of Buildings permit applications. City
records show JW Development is controlled by Mark Ericksen, whose
LinkedIn profile identifies him as a senior construction project
manager at A&E Real Estate. The firm is being sued by tenants in
another class-action case that accuses it of faking or inflating
IAIs to push up regulated rents.

According to an HCR audit, the company inflated IAI costs in six of
eight apartments reviewed. In one case, the landlord could
substantiate only $24,710 of an improvement on which it had claimed
to have spent $37,053. It was forced to reimburse the tenant
$21,522. A spokeswoman for A&E declined to comment.

Using an in-house contractor is not illegal, but the practice
affords landlords an opportunity to report higher renovation costs
than were actually incurred. For example, an in-house contractor
could use salaried employees on a project but claim labor costs in
excess of what they were actually paid. HCR warns against this,
stating on its website that if renovations are found or alleged to
have been performed by an employee of the landlord or managing
agent, "the owner will be required to prove that the employee was
paid for the work separately from and in addition to his/her normal
salary."

But it's unclear how often or thoroughly authorities check if a
contractor is in-house, and perhaps harder if the company's name
changes, as it did twice in the case of the apartment Saballos
rented.

HCR maintains that it has stepped up enforcement. In 2012 the
agency created a tenant-protection unit that has completed more
than 4,000 targeted reviews, helped tenants recover $4.8 million in
overcharges and led to 76,000 illegally deregulated apartments
being returned to rent regulation. But those cases did not involve
renovations, a spokesman for the agency said; landlords had simply
deregulated the units without justification.

To better regulate IAIs, HCR says it has increased audits and now
does an average of 600 annually. On the list of those audits were
units held by A&E Real Estate, Stellar and Bronstein Properties,
another large landlord that has been accused in a class-action suit
of using IAIs to improperly increase regulated rents. The state
agency said 74 audits found 10 instances of Bronstein inflating IAI
costs that raised rents by as much as $162.28 a month more than
permitted. It's unclear if those increases were sufficient to push
any units out of regulation, but the class-action suit against the
company claims it said it spent six figures on renovations to
convert other units in its portfolio to market rents. Crain's
wasn't able to find a single permit filed with the Department of
Buildings for a renovation in the Bronstein apartments cited in
that lawsuit.

"If the landlord really did $100,000 improvements on some of these
apartments, there should be permits," said Lucas Ferrara, who is
representing the tenants with his colleague Roger Sachar. "Does
that mean the work wasn't really done? Now we're going to find
out."

Ferrara and Sachar also are pressing the class-action cases against
Stellar and A&E Real Estate.

HCR audits of seven Stellar units found no wrongdoing by the
company, but watchdogs say the breadth of those examinations was
insufficient.

"Instead of auditing a few apartments, why not audit the whole
portfolio of a landlord like Stellar?" asked Aaron Carr, the
founder and executive director of Housing Rights Initiative, a
nonprofit. "If the government investigates a bank, do they confine
it to just one cubicle? HCR treats these cases of fraud as if it's
not a systemic problem. But it is." [GN]


SUPREME SERVICES: Davila Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO DAVILA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC. (D/B/A
SUPREME SERVICES OF NEW YORK), FRANCESCO BRUSCO, GARY DOE, and
KAREEN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03808 (S.D. N.Y., April
29, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of
the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The complaint relates that Plaintiff Davila worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage
and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. In
addition, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Davila appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Plaintiff Davila was employed by Defendants at Supreme Services of
New York from approximately February 11, 2016 until on or about
February 8, 2019.

Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company, located
at 268 West 91st Street, New York, New York 10024 under the name
"Supreme Services of New York".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNERGIES3 TEC: Jackson Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Clinton Jackson and James
Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Synergies3 TEC Services, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00178-RLW (E.D.
Mo.), moves for conditional certification and court-authorized
notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Clinton Jackson and James Thomas request a notice period of 60 days
to allow sufficient time for contact by U.S. mail, e-mail, and text
message.  They also ask the Court to order the Defendant to provide
them a list of all putative collective members and their contact
information, both of which are necessary to disseminate
court-authorized notice.

The lawsuit is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") overtime case.
The named Plaintiffs seek to pursue the claims on behalf of a
collective action consisting of individuals that are or were
employed by Synergies3 TEC Services, LLC as installation
technicians.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as installation technicians
in Missouri and Illinois.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Jay Eidsness, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  jeidness@nka.com

               - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Eli Karsh, Esq.
          LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
          230 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862-3333
          Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
          E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Westhoff, Esq.
          SEDEY HARPER WESTHOFF, P.C.
          2711 Clifton Ave.
          St. Louis, MO 63139
          Telephone: (314) 773-3566
          Facsimile: (314) 773-3615
          E-mail: bwesthoff@sedeyharper.com


T BAR MANAGEMENT: Aguilar Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Aguilar and Albert Moreno, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. T BAR MANAGEMENT EAST,
LLC d/b/a TBAR STEAK & LOUNGE and ANGELO TONY FORTUNA,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03867 (S.D. N.Y., April
30, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated food service workers and kitchen employees to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

Throughout Plaintiffs' employment, they always worked over 40 hours
per week. However, they were not paid overtime in violation of the
FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants also did not provide Plaintiffs with
an Annual Wage Notice in accordance with the NYLL, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs was employed by Defendants and worked at TBar as
bussers.

TBar is a domestic limited liability company in the restaurant
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
     BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
     New York, NY

          - and -

     Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
     New York, NY


TALKING RAIN: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Augustine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA AUGUSTINE and TERRI GARFINKEL individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TALKING
RAIN BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-2576-CAB-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted in part and denied in part Talking Rain's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

On Nov. 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a consumer class action
complaint against Talking Rain, seeking damages and equitable
relief for the alleged false and misleading labeling on the
Defendant's Sparkling Ice products.  he complaint alleges
violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL") Business &
Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.; the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act  ("CLRA"); fraud
by omission; negligent misrepresentation; breach of express
warranties; and breach of implied warranties.

On Jan. 28, 201, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC.  The FAC asserts
FAL, UCL, CLRA, fraud by omission; negligent misrepresentation;
breach of express warranties; and breach of implied warranties
against the Defendant for misrepresenting and misleading consumers
regarding the Sparkling Ice beverage.  The FAC alleges that the
Products are labeled as if they are flavored only with natural
ingredients when they in fact contain an undisclosed artificial
flavor, d-1-malic acid, in violation of state and federal law,
namely 21 C.F.R. Section 101.22 which regulates the labelling of
food containing artificial ingredients, and C.F.R. Section 102.5
which provides food labels accurately identify and describe the
basic nature of the food, its characterizing properties or
ingredients.

Further, the Plaintiffs contend they relied on the labeling and
believed they were buying all-natural products with natural
flavoring ingredients, instead of the artificially flavored
sparkling water purchased.  Both the Plaintiffs have purchased the
beverages several times, most recently in 2018, with Augustine
purchasing the Products at a Ralph's grocery store in San Diego,
California and Garfinkel buying the Products at a Ralph's in West
Hollywood, California.  Had the Products not claimed to be
naturally flavored, the Plaintiffs allege that they would have not
purchased them, or alternatively, had they known they were not free
of artificial flavoring, they would not have purchased them at the
premium price.

Further, the FAC alleges that the Defendant's labeling and
advertising scheme is deliberately intended to give consumers the
false impression that the Products are composed only of natural
flavors and contain no artificial colors or flavors.  In order to
perpetuate the alleged misrepresentation, the label prominently
displays a "naturally flavored designation," and omits the legally
required "artificially flavored" disclosure, yet an ingredient
identified on the back "malic acid," is an artificial flavor.
Subsequent to purchasing the Products, the Plaintiffs have tested
the Products and confirmed the presence of artificial d-1 malic
acid.

Te Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class consisting of
all U.S citizens who purchased the Products in their respective
state of citizenship on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and until the Class
is certified, for personal use and not for resale, excluding the
Defendant and the Defendant's officers, directors, employees,
agents and affiliates, and the Court and its staff.

The Plaintiffs also seek to represent a California Class defined as
all California citizens who made retail purchases of the Products
in California on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and until the Class is
certified, for personal use and not for resale, excluding the
Defendant and for the Defendant's officers, directors, employees,
agents and affiliates, and the Court and its staff.

The FAC's Prayer for Relief includes, among other things, an order
enjoining the Defendant's deceptive and unfair practice, requiring
it to "conduct corrective advertising," restitution, disgorgement
and an award of actual and punitive damages.

On Febr. 11, 2018, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
FAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule
12(b)(6).  The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, and
the Defendant filed its reply.  Along with their motions, both
parties filed requests for Judicial Notice.

The Defendant moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs claims on the
grounds that federal regulations expressly preempt the Plaintiffs'
claims. Defendant also seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In addition, the Defendant moves
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' nationwide class claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

Judge Bencivengo granted in part and denied in part Talking Rain's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC.  She (i) denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the California Class claims; (ii)
granted with leave to amend the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express
warranties and breach of implied warranties Nationwide Class
claims; and (iii) dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
claims brought on behalf of a nationwide class.

Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) the FAC adequately
alleges that the Products are not what they purport to be and that
a reasonable consumer will be deceived by such statements; (ii) the
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Defendant had knowledge
that the Products contained artificial flavors while representing
that they were all natural; (iii) the Plaintiffs relied on the
misrepresentation to their detriment; (iv) the Plaintiffs have pled
the elements of their breach of express warranty claim; and (v) the
Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claim is based on alleged
affirmative representations made by Defendant on the labeling of
the beverage.

The Plaintiffs have up to an including May 3, 2019, to file a
second amended complaint addressing the issues related to the
claims being brought on behalf of the nationwide class.  If the
Plaintiffs intend to file a second amended complaint that re-assert
these claims, the Plaintiffs will file a notice with the Court
stating that intention on or before April 19, 2019.  If the
Plaintiffs do not file a notice with the Court by April 19, 2019,
the Defendant will file its answer to the FAC within the limits
established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ui9Yjf from Leagle.com.

Jessica Augustine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and the general public & Terri Garfinkel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Houchin --
mike@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron &
Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Office of Ronald
Marron.

Talking Rain Beverage Company, Inc., a Washington corporation,
Defendant, represented by Michelle C. Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com
-- Cooley LLP & Darcie Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward
Kronish.


TEREX CORP: July 29 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Terex Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 32 PENSION
FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated

Plaintiff,

vs.

TEREX CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 3:09-cv-02083-RNC

(Consolidated)
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED TEREX CORPORATION
("TEREX") COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 20, 2008 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
FEBRUARY 11, 2009

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Court") and
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that (i) the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been
preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of a class of
all Persons who purchased or acquired the publicly-traded common
stock of Terex from February 20, 2008 through and including
February 11, 2009, and who were allegedly damaged thereby, except
for certain Persons excluded from the Settlement Class as defined
in the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice"), which is available as described below; and
(ii) Plaintiffs in the Litigation have reached an agreement to
settle the Litigation for an aggregated settlement payment of $10
million in cash (the "Settlement"). If the Settlement is approved
it will resolve all claims in the Litigation. Any capitalized terms
used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Settlement
Agreement dated March 27, 2019 (the "Stipulation"), and the
Notice.

A hearing will be held on July 29, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Robert N. Chatigny, at the United States Courthouse, 450
Main Street, North Courtroom, Hartford, Connecticut for the purpose
of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims
in the Litigation for the sum of $10,000,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the
Settlement; (3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation; (4) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (5) the reasonableness of the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred
in connection with this Litigation together with the interest
earned thereon (which may include payments to the Plaintiffs
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in
connection with their representation of the Settlement Class).

If you purchased or acquired Terex common stock during the period
between February 20, 2008 and February 11, 2009, inclusive, your
rights may be affected by the settlement of this Litigation. If you
have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies
(as well as a copy of the Stipulation) by writing to Terex
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
P.O. Box 404119, Louisville, KY 40233-4119, or by downloading this
information at www.TerexSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a
Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must either submit a Proof of Claim
online at www.TerexSecuritiesSettlement.com by August 13, 2019, or
by mail postmarked no later than August 13, 2019, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked by July 3, 2019, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.
All Members of the Settlement Class who do not timely and validly
request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement must be filed with the Clerk of the
Court and also mailed or delivered such that it is received by each
of the following no later than July 3, 2019:

Court:

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
450 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants

Israel David
Michael A. Kleinman
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS,
SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004


TEXAS: Court Denies Lumsden's Bids to Certify Class and for TRO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Orlando L. Garcia denied the Plaintiffs' Motions to
certify class and for Temporary Restraining Order in the lawsuit
titled RAYMOND LUMSDEN, ET AL. v. T.D.C.J. DIRECTOR LORIE DAVIS, ET
AL., Case No. 5:19-cv-00025-OLG-ESC (W.D. Tex.).

The lawsuit is a Civil Rights complaint filed jointly by the six
Plaintiffs complaining of the conditions of their custody at the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice Connally Unit.

The Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied because this
case does not involve complex or novel legal or factual issues,
Judge Garcia opines.  Judge Garcia notes that the Plaintiffs failed
to present exceptional circumstances warranting appointed counsel.
Judge Garcia adds that the pro se Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate
they would or could fairly and adequately represent the interests
of the purported class of prisoners at the TDCJ Connally Unit as
required for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Garcia also denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order.  Judge Garcia explains that injunctive relief is
available only under extraordinary circumstances where a party is
threatened with injury without a sufficient legal remedy.  Judge
Garcia opines that the Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO is conclusory and
fails to present material facts demonstrating a substantial
likelihood of prevailing on the merits, a substantial threat of
irreparable harm, or the injunction will not disserve the public
interest.

Furthermore, the Motions are denied because they are signed by only
one of the six joint Plaintiffs, according to the Order.  These
Motions are signed by Plaintiff Lumsden, however, Plaintiff Lumsden
is not an attorney and may not represent or act on behalf of the
other plaintiffs.

The case is referred back to U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S.
Chestney for further pretrial proceedings.[CC]


TEZOS: Judge Taps Runner-Up as Lead Plaintiff in ICO Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that with the lead
plaintiff in the proposed securities class action against the
organizers of the Tezos initial coin offering asking to step aside,
the San Francisco federal judge overseeing the case has tapped the
runner-up in the earlier competition for the lead spot to replace
him.

Initially lead plaintiff Arman Anvari, an attorney who previously
practiced at Latham & Watkins, Baker McKenzie, and Perkins Coie,
asked to bow out of the case earlier this year. The move came after
defense lawyers at Cooley and Baker Marquart identified pseudonyms
they believe Anvari adopted on social media sites which used
anti-Semitic slurs in reference to Arthur and Kathleen Breitman.
The Breitmans are the husband-and-wife team behind Tezos, the
digital currency platform that raised $232 million in
cryptocurrency for an ICO that became bogged down in technical
delays, sparking a string of class action lawsuits.

Anvari's lawyers at HGT Law and LTL Attorneys had asked to
substitute a new lead plaintiff, Artiom Frunze, who claimed even
more losses than the $264,007.50 worth of ether cryptocurrency
Anvari allegedly had tied up in the Tezos ICO.

But on April 8, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, who is
overseeing the Tezos securities litigation, found that Frunze first
applied for lead plaintiff outside the 60-day notice period
outlined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which
regulates securities cases in the federal courts.

Seeborg instead named Trigon Trading Pty. Ltd., which had the
second-highest alleged losses among the initial batch of
candidates, as lead plaintiff. The judge, however, allowed HGT
Law's Hung Ta, one of Anvari's lawyers, to remain as co-lead
counsel in the case alongside Trigon's lawyers at Block & Leviton,
noting that the current lead counsel had already litigated the case
past a defense motion to dismiss. Seeborg wrote April 8 that "in
light of Anvari's counsels' extensive work and knowledge of the
case, the class would benefit from their continued prosecution of
this case."

The judge, also on April 8, denied a defense proposal to re-open
the PSLRA notice process and denied a pending class certification
motion in the case, but granted leave to amend.

Neither Ta nor lawyers at Block Leviton immediately responded to
messages seeking comment on April 8.

Tezos' backers were hit with class action lawsuits starting in
November 2017 alleging that the blockbuster ICO, where investors
prepaid for digital tokens that were expected to trade on the Tezos
blockchain, violated U.S. securities laws and misled investors.
Seeborg allowed the claims against the Breitmans and Dynamic Ledger
Solutions, the blockchain company they co-founded, to move past a
motion to dismiss in August 2018. The Tezos token, XTZ, launched
the month after Seeborg's ruling. [GN]


TICKETMASTER: "Scalpergate" Class Action Heads to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
TicketNews reports that a federal judge in California ruled in
favor of Ticketmaster's request that a class action lawsuit brought
in the state over the company's relationship with ticket brokers be
moved to arbitration, per the fine print in the terms and
conditions fans must accept while buying on its system.

The decision by U.S. District Court judge Vince Chhabria affirmed
Ticketmaster's claim that the fine print means primary plaintiff
Allen Lee and others seeking remedy in the wake of the CBC's
blockbuster reporting in the summer of 2018 must work for remedy
behind the opaque curtain of arbitration.

In the lawsuit, Lee's lawyers had hoped to persuade the judge that
time limits on ticket purchases (complete with a countdown clock
showing how little time a consumer has before losing the tickets in
their cart) pressured buyers into purchasing without reading the
terms they were accepting. But Chhabria disagreed with that,
effectively ending the lawsuit.

The news was a positive counterpoint for the Live Nation-owned
ticketing giant, which faces a EUR5 million (approx. $6.5 million)
class action lawsuit in the UK over a major data breach last year.

Lee's lawsuit was one of several that tried to hold the company to
account in the wake of joint reports from the Toronto Star and CBC
last summer that outlined Ticketmaster's pro-broker programs. The
reports alleged that Ticketmaster works closely with ticket brokers
who use their "Trade Desk" system to manage inventory. While
undercover at the Ticket Summit trade show, a CBC News reporter
recorded a Ticketmaster Resale employee discussing how the
secondary operation turns a blind eye to scalpers who use fake
identities and various Ticketmaster accounts to buy tickets on the
primary market.

A lawsuit filed with similar causes of action in Canada over the
Trade Desk system and other alleged consumer abuses by Ticketmaster
remains ongoing. [GN]


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Bartel Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dustin Bartel filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Dustin Bartel v. Tokyo Electric Power Company, et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00537-JLS-MSB, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 26,
2019, District Judge Janis L. Sammartino (1) granted Defendant
General Electric's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiffs'
Complaint as to the claims against GE; and (2) granted Defendant
Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and
dismisses the Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice as to the
claims against TEPCO.  The Court dismissed the complaint against
TEPCO without prejudice so that the Plaintiffs may file their
claims in the proper forum.

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck Japan, giving
rise to tsunami waves more than 40 feet high that struck Japan's
Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant ("FNPP").  The plant's
radioactive core melted down, causing severe damage to the plant
and releasing radiation as a result.  The Plaintiffs, who are
members of the U.S. Navy crew of the U.S.S. RONALD REAGAN, crews of
other vessels participating in the Reagan Strike Force, land-based
service personnel, and, in some cases, their dependents, were
deployed to Japan as a part of a mission known as "Operation
Tomodachi."  The Plaintiffs allege that the FNPP released
radioisotopes and exposed them to injurious levels of ionizing
radiation during the mission.  The release of radiation and
subsequent injuries resulted from "negligently designed and
maintained" Boiling Water Reactors at the FNPP.

The Plaintiffs assert both individual and class action claims.  The
causes of action include negligence, strict products liability,
strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, res ipsa loquitur,
negligence per se, loss of consortium, and survival and wrongful
death.  The Plaintiffs make these claims against TEPCO, as the
owner and operator of the FNPP, and against GE, as the designer of
the Boiling Water Reactors within the FNPP.

The appellate case is captioned as Dustin Bartel v. Tokyo Electric
Power Company, et al., Case No. 19-55442, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 17, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 17, 2019;

   -- Appellant Dustin Bartel's opening brief is due on July 25,
      2019;

   -- Appellees General Electric Company and Tokyo Electric Power
      Company, Inc.'s answering brief is due on August 26, 2019;

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

Plaintiff-Appellant DUSTIN BARTEL, On Behalf Of Themself And Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
          Charles Bonner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BONNER & BONNER
          475 Gate Five Road
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 331-3070
          Facsimile: (415) 331-2738
          E-mail: cabral@bonnerlaw.com
                  cbonner799@aol.com

               - and -

          Catharine Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS KIRBY, LLP
          445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 305
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (919) 780-5400
          E-mail: cedwards@edwardskirby.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Garner, Esq.
          GARNER LAW
          P.O. Box 2063
          Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
          Telephone: (760) 558-9267
          Facsimile: (760) 918-1984
          E-mail: pcg@garnerlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC., is
represented by:

          Hailyn Jennifer Chen, Esq.
          Daniel Paul Collins, Esq.
          Gregory Paul Stone, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9548
          E-mail: Hailyn.Chen@mto.com
                  Daniel.Collins@mto.com
                  Gregory.Stone@mto.com

               - and -

          Bryan H. Heckenlively , Esq.
          Kyle W. Mach, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512-4015
          E-mail: Bryan.Heckenlively@mto.com
                  Kyle.Mach@mto.com

Defendant-Appellee GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY is represented by:

          John D. Lombardo, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000
          E-mail: john.lombardo@arnoldporter.com

               - and -

          Sally Pei, Esq.
          David Weiner, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-6581
          E-mail: sally.pei@arnoldporter.com
                  david.weiner@arnoldporter.com


TRIPLE S: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Martinez FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRIPLE S
PROPERTIES, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-03195-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.), Judge
Roseann A. Letchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, an owner of residential
rental properties, failed to give them certain disclosures after it
took adverse action against them based on consumer reports in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  Specifically,
the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant took adverse actions based
on their consumer reports but never gave them the required
"post-adverse-action" disclosures.  They claim they were harmed
without these notices because they lost the opportunity to respond.
The Defendant admits it did not have a practice of sending out
adverse-action notices prior to receiving notice of the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the class of all persons residing in
Missouri who, within the five years preceding the filing of the
petition who (a) submitted a lease application to the Defendant,
and (b) the Defendant obtained a consumer credit report, and (c)
the Defendant took adverse action as to their lease application
based upon the contents of their consumer credit report, and (d)
who did not receive any FCRA adverse action notice from the
Defendant.

Judge Letchmark denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  She concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
carry their burden as to ascertainability, numerosity, injunctive
relief, predominance, and superiority.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2V6Yn4l from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Martinez, Elizabeth Bolden & Jesus Rios, Jr., Plaintiffs,
represented by Craig R. Heidemann -- craig@dhhlawfirm.com --
Douglas, Haun & Heidemann, Nathan Duncan -- nathan@dhhlawfirm.com
-- Douglas, Haun & Heidemann & Nickolas W. Allen --
nick@dhhlawfirm.com -- Douglas, Haun & Heidemann.

Triple S Properties, Defendant, represented by Brett W. Roubal --
broubal@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner Millsap, PC, Rachel A.
Riso -- rriso@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner Millsap, PC &
Patrick R. Baird -- pbaird@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner
Millsap, PC.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 5,550 Aussie Taxi Drivers Sign On for Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SBS News reports that more than 5,500 entities affected across
Australia have signed on to a class action against ride-share giant
Uber.

Thousands of taxi drivers, licence plate owners and operators have
signed up to a class action against ride-share giant Uber.

More than 5500 entities affected across Australia have signed on to
the suit, according to Maurice Blackburn lawyers.

Senior associate Elizabeth O'Shea, Esq. said she had spoken to
people who had bought a plate thinking it was a sound financial
investment for their future, as well as drivers and operators.

"They've been devastated in this," Ms O'Shea said.

Some people had lost their retirement savings, gone bankrupt or had
seen the value of businesses and licence plates drop dramatically.

The suit will claim Uber operated without complying with relevant
legislation, as drivers lacked appropriate accreditation and
weren't driving licensed vehicles.

"Some operators and drivers are looking at the prospect of working
into their 70s to make up for their loss," Ms O'Shea said.

"It's a real injustice."

The deadline for people wanting to join the class action has been
extended until April 29.

The case against Uber is set to be filed in the Victorian Supreme
Court later this year.

Uber has been contacted for comment. [GN]


ULTIMATE WELLNESS: Faces Braunshtein Labor Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Ultimate Wellness Providers for its failure to pay all overtime
wages, failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures,
and for engaging in unfair competition practices that violate the
California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned
PAVEL JOSEPH BRAUNSHTEIN, as an individual, on behalf of himself,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ULTIMATE WELLNESS
PROVIDERS, a business entity form unknown,; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13528 (Cal. Super., Cty. of Los Angeles,
April 18, 2019). Plaintiff Pavel Joseph Braunshtein also alleges
that the Defendants have violated several California Labor Code
provisions for minimum wage, meal period, rest period, and wage
statement. The Defendants have intentionally misclassified
phlebotomy technicians, including Plaintiff Braunshtein and other
individuals, as independent contractors, as opposed to employees.

Ultimate Wellness Providers provides mobile phlebotomy services,
including but not limited to drawing and processing blood samples.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Matlock Stayed Pending Issuance of New FCC Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California continued to stay the case, JACK
MATLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-02206-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.), pending the
FCC's issuance of new guidelines.

On Oct. 22, 2013, Plaintiff Matlock filed the present putative
class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the TCPA when it
initiated calls to his cell phone without his consent.  While the
Defendant apparently had the consent of the prior subscriber to the
Plaintiff's phone number, that subscriber had, unbeknownst to the
Defendant, subsequently switched carriers and his phone number was
reassigned to the Plaintiff.  The Defendant thereafter placed calls
to the original number to remind the subscriber to get his flu
shot.

The Plaintiff now claims that, by reaching him instead, the
Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A), which makes it
unlawful for any person to make any call (other than a call made
for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of
the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice" to, among other things,
cellular telephones.  The dispute in the case thus turns, in large
part, on whether the "prior express consent of the called party"
refers to the party the caller intended to reach or the actual
recipient of the call.

The Defendant filed a petition for an expedited declaratory ruling
with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") seeking an
opinion as to the meaning of that phrase as well as what
constitutes "prior express consent" in this particular context.  It
also asked the FCC to confirm that there is a good faith exception
to liability under the TCPA for situations such as this one, when a
call is purportedly placed for informational, as opposed to
telemarketing, purposes.  

Given the pendency of the agency proceedings, the Defendant
initially sought to stay the instant litigation under the primary
jurisdiction doctrine until the FCC proceedings are resolved.
Because a decision from the FCC was expected shortly, because
judicial economy weighs against issuing a decision that may be
undermined by an anticipated ruling of the regulatory body, because
the violation alleged in the case is not ongoing, and because the
case was in the early stages of litigation, the Court stayed these
proceedings by Memorandum and Order filed March 20, 2014, pending a
decision from the FCC on the Plaintiff's petition.

On July 10, 2015, the FCC released an omnibus Declaratory Ruling
and Order that addressed the TCPA-related petitions pending before
it, including the petition filed by the Defendant.  The Order
addressed a number of issues, including the meaning of the term
"called party" under the statute as it relates to telephone numbers
that originally belonged to individuals who gave consent to receive
calls and were later reassigned to other subscribers.  In that
instance, the FCC concluded that the TCPA requires the consent not
of the intended recipient of a call, but of the current subscriber
(or non-subscriber customary user of the phone).  The FCC
nonetheless created a "one-call" safe harbor in which a caller
without knowledge of reassignment could make a single call without
risking liability.

The FCC's ruling was appealed the same day its Order was released,
and the Court's stay was continued pending that ruling.
Ultimately, on March 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit "set aside" the
FCC's entire treatment of reassigned numbers, including its
interpretation of both "called party" and its one-call safe harbor.
  While the Court did not question the FCC's refusal to impose
strict liability for calls placed to reassigned numbers, it
nonetheless concluded that the safe harbor -- which granted only a
single call free of liability -- did not make sense in light of the
FCC's incorporation of reasonable reliance considerations.  It
accordingly held the adoption of the one-call safe harbor to be
arbitrary and capricious, and set aside the FCC's "treatment of
reassigned numbers as a whole," including its interpretation of
"called party."

In the wake of D.C. Circuit's directive in ACA, the FCC quickly
moved to reconsider its definitions of both "called party" and
"prior express consent."  As the Defendant advised the Court it is
July 27, 2018, brief in support of a continued stay, two ongoing
proceedings initiated by the FCC in March and May of 2018 seek to
revisit these questions.

Given the fact that the case revolves around the legality of calls
placed to a number where the original holder gave consent but the
subsequent transferee did not, the forthcoming new guidelines from
the FCC may well be determinative for the outcome of the
litigation.

Given the high number of both reassigned numbers and TCPA lawsuits,
Judge England holds that it is equally important that these matters
be treated uniformly, and the FCC is the best party to do that in
the first instance.  Moreover, because waiting for the FCC's ruling
may dispense with all or part of the issues confronted with the
case, a continued stay would appear to promote economy and
efficiency for both the parties and the Court.  While the Court is
mindful that more than five years has passed since the instant
matter was initiated, as the foregoing summary of what has
transpired in the meantime makes clear, the process has been a
continuing one with further clarity expected soon.  

Consequently, for all these reasons, the Judge believes that a
continued stay pending the FCC's issuance of new guidelines remains
appropriate.  The parties are directed to notify the Court within
30 days following a further decision from the FCC, and will in any
event issue a joint status report as to the status of these
proceedings not later than six months after the date the Order is
electronically filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2H1guUc from Leagle.com.

Jack Matlock, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Branden Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde and Swigart, Matthew M. Loker,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C. & Seyed Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com --
Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Andy Humphrey, Plaintiff, represented by Arturo Esteban Matthews,
Jr. -- aem@matthewsfirm.net -- Matthews Law Firm, Inc. & Mark T.
Lavery, Hyslip & Taylor LLC LPA, pro hac vice.

United Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Mitchell E. Zamoff -- mezamoff@umn.edu -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro
hac vice, Adam K. Levin -- adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice, David William Skaar --
david.skaar@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Kathryn
Linde Marshall -- kathryn.ali@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US
LLP.


UNITED STATES STEEL: Sold Shares at Artificially Inflated Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROY CETLIN, Individually, AS ASSIGNEE OF MAUD CETLIN AND CASSANDRA
CETLIN, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CEROY INC., ON BEHALF OF
2230439 ONTARIO LTD., and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, MARIO
LONGHI, DAVID B. BURRITT, AND DAN LESNAK, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00469-CB (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2019) is an action pursuant
to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder on behalf of Plaintiffs and all persons other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired United States Steel
Corporation securities between January 27, 2016 and April 25, 2017,
inclusive.

After several unprofitable years, in 2014, Defendant Mario Longhi
hired his long Time trusted advisor, McKinsey & Company, to
implement a purported "transformational process" designed to make
the Company profitable again. This process was referred to as the
"Carnegie Way," named after U.S. Steel co-founder Andrew Carnegie.
The Carnegie Way purportedly consisted of three elements: (1)
Employee Engagement, which was intended to get personnel interested
in and engaged with the Carnegie Way program; (2) Reliability
Centered Maintenance ("RCM"), which was purportedly focused on
making proactive improvements to U.S. Steel's manufacturing
operations and facilities; and (3) Operational Excellence, which
was related to process improvements that could save the Company
money (e.g., cutting costs).

According to confidential witnesses, the Carnegie Way was a sham.
Although the Carnegie Way purportedly consisted of three elements,
it was widely known throughout the Company that the only element
actually implemented was Operational Excellence which, according to
Plaintiffs' confidential sources, was "all about cost cutting at
the expense of operations." Indeed, the Defendants severely
curtailed the maintenance initiative because that would cost money.
According to confidential sources, U.S. Steel adopted a motto of
"don't buy, get by" in which plant managers were only allowed to
purchase parts when absolutely necessary and were required to
"jury-rig" machines to keep them operating, rather than making the
necessary repairs. Thus, U.S. Steel employees characterized the
Reliability and Employee Engagement elements as "a joke" and "a
load of crap" because the Company was not committed to them, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Roy Cetlin purchased U.S. Steel securities during the
Class Period at artificially inflated prices, and has been damaged
thereby.

U.S. Steel is an integrated steel producer of flat-rolled and
tubular products headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with
major production operations in North America and Europe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent Coppola, Esq.
     513 Court Place
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219

          - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Nancy A Kulesa, Esq.
     Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
     Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com


UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Trump Travel Ban Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Farnoush Amiri, writing for NBC News, reports that Najib Adi has
been having trouble sleeping.

Adi, who immigrated to the United States in 2002 and is a U.S.
citizen, is worried about his mother, Mona Nasri, 72, who is
desperate to flee her home in Damascus and join him in the U.S.

The Syrian capital has seen bombings and chemical attacks since the
country's deadly civil war began in 2012. After nearby explosions,
the exterior of Nasri's home is crumbling, while electricity,
drinking water and propane are in short supply. She suffers from
anxiety and arthritis, but it's hard to get treatment because many
doctors have fled.

"Damascus is hell on earth," said Adi, 46, who owns a dental
practice in Virginia. "I need to get my mother out of there."

With Adi's help, Nasri petitioned for a U.S. visa. But first she
needs a waiver, because Syria is one of the countries targeted by
President Donald Trump's travel ban, the others being Libya, Iran,
Somalia, Yemen and North Korea, plus some people associated with
the government in Venezuela.

Najib Adi and Mona Nasri, parting ways at Queen Alia International
Airport in Amman, Jordan.Courtesy of Najib Adi
Nasri has heard nothing since she requested the waiver more than 15
months ago and is losing hope of ever making it to the U.S.

The mother and son are among thousands of people who have been kept
apart from relatives in the U.S. since Trump introduced the travel
ban days after his inauguration, initially targeting only
Muslim-majority countries.

Out of nearly 38,000 visa applications from the targeted countries
that the State Department reviewed in the first 11 months the ban
was in effect, only 6 percent received a waiver, according to Sen.
Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a critic of the ban, who released the
figures to NBC News on Thursday after receiving them from the
agency.

The State Department has not said how many people, like Nasri, are
still waiting for a decision. The announcement of the travel ban in
January 2017 drew thousands of protesters to the country's
airports, and the subsequent legal fight over the ban drew
headlines, but the fallout from the policy has largely unfolded out
of view.

Those who have been denied or are still waiting include husbands
seeking to join their wives in the U.S., fathers who have missed
their children's births, and international students who have been
accepted to American universities. Some say they feel forgotten
amid the focus on the immigration crisis at the southern border.

"I think the genius of the administration's different iterations of
the ban moved the fight from the airports in the U.S. to far, far
away in consulates abroad where nobody sees them on a day-to-day
basis," said Sirine Shebaya, an attorney for Muslim Advocates, a
civil rights group in Washington and the lead litigator on a
class-action lawsuit against the ban.

Shebaya added, "People have forgotten that the Muslim ban is
actually fully 100 percent in effect right now."

The lawsuit alleges that the process of applying for waivers is a
"sham" and violates the rights of applicants. People are being
denied waivers at consulates in the affected countries without ever
being told what information they need to submit in order to be
considered, Shebaya said.

A State Department spokesperson said the agency does not comment on
pending litigation. The next hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled
for April 11.

The Trump administration has defended the travel ban as essential
to national security and has pointed to the visa waiver process to
show that it is still possible for some people from the targeted
countries to enter the U.S.

The Supreme Court upheld the ban in June 2018, based partly on the
administration's visa waiver process.

The waiver system is meant to issue exceptions based on three broad
considerations: whether denying entry to an applicant would cause
undue hardship; whether the applicant represents a security threat;
and whether entry would be in the national interest.

But in practice, nationals from the countries affected told NBC
News that they are being denied even though they meet the criteria,
or their visa applications have been stalled for so long that it
amounts to a denial.

"The Administration repeatedly swore to the Supreme Court and the
American people that this was not a de-facto Muslim ban and that
there was a clear waiver process to ensure fairness," Van Hollen
said in a statement. "That couldn't be further from reality."

Adi, one of the 34 plaintiffs in the lawsuit, petitioned for a
family-based immigrant visa for his mother in February 2017. The
petition was approved and her interview was scheduled for that
December at the U.S. embassy in Amman, Jordan, since passports and
visas to the U.S. are not issued in Syria.

Adi traveled to Jordan to accompany Nasri to the interview and said
the officials asked no questions that would determine her
eligibility for a waiver under the guidelines set by the
administration.

Since then, Adi said officers at the embassy have repeatedly told
him that his mother's application is still being processed.

"I'm desperate at this point," Adi said. "What evil have we
committed to deserve this?"

Less than 2,700 waivers have been granted, according to the most
recent number released by a State Department official. Some of them
are in dire situations that caught the attention of advocates and
the media, including a Yemeni woman whose 2-year-old son needed
treatment for a deadly brain condition; an 10-year-old Yemeni girl
with cerebral palsy who couldn't get medical care in her home
country; and an Iranian man who was a bone marrow transplant match
for his ill brother.

Shebaya noted that these "extreme" cases of people with urgent
medical needs are the only ones she has seen receive waivers.

Others have had to wait.

Sudi Wardere and her husband, Bashir Tahlil, with their son.
Courtesy of Sudi Wardere
Sudi Wardere, 29, who is Somali-American, said her biggest concern
is making sure her husband doesn't miss the birth of their child,
again.

A Washington state resident, Wardere has been living apart from her
Somali husband, Bashir Tahlil, 38, for more than two-and-a-half
years. Wardere, who works as a child care provider, gave birth to
their first child in May 2017, while Tahlil was thousands of miles
away in South Africa, waiting for his visa to be approved.

"The last time I saw him was when I went to introduce him to our
son for the first time in October," Wardere said.

Tahlil had his visa interviews early last year in South Africa and
requested a waiver to the travel ban shortly afterward. He's now
been waiting more than a year.

Wardere said that all they can do now is hope.

"It has been so many years," she said. "Now I'm five months
pregnant and can't help but think that I am lying to myself to
believe he will get to be here for the birth." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Rhodes Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois dismissed Counts 1 and 2 in the case, JIMMY E.
RHODES, all persons who are or will be working at UNICOR
MARION-USP, Plaintiff, v. USA, ASSOCIATE WARDEN OF OPERATIONS —
USP MARION, WILLIAM TRUE, and HUGH J. HURWITZ, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-50-JPG (S.D. Ill.).

Rhodes, an inmate of the United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")
who is currently incarcerated at United States Penitentiary Marion,
brings the action for deprivations of his rights pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), and the First and Eighth
Amendments by way of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.  In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the cable factory at USP Marion's
UNICOR facility lacks adequate toilets.

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the pro se action is
divided into these three counts:

     a. Count 1: FTCA against the United States for failing to
provide an adequate number of toilets to the inmates in the UNICOR
program at USP Marion.

     b. Count 2: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim
against William True for not providing enough toilets to the
inmates in the UNICOR program at USP Marion.

     c. Count 3: First Amendment retaliation claim against William
True for failing to timely respond to the Plaintiff's grievance.

The case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.  Under Section
1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to
filter out non-meritorious claims.  Any portion of a complaint that
is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant
who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed.

As to Count 1, Judge Gilbert finds that in Illinois, a plaintiff
bringing a negligence claim must show 1) a duty of care owed by the
defendants; 2) a breach of that duty; 3) an injury; and 4)
proximate cause.  The Plaintiff alleges that the BOP has a
statutory duty to provide suitable quarters.  He also alleges that
Warden True was negligent in not providing additional toilets and
urinals for the UNICOR inmates.  The allegations, thus, support an
FTCA claim and Count 1 will proceed against the United States.

As to the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement
claim against Warden True, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim.  The Plaintiff has failed to allege that
Warden True acted with deliberate indifference.  The Plaintiff's
allegations, at best, establish that Warden True was negligent in
his installation of the additional toilets because he did not add
enough toilets for the number of employees in the UNICOR facility.
Negligence, however, does not amount to deliberate indifference.
Accordingly, Count 2 is dismissed without prejudice.

As to his First Amendment retaliation claim, the Plaintiff cannot
bring these type of claims against federal officials pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents in light of the Supreme Court's
recent decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi.  The Judge finds that the
Plaintiff's First Amendment claim does not fit under any of the
three scenarios recognized by Bivens.  Nor are there any "special
factors" in the case that would urge expanding Bivens.  Consistent
with the Court's previous rulings, the Judge declines to extend
Bivens to the Plaintiff's retaliation claim.  Thus, Count 3 is is
dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiff's indicates in his Complaint that he seeks
certification of a class action for his Bivens claims only.  As
those claims are dismissed, his request for class action
certification is moot.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Gilbert ordered that (i) Count 1 will
proceed against the United States, (ii) Count 2 against Warden True
is dismissed without prejudice, and (iii) Count 3 against Warden
True is dismissed with prejudice.  The Judge directed the Clerk to
terminate Warden True from the Court's Case Management/Electronic
Case Filing ("CM/ECF") system.  The Associate Warden of Operations
and Hugh Hurwitz are also dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk
is directed to terminate them from CM/ECF.

Although the Plaintiff has paid his full filing fee, the Judge will
order service of the Defendant at the Government's expense.  He
directed the Clerk of Court to complete, on the Plaintiff's behalf,
a summons for service of process on the United States; the Clerk
will issue the completed summons.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), the Clerk will
(1) personally deliver to or send by registered or certified mail
addressed to the civil-process clerk at the Office of the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois a copy of the
Summons, the Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order, and (2) send
by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the
United States at Washington, D.C., a copy of the Summons, the
Complaint, and the Memorandum and Order.

The Plaintiff will serve upon the United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Illinois, a copy of every pleading or other
document submitted for consideration by the Court.  He will include
with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the date
on which a true and correct copy of the document was served on the
U.S. Attorney.  Any paper received by a district judge or a
magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that
fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by
the Court.

The Judge also directed the Defendant to timely file an appropriate
responsive pleading to the Complaint and will not waive filing a
reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).

If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment
includes the payment of costs under Section 1915, the Plaintiff
will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless of
whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Finally, the Plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts.  This will be done in
writing and not later than seven days after a transfer or other
change in address occurs.  Failure to comply with the Order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result
in dismissal of the action for want of prosecution.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 10, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ocoK2E from Leagle.com.

Jimmy E. Rhodes, All persons who are or will be working at UNICOR,
Marion-USP, Plaintiff, pro se.


UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Settles Warcraft Text Class Action for $19.2MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Universal
Pictures will pay up to $19.2 million to settle a consumer class
action alleging it sent unwanted text ads for its 2016 movie
"Warcraft."

Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida granted preliminary approval to the deal April
8.

The class includes over 500,000 people who received the texts.
Class members will recover $35 to $50 per text under the terms of
the settlement. [GN]




UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Faces Gender Reassignment Bias Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a University
of Arizona professor, who says the state's refusal to cover the
costs of employees' gender reassignment surgery is discriminatory,
sought to make his lawsuit a class action
April 5.

The state's self-funded employee health plan categorically excludes
gender reassignment surgery, regardless of whether an employee can
show that the surgery is medically necessary, Russell Toomey
claims. [GN]


USA GYMNASTICS: M. Doe Files Sexual Assault Case v. Coaches, et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
M. DOE, a minor child by her parents, and KELLY CUTRIGHT, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. USA
GYMNASTICS, THE NATIONAL GYMNASTICS FOUNDATION, ROE FOUNDATIONS
1-1000, SAVANNAH METRO, INC., WILLIAM MCCABE, and THE ESTATE OF
MARVIN SHARP, SHARP'S GYMNASTICS ACADEMY, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01716-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., April 29, 2019) seeks to protect
the claims of the hundreds, if not thousands more, discernable
child and adult victims of the at least 50 coaches, officials,
employees/agents, and volunteers of USA Gymnastics who were
sexually violated by someone other than Larry Nassar while pursuing
their passion for the sport of gymnastics.

Lawrence Gerard Nassar is an American convicted serial child
molester who was the USA Gymnastics national team doctor and a
former osteopathic physician at Michigan State University.

According to the complaint, instead of taking steps to protect
athletes from well documented child molesters among their
membership, United States Gymnastics engaged in a systematic cover
up designed to protect its brand--it intimidated victims into
silence, while protecting pedophile coaches and officials,
including Marvin Sharp, William McCabe, and at least 52 others
known to Plaintiffs' counsel through their work in Jane Doe v.
McCabe, ST13CV058RT in Effingham County, Georgia [hereinafter the
"Effingham Case"]. The efforts of this case's counsel were the
impetus for the INDIANAPOLIS STAR's 2016 expose on sexual abuse of
child athletes in USA Gymnastics ("Out Of Balance"). Named
Plaintiffs are victims of two such coaches, Marvin Sharp (deceased)
and William McCabe, who is currently incarcerated, says the
complaint.

M. Doe is presently a minor child and is a resident of a state
other than Indiana.

USAG is the National Governing Body for the sport of gymnastics.
USAG is responsible for the administration of gymnastics in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan Little, Esq.
     Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
     Saeed and Little, LLP
     #189-133 Market Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Phone: 317-721-9214
     Email: jon@sllawfirm.com
            ali@sllawfirm.com

          - and -

     W. Brian Cornwell, Esq.
     Cornwell & Stevens, LLP
     317 W. York Street
     Savannah, GA 31401
     Phone: 912-417-4597
     Email: bcornwell@cornwellstevens.com


UXIN LIMITED: Buckley Files Securities Class Action Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE BUCKLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. UXIN LIMITED, KUN DAI, ZHEN ZENG, RONG LU,
JULIAN CHENG, DOU SHEN, HAINAN TAN, MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INTERNATIONAL PLC, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG
SECURITIES LIMITED, CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG),
Defendants, Case No. 652517/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.,
April 30, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased Uxin American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in
or traceable to the Company's June 27, 2018 initial public offering
(the "IPO") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "1933 Act").

Uxin operates two primary business segments: one aimed at
consumers, or "2C," and aimed at businesses, or "2B." Through its
2C business, Uxin attempts to provide consumers with a one-stop
transaction experience, including car search capabilities, car
condition assessments, and the provision of services such as
financing, insurance referral, delivery, title transfer and
warranty. Through its 2B business, Uxin generates revenues for
facilitating transaction services with businesses, such as
connecting business buyers with used car sellers and facilitating
car auctions. Both operating segments were of material importance
to Uxin's financial results and expected future cash flows. For
fiscal 2017, Uxin generated 26.6% of its revenues from its 2B
business, and 60.2% of its revenues from its 2C business. Leading
up to the IPO, Uxin claimed that the Company was experiencing rapid
growth. For example, Uxin stated that its 2C revenues had grown
from RMB 396 million for fiscal 2016 to over RMB 1.174 billion in
fiscal 2017, a nearly 200% annual increase. Similarly, the Company
stated that its 2B business had grown from RMB 293 million in
fiscal 2016 to over RMB 519 million in fiscal 2017, a greater than
100% annual increase.

On May 29, 2018, the Company filed with the SEC a registration
statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments,
was declared effective on June 26, 2018 (the Form F-1, together
with all amendments, is referred to herein as the "Registration
Statement"). Two days later, on June 28, 2018, the Company filed a
prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4 which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus"). Together,
the Registration Statement and Prospectus were used to sell to the
investing public approximately 25 million Uxin ADSs, representing
75 million Uxin Class A ordinary shares, at $9 per share for $225
million in gross offering proceeds.

However, the complaint asserts that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation of such documents. Similarly, the
Registration Statement overstated the volume of Uxin's sales by
including volumes from third-party transactions that had simply
been routed through Uxin accounts, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kyle Buckley purchased Uxin ADSs in, and traceable to,
the IPO and has been damaged thereby.

Uxin is a used car sales platform and used car finance company
based in Beijing, China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: 631/367-7100
     Fax: 631/367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     BRIAN E. COCHRAN, ESQ.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     55 South Main Street, Suite 390
     Naperville, IL 60540
     Phone: 312/674-4674
     Fax: 312/674-4676

          - and -

     KENNETH J. BLACK, ESQ.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: 415/288-4545
     Fax: 415/288-4534 (fax)

          - and -

     W. SCOTT HOLLEMAN, ESQ.
     JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
     99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212/292-5690
     Fax: 212/602-1592
     Email: scotth@johnsonfistel.com


VAN DELL JEWELERS: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Leal Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO LEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. VAN DELL JEWELERS OF ROYAL PALM BEACH, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80580 (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2019) is a
Class Action Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Van Dell in negligently or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

Van Dell uses a business model whereby it promotes its jewelry
business, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless
phone users. Van Dell, directly or through other persons, entities
or agents acting on its behalf, conspired to, agreed to,
contributed to, authorized, assisted with, and/or otherwise caused
all of the wrongful acts and omissions, including the dissemination
of the unsolicited text messages that are the subject matter of
this Complaint.

Plaintiff was at no time given an option to "opt-out" of receiving
future unsolicited text messages from Van Dell. At no time did
Plaintiff provide Plaintiff's cellular phone number to Van Dell
through any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to receive such an
unsolicited text message. Through the unsolicited SPAM text
messages, Van Dell contacted Plaintiff multiple times on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding unsolicited sales via an
"automatic telephone dialing system," ("ATDS"), says the
complaint.

Plaintiff's domicile is in Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiff is
a citizen of the state of Florida.

Van Dell is a jeweler and is in the business of selling and
repairing jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
     Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
     Steven N. Saul, Esq.
     EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
     7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
     Davie, FL 33314
     Phone: (954) 889-3359
     Fax: (954) 889-5913
     Email: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
            JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
            SSaul@JusticeEarned.com
            SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com


VIRGINIA: Decision Pending in Drunkard Label Law Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Harper, writing for Daily Press, reports that Alfred "James"
Forbes Jr. has been booked into the city jail more times than he
can remember.

In the past 15 years, records show he's been incarcerated 27 times.
Since 1993 when he was first booked, it's been 60. In the past five
years alone, he's spent nearly 800 days in custody.

"It's been a nightmare," Forbes said during a recent jail
interview. "I'm a household name here, and I hate it."

His crime? He's legally been declared a drunk in Virginia.

Forbes is one of the hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of people
who've earned the title "habitual drunkard" under an obscure state
law that dates back to the 1800s.

The statute allows judges to slap the label on anyone convicted of
driving under the influence -- even just one time -- as well as
someone who has "shown himself to be a habitual drunkard."

Once a person gets the designation, they are no longer allowed to
have alcohol and can be arrested anytime they're found with it.
Just being near it -- or smelling like it -- can land them behind
bars. A conviction can result in a year in jail and up to a $2,500
fine.

Virginia and Utah are the only two states with such a law,
according to research conducted by the Legal Aid Justice Center in
Virginia. The organization is challenging the constitutionality of
the law in federal court.

In this state, the statute originally dates back to 1873, said
Elaine Poon, managing attorney for the nonprofit that helps
low-income clients. The law was later amended in the 1930s, around
when prohibition ended, Poon said.

Slightly more than 1,700 people were interdicted -- or declared a
habitual drunkard -- in Virginia from 2007 to 2018, according to
records obtained from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control.

The department maintains a database of everyone in the state who's
earned the label since 2007, said spokeswoman Dawn Eischen. How
many were interdicted before then is unknown, Eischen said.

Two-thirds of the people listed -- or 1,156 -- got their
designation in Virginia Beach.

The city with the next largest tally is Roanoke, with 162. Other
cities in the area labeled much fewer people during that same time
period. Chesapeake had 17; Newport News, 14; Portsmouth, 9;
Norfolk, 3; and Suffolk, 2. Many of Virginia's cities and counties
didn't have any.

While some believe the law helps cut down on drunken driving and
keeps people safe, attempts have been made to repeal or challenge
it. Over the past two years, legislation introduced by Del.
Jennifer Carroll Foy, D-Woodbridge, sought to nullify it, but the
proposal died in committees both years.

In 2016, the Legal Aid Justice Center filed a class-action lawsuit
in Roanoke's federal court on behalf of five homeless men who had
been declared habitual drunks. The suit contends that the statute
criminalizes addiction and punishes homeless alcoholics for doing
something that's typically legal.

The 15-member 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in
the case in January, after it was earlier dismissed by a federal
judge in Roanoke and a three-judge appellate panel. A decision is
pending.

"This is a clear-cut case of criminalizing poverty," said Mary
Frances Charlton, a former Legal Aid attorney. "It treats
fundamentally what is a public health problem as a criminal justice
problem. What these folks need is access to affordable housing and
medical care -- not incarceration."

Reducing DUIs

In 2006, the Virginia Beach Commonwealth's Attorney was looking to
reduce drunken driving in the city.

At the time, 10 percent of the state's impaired driving arrests
were made in Virginia Beach even though the city only accounted for
6 percent of the population then, according to a story published in
The Virginian-Pilot.

So the prosecutor's office decided to start seeking interdiction
orders for residents who'd been convicted of two or more DUIs.

The thinking was that a person who'd committed multiple drunken
driving offenses likely has an alcohol problem that's putting the
public at risk, said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Andy
Rosenberg, who handles the city's interdiction cases. In fact, a
2011 report from the Centers for Disease Control estimates that the
average drunken driver has gotten behind the wheel impaired more
than 80 times before his or her first arrest.

"The whole point of our system here is to cut down on the number of
DUIs and keep our citizens safe," Rosenberg said. "If we can do one
little thing to stop someone from hurting themselves or someone
else, that's a good thing."

The city's drunken driving statistics from 2000 to 2017, however,
shows that the number of arrests actually spiked after the policy
took effect in 2006. Two years later, they reached an all-time high
of 2,733 compared to 1,959 when the policy started.

The numbers didn't start steadily declining until around 2014, when
ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft began operating in the
area and became a popular option for those wanting to avoid driving
drunk.

The rise after the policy began could be explained by a number of
factors, said Macie Allen, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor's
office. An increase in the city's population or enhanced police
enforcement could be among them, she said.

Some critics of the habitual drunkard law believe the city uses it
to keep homeless drunks away from its highly profitable resort
area. But Rosenberg said that's not so.

Cases like Forbes' -- where they've sought to interdict a homeless
person -- are rare, making up for about 3 percent of the total
cases at most, he said.

When prosecutors ask for a homeless person to be declared a
habitual drunkard, it's usually because police have informed them
about someone who's repeatedly become disruptive or violent while
under the influence, Rosenberg said.

"We're not trying to keep drunks out of sight or criminalizing the
disease," he said. "If anything, it's a chance for us to help the
interdicted person. By helping people deal with their alcoholism,
we're helping our community."

Once prosecutors decide to seek an interdiction order, they file a
petition, set a court date and serve the person with notice.

Because it's a civil proceeding, the court isn't required to
appoint an attorney for those who can't afford to hire one. In
about a quarter of the cases, the defendants don't show up,
Rosenberg said.

After hearing the evidence, a judge decides whether to grant the
order and how long it should last. Most are indefinite while some
are for a stated period of time.

"The judge might choose to make it for two years, and if nothing
happens during that time, it's dismissed," Rosenberg said.

An interdicted person can also petition to get the designation
removed. If they go a couple of years without any alcohol-related
offenses, they're often able to persuade a judge to lift it, Allen
said.

Once an order is issued, the information is sent to the state
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, which passes it on to its
liquor stores. If an ABC store employee knowingly sells to a person
on the list, they could also be charged and face up to a year in
jail.

Declared drunk

Forbes said he started drinking when he was about 17. His alcohol
problem grew worse over the years, and he became homeless in 2004
when he broke up with the mother of his 18-year-old son.

He used to work as a cook but began taking odd jobs after he lost
his home and identification, he said in a jail interview.

When he's not incarcerated, he hangs out at the Oceanfront.
Sometimes he pools his money together with other homeless friends
to get a hotel room.

Almost 15 years ago -- in July 2004 -- prosecutors filed a petition
seeking to declare him a habitual drunkard. By then, Forbes had
been convicted of being drunk in public 11 times in 16 months, the
petition noted. A hearing was scheduled for the following month.

Forbes says he didn't go to court because he didn't know about the
proceeding. Cases can't continue without proof of notice being
served, but Forbes claims he didn't get it. With no opposition, the
judge granted the prosecution's request.

Forbes doesn't understand why they sought to interdict him. He
doesn't see himself as any kind of threat.

"I'm not driving," he said. "I'm not hurting anyone. It's just
ridiculous."

His current jail stay is expected to last about 16 months, with a
scheduled release date of Feb. 6, 2020, according to Forbes and the
jail's website.

His crimes this time: being an interdicted person with alcohol,
trespassing and violating a previous good behavior order by getting
caught with alcohol again.

It all started on Oct. 6, when a Beach police officer claimed to
have seen Forbes go into a public restroom at the Oceanfront with a
beer in his hand and then leave without it, Forbes said. The
officer said he found a cold beer in the trash in the restroom. He
issued a summons to Forbes for being an interdicted person with
alcohol but let him go.

Less than two weeks later, on Oct. 18, Forbes was arrested for
trespassing at an Oceanfront Walgreens. He says a clerk told police
he was panhandling at the store after being told to leave. He's
been in jail ever since.

'A life sentence'

Three years ago, the Legal Aid Justice Center sued the top
prosecutors in Roanoke and Richmond, claiming that they routinely
use the law to brand homeless people alcoholics and then repeatedly
jail them.

The lawsuit didn't challenge the law in its entirety -- just how
it's applied to homeless people. In fact, Legal Aid lawyers said
they don't have a problem with Virginia Beach using it against
people with multiple drunken driving convictions.

The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of five homeless men, argues
that the law violates their rights to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment. It also argues that it's unconstitutionally
vague because it fails to define what a habitual drunkard is. And
it contends that it violates the men's due-process rights because
cases are processed in Civil Court where defendants are not
guaranteed a lawyer or trial by jury.

Trevor Cox, deputy solicitor general with the Attorney General's
Office, argued the case on behalf of the state. In his brief, Cox
said that Virginia has a legitimate interest in protecting the
safety and welfare of its citizens and in trying to curb substance
abuse. He also argued that imprisonment is considered a lawful
option for those who violate the state's drug and alcohol laws.

One of the homeless men listed in the complaint was once arrested
for simply standing in the beer aisle at a Walmart, said Charlton,
who originally argued the case on the men's behalf. She left the
Legal Aid office last year and now works in Chicago.

Another man has spent more time in jail than out of it since being
declared a habitual drunkard in 2012. The longest he's been out at
one time is about 30 days, she said.

"It's like getting a life sentence, but on an installment plan,"
Charlton said. "Once they're out, it's just a matter of time before
they'll be back.

"It's a revolving door."

Seeking help

In February, when Forbes got his most recent sentence, the judge
realized she'd seen him before.

"Why do I recognize you?" Circuit Judge A. Bonwill Shockley asked.

He responded: "I've been before you a couple of times."

Forbes asked Shockley to spare him from jail and allow him to move
in with a friend until his caseworker could help him get an
apartment. He also said he would attend Alcoholics Anonymous
meetings. Defense attorney Gordon Zedd told the judge he'd seen a
change in Forbes.

But prosecutor Jason Kowalski argued that Forbes' history was not
on his side. His record includes 68 misdemeanor convictions since
the mid-1990s, Kowalski said. Thirty were for possession of alcohol
by an interdicted person and 15 for drinking in public. His records
show he also has a misdemeanor sexual battery conviction from 2015.
Forbes argued that many of the cases were dismissed.

"Every time he gets out, he goes and tries to find alcohol,"
Kowalski said. "He's had opportunity after opportunity after
opportunity to get treatment and he hasn't done it."

The judge gave Forbes the maximum possible: a year on the
possession of alcohol by an interdicted person, and a year for
trespassing after being forbidden.

He can petition for early release if he completes the jail's
16-week recovery program for substance abusers, according to his
sentencing order.

Forbes has submitted repeated requests to be placed there but
remains on the waiting list. He was No. 38 of 51 on the list,
according to a jail spokeswoman.

In the meantime, he's working to get his name off the interdiction
list and challenge a law that he believes is unfair.

He's written multiple letters to elected officials on the local,
state and national level. He's also contacted civil attorneys and
advocacy groups like the ACLU, NAACP, Urban League of Hampton
Roads, the Innocence Project and Legal Aid Virginia Beach to enlist
support.

"I love Va Beach, Virginia, and don't want to move, but that's what
this order is all about, to move the homeless or put them in jail
over and over," Forbes wrote in a 2015 letter to Shockley after one
of his cases before her. "It has gotten out of hand."

At the end of his sentencing hearing in March, the judge urged him
to get serious about addressing his alcohol problem.

"Mr. Forbes, you need to get yourself together because it's not a
good thing when the judge recognizes your face." [GN]


WABCO HOLDINGS: Kent Files Securities Class Action Over ZF Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WABCO HOLDINGS, INC., JACQUES ESCULIER, G.
PETER D'ALOIA, JURGEN W. GROMER, THOMAS S. GROSS, HENRY R. KEIZER,
JEAN-PAUL L. MONTUPET, D. NICK REILLY, and MICHAEL T. SMITH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00735-UNA (D. Del., April 24, 2019) is
an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on March
28, 2019 (the "Proposed Transaction"), pursuant to which WABCO
Holdings, Inc. will be acquired by ZF Friedrichshafen AG ("Parent")
and Verona Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub," and collectively with
Parent, "ZF").

On March 28, 2019, WABCO's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement")
with ZF. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, WABCO's
stockholders will receive $136.50 in cash for each share of WABCO
common stock they own. On April 18, 2019, defendants filed a proxy
statement (the "proxy statement") with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint relates that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. In particular, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the financial projections for the
Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that WABCO shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Merger.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of WABCO common stock.

WABCO is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
     Email: rm@maniskas.com


WAUKEGAN HOUSING: Manor Tenants Class Certified in Phillips Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John J. Tharp, Jr., grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and
Appointment of Class Counsel in the lawsuit titled TIMOTHY
PHILLIPS, GILBERTO COLON, CHANDRA THOMAS, KEVIN DUTY, TROY
THOMPSON, DENNIS HALTER, SHONDIS ADAMS, SHIMON MERRIWEATHER, CEDRIC
REAMS, LANIQUA KUYKENDALL, CHARLOTTE A. DAVIS, ALICIA ROSS, CARYN
E. PRICE, LATASHA GATLIN, CHRISTOPHER SEALS, RONALD ANDERSON, TONYA
ESKILSON, ALVIN ARREAGA, WALTER ORI, and CAROL WILL, individually
and on behalf of the class of all persons who currently reside in
Harry Poe Manor or formerly resided therein at any time from
January 2011 to date v. WAUKEGAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, a body politic
and corporate; CHARLES CHAMBERS, individually and as Executive
Director of Waukegan Housing Authority; and RENWICK CORNELIOUS,
individually and as Property Manager of Harry Poe Manor; and TARA
DANIEL, individually and as Property Manager of Harry Poe Manor,
Case No. 1:13-cv-08444 (N.D. Ill.).

This class is certified:

     All persons who resided in Harry Poe Manor at any time from
     January 1, 2011 to April 22, 2019.

The Plaintiffs' proposed class representatives are appointed:
Timothy Phillips, Gilberto Colon, Chandra Thomas, Kevin Duty, Troy
Thompson, Dennis Halter, Shondis Adams, Shimon Merriweather, Cedric
Reams, Laniqua Kuykendall, Charlotte A. Davis, Alicia Ross, Caryn
E. Price, Latasha Gatlin, Christopher Seals, Ronald Anderson, Tonya
Eskilson, Alvin Arreaga, Walter Ori, and Carol Will.

The Plaintiffs' proposed class counsel are also appointed: Amy
Lonergan, Esq., of Finn & Finn, Ltd.; Jed H. Stone, Esq., of Stone
& Associates; Jeff Lipman, Esq., of Lippman Law Firm; and Steven P.
Wandro, Esq., of Wandro & Associates, PC.

The case involves tenants of a housing project, who claim the
property manager didn't do enough to protect them from these pests.
Current and former residents of Harry Poe Manor ("Poe Manor") have
based on the Defendants' allegedly inadequate response to a
years-long bedbug infestation.[CC]


WELLINGTON MANOR: Residents File Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Brian Pia, writing for Alabama's News Leader, reports that several
residents of the Wellington Manor Apartments in Alabaster have
filed a class action lawsuit against the owner and property manager
for the apartment complex.

The lawsuit was filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court at the end
of March 2019.

Earlier in March, the Alabaster Fire Department told residents of
more than 300 apartments to leave after they uncovered fire safety
violations in all 18 buildings. Many stayed despite that warning.

Sprinklers were painted—that limited their ability to work in a
fire.

Alarm systems didn't operate properly and there are code violations
in the attics.

The apartment owners have been working to correct those problems
for weeks.

A key allegation in the lawsuit: That the owners didn't want to
spend money to make the apartments safe because they intended to
sell the complex.

The residents are asking for three month's rent or actual damages
-- whichever is higher.

We've reached out to the apartment owners for comment.

We haven't heard back. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in McDonald Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIANE MCDONALD, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Civil
Action No. 16-264 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Mark A. Kearney of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied (i)
Patricia McDonald's Estate's Motion for Class Certification; and
(ii) the Intervenors' Motion to Intervene.

Pennsylvania citizen Rick McDonald wanted to buy a GMC Sierra truck
in early 2007 but needed his mother Patricia McDonald to assist
with payments.  Patricia McDonald ended up buying a 2002 GMC Sierra
from Performance GMC, a car dealership in New Waterford, Ohio, in
April 2007.  Neither Patricia McDonald nor Rick McDonald ever set
foot in Performance GMC's Ohio dealership.  Rick McDonald
negotiated the purchase over the phone from Pennsylvania, and
Performance GMC delivered the truck to the Pennsylvania ice rink
where he worked.  Patricia McDonald executed necessary documents at
the rink or received, signed, and returned documents by mail.

Patricia McDonald financed the purchase of the five-year-old GMC
Sierra.  She signed a Retail Installment Sale Contract with the
Ohio dealership, governed by Ohio law, requiring she make 66
monthly installments of $465.86.  Patricia McDonald agreed to make
the first of 66 payments on May 26, 2017, with her last payment due
on Oct. 26, 2012.  The parties agreed Patricia McDonald's failure
to cure a late payment in under 30 days could result in Wells Fargo
demanding that she pays all that she owes on the contract.  The
bottom portion of the Contract provides the Seller assigns its
interest in this contract to Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc.
Patricia McDonald then became obligated to make her sixty-six
monthly payments to Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., a South Dakota
company.

Patricia McDonald died on Dec. 21, 2009.  Someone continued making
her monthly payments for well over two years after her passing.
Wells Fargo claims it did not know of her passing because Rick
McDonald affirmatively misled Wells Fargo into believing that
Patricia was still alive.  Patricia McDonald's account fell into
default in August 2012.   Wells Fargo repossessed the vehicle on
Nov. 28, 2012.  The parties dispute Patricia McDonald's right to
reinstate the loan at the time of repossession, even though Wells
Fargo's Nov. 30, 2012 Notice informed Patricia McDonald she could
reinstate the loan until Dec. 20, 2012.

Wells Fargo sent Patricia McDonald a "Notice of Our Plan to Sell
Property (Consumer Goods)" on Nov. 30, 2012 which informed Patricia
McDonald Wells Fargo "will sell" the GMC Sierra "at public sale at
a minimum bid of $9,157" on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. at Manheim
Ohio, 3905 Jackson Pike, Grove City, Ohio.  Wells Fargo did not
sell the GMC Sierra at the Jan. 3, 2013 auction.  On Jan. 4, 2013,
Wells Fargo sent Patricia McDonald a "Notice of Continued Sale"
informing her Wells Fargo Dealer Services "attempted" but was not
able to sell ythe vehicle at the originally scheduled auction and
they have scheduled another public sale date.

The Jan. 4, 2013 Notice did not describe a lower minimum bid.
Liane McDonald, Patricia McDonald's daughter-in-law, swore she does
not remember seeing the Jan. 4, 2013 Notice of Continued Sale, as
the McDonalds' employee, Sam Betts, signed for it.  But Liane
McDonald admits Sam Betts' signature is on the return receipt and
she "would like to think" Sam Betts provided them the mail if and
when he retrieved it.  Wells Fargo sold the GMC Sierra for $3,400
at the Jan. 22, 2013 auction.  In a Jan. 27, 2013 deficiency
Notice, Wells Fargo informed Patricia McDonald of the Jan. 22, 2013
sale and a deficiency balance of $292.89 after applying the sale's
proceeds.

On Dec. 31, 2015, Liane McDonald obtained Letters of Administration
for her mother-in-law Patricia McDonald's estate.   In January
2016, Liane McDonald, acting in her capacity as Administratrix of
Patricia A. McDonald's Estate, sued Wells Fargo, alleging
violations of Pennsylvania's Commercial Code and the now-repealed
Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act ("MVSFA").  The Estate sought to
represent a class of similarly situated individuals. The Estate
then filed an Amended Class Action Complaint -- the operative
complaint in the action -- adding additional theories of liability.
The Estate alleges breach of contract, violations of
Pennsylvania's protections for defaulting debtors in Article 9 of
the Pennsylvania Commercial Code and the MVSFA, and conversion
(premised on Wells Fargo's repossession and sale of the GMC Sierra
with insufficient notice).  The Estate focuses its claims on Wells
Fargo's Nov. 30, 2012, Jan. 4, 2013, and Jan. 27, 2013 Notices.

Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint arguing, among
other things, Liane McDonald did not state a claim under
Pennsylvania law because Ohio law applies under the Contract and
the Estate's breach of contract "claim fails because this cause of
action had not accrued prior to the death of Patricia McDonald.
The Court held the Estate could not state a claim under the
Pennsylvania or Ohio survival action statutes because the claims
accrued almost three years after her death.  

The Estate appealed.  The Court of Appeals affirmed our dismissal
of Liane McDonald's breach of contract claim because McDonald
concedes that her breach of contract claim must be evaluated under
Ohio law but remanded for a choice of law analysis as to the other
claims remaining in the case.  The parties each moved for summary
judgment in their favor on the Estate's claims.  The Estate moved
for class certification.

While the Court reviewed the summary judgment and class
certification motions, eight Pennsylvanians moved to intervene to
protect their rights and the rights of the putative class.  The
intervenors -- Joseph Yerty, Tammy Yerty, James Zaronsky, Linda
Zaronsky, Vincent Sorace, Paul Besnecker, Ashley Yates, and Viktor
Stevenson -- are Pennsylvania residents who purchased vehicles, and
had them repossessed, in Pennsylvania.  While their individual
claims are tolled pending a final decision on class certification,
they seek to nevertheless intervene to preserve their claims
through their chosen counsel.  They argue the Estate's counsel and
the Estate are not adequate to serve in fiduciary roles and issues
of typicality, commonality, and choice of law "weaken" the
likelihood of certification.  They also challenge Wells Fargo's
Notices for failing to disclose the ability to reinstate the loan
or ability to access personal possessions in their cars before
sale. But they also challenge Wells Fargo charging third-party fees
and selling the cars at a public auction when the Notice described
selling the cars at a private sale.  They ask the Court to allow
them to intervene and then sever their claims so they can take
advantage of the tolling provided by class actions and begin a new
case.

Judge Kearney finds that the Estate fails to show Wells Fargo's
Notices violated sections 9614 or 9616, but a jury must determine
whether Wells Fargo's failure to recant the minimum bid price in
the Jan. 4, 2013 Notice and non-compliance with the MVSFA rendered
the sale unreasonable under section 9610.  A jury must also
determine whether Wells Fargo had consent to repossess and dispose
of the GMC Sierra, a necessary element of the Estate's conversion
claim the Court cannot resolve absent credibility findings.  The
Estate has not shown the typicality, predominance, and superiority
elements needed for class certification.

As the Judge cannot certify the class as a matter of law, he holds
that the Intervenors have not shown a basis to intervene with a
separate class to the extent they raise the same claims and the
Judge will not exercise discretion to add new liability theories
which may not apply to the Estate.  The Intervenors may attempt to
pursue their individual timely claims.  But the Court will proceed
to trial on the Estate's claims under section 9610 and conversion
alone.

Judge Kearney concludes that the Estate demonstrates genuine issues
of material fact precluding summary judgment on its claims under
section 9610 of Article 9 of the Pennsylvania Commercial Code
relating to the Notices provided under the MVSFA and failure to
recant the minimum price in the Jan. 4, 2013 Notice and for
conversion.  The Estate's remaining claims must be dismissed as a
matter of law as there are no genuine issues of matter fact
precluding judgment.

Given the substantial individual issues raised in these remaining
claims under section 9610 and for conversion, the Judge is
compelled to find the individual issues of reasonableness under
section 9610 and consent for conversion predominate over the common
issues and the class action is not a superior method of resolving
this controversy.  The unique nature of Wells Fargo's defenses to
the Estate's claims also render the Estate an atypical class member
unable to lead the class.

He denied the Estate's Motion for class certification.  He also
denied the Intervenors' Motion to intervene as there is no basis
for a class action and the Intervenors have the same rights today
as they had in 2016 at the time the Estate filed the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/2DV2NWa from Leagle.com.

LIANE MCDONALD, in her capacity as the Administratrix of the ESTATE
OF PATRICIA A. MCDONALD, Deceased and as the Representative of a
Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, represented by
Aurelius P. Robleto -- info@robletolaw.com -- Robleto Law, PLLC &
Renee M. Kuruce, Robleto Law, PLLC.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, represented by Akiesha Renee
Gilcrist Sainvil -- asainvil@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP,
Bradley R. Kutrow -- bkutrow@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
pro hac vice, Laura A. Lange -- llange@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP & Matthew D. Monsour -- mmonsour@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods LLP.


WESLEY HOWELL: Payton et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Operators
------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Wesley Howell for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The case is captioned JUSTIN PAYTON and CRAIG BECK, Each
Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,
PLAINTIFFS, vs. WESLEY HOWELL, DEFENDANT, Case No. 7:19-cv-00104
(W.D. Tex., April 18, 2019). Plaintiffs bring this action under
FLSA for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiffs and other operators and lead operators lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. During the course of their employment, Plaintiffs were
classified by Defendant as exempt from overtime wages and paid a
day rate.

Wesley Howell is an individual and a resident of Oklahoma. He
operates a company called Howell Oilfield Enterprises, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Palma Must Renew Bid to Certify by July 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., denied without prejudice the motion
for conditional certification in the lawsuit captioned PEDRO PALMA,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. WEST
MEMPHIS FENCE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00208-DPM
(E.D. Ark.).

According to the Order, the Motion is denied without prejudice,
with equitable tolling to the Plaintiff, and with instructions.

The Court directs targeted written discovery and depositions on the
employee/contractor issue, and on how the Defendant operates its
business.  In the circumstances, the Court prefers to consider
conditional certification on a more-complete picture of the
Defendant's operations and whether others are similarly situated.

Renewed motion is due by July 29, 2019.[CC]


WESTCONNEX: Dentons Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Tunnelling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Christian, writing for Inner West Courier, reports that the
world's largest law firm may launch a class action on behalf of
residents affected by WestConnex tunnelling.

Dentons law firm was set to present at an information meeting on
April 17 what options are available to residents who say the
motorway has caused severe cracking in their homes.

Satellite imaging linking tunnelling with ground movements along
the project's route is expected to open the floodgates to damage
claims.

Dentons partner John Dalzell said the "interesting" imagery had
"piqued the interest of a lot of lawyers".

"It looks like it's more than just coincidental that the exact
areas where there is very significant property cracking is right in
the middle of where that ground is meant to have moved," Mr Dalzell
said.

"The imaging has been plotting out this pattern of change of
movement quite accurately along the route of the tunnel.

"It's not a smoking gun, it's just part of the puzzle."

Dentons has the biggest class action division globally and is
currently handling the huge case against the Department of Defence
over land contaminated by highly toxic chemicals PFAF and PF0A.

The case spans three states; Katherine in the Northern Territory,
Oakey in Queensland and Williamtown near Newcastle.

Dentons have also handled cases relating to the troubled Sydney
light rail project and several problematic developments in
Homebush.

The firm is sending out an engineer to look at properties affected
by WestConnex to investigate whether a class action would be
successful.

A lot will depend on the combined value of the damages claim to
determine whether a litigation funder is prepared to take on the
risk and costs associated with the legal action.

Mr Dalzell will run through the four options available to
residents; do nothing, seek compensation/a settlement, launch
individual litigation or a class action.

WestCONnex Action Group spokeswoman Rhea Liebmann said "thousands"
of homeowners could potentially join a class action.

"Residents whose homes have been damaged by WestCONnex tunnelling
or construction have had no action in getting their homes fixed,
despite RMS and ministerial promises," she said.

"There are also thousands of residents at risk of damage from
tunnelling for the shallow M4-M5 tunnel."

Several residents have spoken to the Courier about how their
damages claims have been rejected despite severe cracking in their
homes.

An Roads and Maritimes spokesman said the agency is committed to
ensuring property owners are treated fairly and will hold
contractors accountable for any damage judged to be caused by
WestConnex construction works.

"Accordingly, we have a robust and thorough claims process," he
said.

"This includes the opportunity for people to request a review by
the WestConnex project company and then, if necessary, for Roads
and Maritime to review their claim."

RMS has received requests from 13 property owners to review their
property damage claim and an independent forensic engineering firm
has been engaged to carry out property inspections.

The factual evidence of the condition of the property will be used
by an independent property impact assessment panel, which is
currently being formed, to determine each case.

In March the independent engineering firm began contacting owners
to book in inspections, according to the owners' preferences.

"Roads and Maritime recognises that satellite technology can be a
valuable tool to help assess ground movement over time," the
spokesman said.

"We are currently considering a range of providers who offer this
satellite service."

The data will be used to help review property damage claims. [GN]


WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued an order referring the
Company's motions to dismiss to the panel that will determine the
merits of the appeals and directing the plaintiffs-appellants to
file a scheduling notification letter indicating the date on which
they will file their opening briefs.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleged that the
Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks
associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's
performers and seeks class action status.

On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the
Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to
Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to
such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes. On February 27,
2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-selection
clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that
motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015.  On June 29,
2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.

The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015. On
September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and, on
November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  

Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and
as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr.,
and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier,
Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on
forum-selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts. On November 23,
2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which
the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21,
2015, respectively. On November 10, 2016, the Court granted the
Company's motions to dismiss the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits in
their entirety.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred. On September 21,
2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint,
which the Company opposed.

The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases
pending decisions on the motions to dismiss.  On January 15, 2016,
the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on
three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such
discovery was completed by June 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the
Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and denying
in part the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes,
Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits. The Court granted the
Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in
their entirety and granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit except for the claim of
fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham
lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions
to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss
the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and,
on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company’s
motion in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On
April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack
of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the
appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of
all of the consolidated cases.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole
remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit, which was
granted on March 28, 2018. The Company also filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants.

Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified
as independent contractors rather than employees denying them,
among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law,
and various state Worker's Compensation laws.

This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleges claims for
violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against Mr.
McMahon. The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this
complaint on October 19, 2016.  

On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved
to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 29, 2017, the Court
issued an order on the motion to dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis
case and on the motion for judgment on the pleadings pending in the
Windham case.

The Court reserved judgment on the pending motions and ordered that
within thirty-five (35) days of the date of the order the
Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file amended
pleadings that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review
affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth
facts within each plaintiff's or declaratory judgment-defendant's
personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or
defense.

On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint. The Company and Mr. McMahon believe that the
second amended complaint failed to comply with the Court's
September 29, 2017 order and otherwise remained legally defective
for all of the reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second
answer. The Company does not know if the Laurinaitis Plaintiffs and
Windham Defendants submitted the affidavits required under the
Court's September 29, 2017 order. On November 17, 2017, the Company
and Mr. McMahon filed a response that, among other things, urged
the Court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings against
the Windham defendants and dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice and award sanctions against the
Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel because the amended pleadings fail
to comply with the Court's September 29, 2017 order and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

On September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
filed by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its
entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs'
counsel, and granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings against the Windham defendants. The plaintiffs have
attempted to appeal these decisions.

On November 16, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss all of the
appeals, except for the appeal of the dismissal of the Laurinaitis
case, for being filed untimely.

On April 4, 2019, the Second Circuit issued an order referring the
Company's motions to dismiss to the panel that will determine the
merits of the appeals and directing the plaintiffs-appellants to
file a scheduling notification letter indicating the date on which
they will file their opening briefs.  

World Wrestling Entertainment said, "The Company believes all
claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various
lawsuits were prompted by the same plaintiffs’ lawyer and that
all are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend
itself against the attempt to appeal these decisions vigorously."

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


[*] Australian PM Calls for Class Action Against Vegan Activism
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Foley, writing for North Queensland Register, reports that the
Prime Minister is throwing the weight of the federal government
behind farmers, offering Commonwealth support for a civil court
action as a test case against militant vegan activism as a day of
anti-farm protest unfolds across the country.

But an expert has warned that a test case would overlook the urgent
need for state and federal laws reforms to address the growing
threat that animal activists pose to the farm sector.

PM Scott Morrison said this morning the government would support
civil legal test case against "green-collared criminals" after a
series of coordinated protests marked the one-year anniversary of
the animal rights documentary Dominion.

"If there are pastoralists, and farmers or graziers or groups that
are in a position to actually bring a civil action against these
groups, these green-collared criminals who are looking to undermine
their livelihood, and the economy of the' Australian people, then
the Commonwealth is totally open to supporting them in a test
case," Mr Morrison said.

It is understood federal government will make further announcements
about animal activism soon.

National Farmers Federation chief executive Tony Mahar welcomed the
PM's comments and said farmers and industry have struggled to land
a legal punch against militant activists when they've broken into
farm properties and livestock facilities.

"We absolutely support the PM's suggestion of Commonwealth support
for civil cases. We'll use every single means of action we can,
including legal avenues, civil and criminal," Mr Mahar said.

"We want to look at all options regarding this illegal activity,
whether that be for obtaining footage, break and enter, or
stealing. All these things have occurred to farmers but we are
having trouble prosecuting," Mr Mahar said.

Covert trespass incidents are notoriously seldom lead to
prosecution under state laws, as police lack resources to
investigate and identify individual offenders if they have
concealed their identity.

And in other recent trespass cases, committed in the open to gain
media attention, prosecutions for trespass on farms have resulted
in minimal fines and suspended sentences.

"We're supremely disappointed at the fines being handed out. It's
clearly not a deterrent, and these people see it as a badge of
honour that they got a $1 or $200 fine," Mr Mahar said.

Cooper Grace Ward special counsel Leanne O'Neill said while a civil
case a suggested by the PM would be "technically feasible", any
proposed changes to national and state laws must allow flexibility
for civil and criminal actions by both governments and farmers to
protect agricultural industries.

"It's a public benefit that our agricultural sector isn't
disrupted," said Ms O'Neil, who has 20 years' experience
representing the agribusiness and government sectors.

The federal government could potentially take civil or criminal
action against activists under Commonwealth biosecurity
legislation, or torts of trespass.

But Ms O'Neill suggested "broad reforms are the better option".

The new wave of animal activism should prompt new bio-terrorism
laws, which are consistent at state and federal level.

"Bio-terrorism such as the strawberry crisis includes anything that
amounts to militant activism which threatens the agricultural
industry, and the laws should reflect the impact on people's
livelihoods and the Australian economy," she said.

"If activists walk onto a property without washdown, for example,
there's a risk not just of infecting the livestock there, it's the
broader livestock industry and the entire value chain.

"If a biosecurity incident occurs due to these trespasses there is
a ripple effect beyond the farm gate which could threaten the
entire industry with huge socio-economic impacts."

The PM's call for Commonwealth legal support followed the
announcement that the Aussie Farms name-and-shame animal activist
map had been listed under the Privacy Act -- which carries fines up
to $420,000.

Organisations with less than $3 million annual turnover are exempt,
but Attorney General Christian Porter said the risk posed by the
website, which targets family farms and processors, justified more
onerous regulation.

The Privacy Act requires organisations responsible for ensuring
personal information it handles is kept secure, not misused, that
people can correct information personal information the
organisation has collected and that it destroys information it
doesn't need.

Agriculture Minister David Littleproud said it was now up to the
states and police forces to enforce trespass laws.

"Federally, we've done our bit -- we've brought Aussie Farms and
it's attack map for activists under the Privacy Act so that misuse
of personal information results in enormous fines," Mr Littleproud
said.

"Now the states must beef up trespass laws so serious penalties
apply for invading farms."

Labor agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said his party "stands
by our farmers" and blamed the Coalition's stance on animal welfare
for increasing activism.

"Consumers should remain free to make their own decisions about
what food they eat and where it comes from as long as animal
welfare standards have been met in the production process," Mr
Fitzgibbon said.

"The rise and rise of animal welfare activism has been fuelled in
part by Morrison Government inaction and its record of turning a
blind eye to bad practices in the live export industry.

"But Labor does not condone illegal or irresponsible activism which
threatens the livelihood of our farming businesses which
overwhelmingly do the right thing on the animal welfare front.
Labor stands by our farmers."

Mr Fitzgibbon deemed the PM's call for a test case "vague and
unexplained" and said he would pursue tougher reforms around
trespass in co-operation with the states.

"Dealing with issues like trespass is mainly a matter for state
governments and the best way to deal with extreme animal welfare
activism is through the CoAG (Council of Australian Governments)
process, a process the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Governments have
undermined," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

"One of the Abbott Government's first acts was to abolish the CoAG
Committee in the agriculture space and to also abolish the
Inspector General for Animal Welfare."

This publication launched the #protectourfarms campaign in January,
calling on governments to grant stronger protections from extreme
activists in the wake of the social media storm around the release
of farmers' personal details on the anti-farming website, Aussie
Farms.

The campaign is calling on the government to revoke the charity
status of Aussie Farms, strengthen farmers' privacy protections and
increase penalties for trespass. [GN]


[*] Borden Ladner Discusses Issue Over Languishing Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edona Vila, Esq. -- EVila@blg.com -- and Glenn Zakaib, Esq. --
GZakaib@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, report that defendants embroiled in class proceedings are
often times presented with the issue of properly managing cases
that languish for years for want of prosecution. Yet, even when
plaintiffs fail to properly prosecute such cases, whether due to
their complexity, lack of merit, or other reasons, defendants are
faced with the predicament of incurring costs, beyond just legal
fees, to handle these languishing cases. This issue is propagated
when these cases continue on for years raising issues, to name a
few, of prejudice, evidence preservation, and ongoing disclosure in
financial reports. In these circumstances, defendants often must
decide between poking the bear or letting sleeping dogs lie,
notwithstanding the costs associated with either approach.

Not surprisingly, a large number of interested parties who have
provided submissions to the Law Commission of Ontario ("LCO"), as
part of its comprehensive review of class actions in the province,
have commented on this issue with many stakeholders advancing the
view that automatic dismissal mechanisms ought to be introduced to
the Class Proceedings Act to address these dormant cases. Some
interested parties have suggested that either a two-year or a
five-year automatic dismissal amendment be introduced in cases
where no certification motion has been filed, parties have not
agreed to a timetable, and where there is no court order permitting
the case to continue.

Notably, the LCO has not yet issued its report, but it would not be
surprising, given the submissions received, if an automatic
dismissal mechanism were not recommended to address languishing
class actions. Without such a mechanism, parties will be left
looking to procedures provided under the Rules of Civil Procedure
as grounds for motions to dismiss class actions for delay. In
considering a motion to dismiss for delay in a class action where
the representative plaintiff took 17 years to advance the action to
certification, Justice Gordon of the Ontario Superior Court used
the test for delay under Rule 24.01 (1) and highlighted that even
in the class action context a direct correlation exists between the
delay associated in moving the action forward and an inference
being made that the plaintiff's intention to "hav[e] the matter
determined on the merits is disingenuous". The longer the delay,
the stronger the inference that would face plaintiffs that fail to
prosecute such actions.

As demonstrated by that case, a successful dismissal for delay does
not remove the possibility that the moving party may face a
subsequent class proceeding by another representative plaintiff,
subject of course to the expiry of any applicable limitation
periods, which will resume running once the previous action is
dismissed for delay. To protect the rights of such representative
plaintiffs, it has been raised by at least some stakeholders that
automatic dismissal amendments could provide a requirement for
class counsel to give notice of the administrative dismissal within
a certain time period following the dismissal. Certainly, Justice
Gordon found it appropriate that putative class members known to
class counsel be specifically advised of the dismissal of the
action, the date of the dismissal, and the resumption of applicable
limitation periods as of the date of the dismissal. It remains to
be seen what LCO's suggested approach will be in this regard.

For the time being and absent the existence of an appropriate
automatic dismissal mechanisms under the Class Proceedings Act,
defendants electing to challenge the plaintiffs on a motion for
delay should at least ensure that they are not a reason for the
delay by their actions or inaction. [GN]


[*] West Virginia No Longer on "Judicial Hellhole" List
-------------------------------------------------------
Jake Jarvis, writing for WVNews, reports that for several years,
West Virginia has been a prominent member of the "Judicial Hellhole
list."

The most recent list, which was released in December, is different.
West Virginia no longer is a member of the official list, but it's
still included as one of the states to watch out for in the
future.

The list, compiled by the pro-business group American Tort Reform
Association, describes the state's Supreme Court of Appeals as a
"court in chaos" after an almost year-long investigation into the
justices' spending practices and whether they should be removed
from office.

"I've been at ATRA for a long time, and I've never seen a situation
like this," said ATRA President Tiger Joyce. "I understand it's
being resolved, and it's sort of going to play out, so we'll see.
The circumstances were such that it certainly merited attention.
That kind of uncertainty is concerning."

Joyce said that in 2015, the state was removed from the official
list, but added to the watch list, because of a series of legal
changes lawmakers implemented when Republicans took control of the
statehouse.

"I think it was very significant. There were a number of very
important legislative changes, and you had key leadership in the
House (of Delegates) and the Senate," Joyce said. "We moved it to
the watch list, but it was really because we've seen around the
country a tendency for some of the courts to overturn some of the
legislative reforms. We felt the appropriate location for the state
would be to say we're not just sort of keeping an eye on
developments. We're hoping for more legislative reforms."

Joyce's organization hoped the state would not be included on the
watch list this time around, but the Supreme Court "plunged into
chaos," according to the report.

Another group, the West Virginia Association for Justice, is
critical of the "Judicial Hellhole" list. The group's president,
Stephen New, has said previously that the report represents
corporate interests.

"ATRA and the global corporate interests it represents continue to
attack our state and mislead our lawmakers with their hellhole PR
campaign. This so-called report isn't worth the paper it's printed
on," New has said. "It has been discredited by the media, state and
national legal experts and academics for more than a decade."

New has condemned the report as fake news.

"ATRA's only interest is lining the pockets of the corporate
billionaires funding its fake news campaign," he said. "The rights
and safety of West Virginia families, workers and small businesses
shouldn't be taking a back seat to these big-money, corporate
special interests who want to increase their profits at our
expense."

ATRA has pushed the state to adopt an intermediate court of
appeals. Lawmakers considered a bill to add an extra layer to the
court system, but it ultimately wasn't acted upon.

"The future is uncertain for the Supreme Court of Appeals, as the
composition of the court will be dramatically different in 2019,"
the report reads. "West Virginia is one of only nine states in the
country that does not have an intermediate appellate court.
Therefore, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is the only
appellate court in the state, making it that much more important
for the court to provide balance and fairness."

The group had hoped lawmakers would adopt a new intermediate court
of appeals in the 2019 legislative session. Although Gov. Jim
Justice and leaders in the House of Delegates and Senate both all
listed the court as a priority, it was never created.

Senators narrowly passed Senate Bill 266, with just one vote of
support from a Democrat, that would have established the new
appeals court. Delegates never passed SB 266 or their own version
to create the new court.

Part of the reason the court has not yet been created is the cost.
SB 266 was estimated to cost $7.6 million, according to its fiscal
note.

Last year, the Supreme Court estimated it would cost $11.7 million
to get an intermediate court up and running in its first year and
would then cost $10.3 million every year thereafter to operate,
documents show. Senators expressed doubt about those figures, but
the bill was changed this year, so the costs decreased.

The Supreme Court has added three new members since the
investigation. The newest, Justice John Hutchison, was appointed in
December. At the time, he had been serving as a judge in Raleigh
County Circuit Court.

The other two are former House of Delegates Speaker Tim Armstead
and former U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins, both of whom are Republicans.
Joyce said it isn't a big deal that neither of the two had prior
experience as an actual judge. He also said that lack of experience
did not impact the state's presence on the watch list.

"I think turning to people who have good reputations makes a lot of
sense," Joyce said.

The report is also critical of other parts of the state's judicial
system, including what it calls a low bar for filing class action
lawsuits, among other things. [GN]


[*] White & Case Discusses Stock Market Class Action Initiative
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vicente Corta Fernandez, Esq., Enrique Espejel, Esq., Manuel
Groenewold, Esq., Juan Antonio Martín Díaz Caneja, Esq., Carlos
Mainero Ruíz, Esq., Eric Quiles, Esq., and Jose Joaquín Pacheco
Mendoza, Esq., of White & Case LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that on March 19, 2019 a law initiative of Senator Ricardo
Monreal Avila was published in the Parliamentary Gazette of the
Senate with a decree project, by means of which certain provisions
of the Federal Civil Proceedings Code (Código Federal de
Procedimientos Civiles) and the Securities Market Law (Ley del
Mercado de Valores) would be amended or added (the "Initiative").

Objective

The Initiative aims to guarantee the protection of minority
shareholders' rights if there is an omission to carry out a
mandatory tender offer ("Tender Offer"), or when the control shares
of a corporation (sociedad anónima) recorded in the National
Securities Record are acquired, in contravention of the guidelines
established in article 98 of the Securities Market Law (the
"SML").

In order to achieve the previous mentioned objective, the
Initiative includes the concept of stock market class action. Such
legal form consists in a procedural institution for a collective
defense of minority shareholders against the acts carried out by a
person or group of people who carry out a takeover of an issuer
affecting such minorities' rights and investments.

Stock Market Class Action Benefits

Through stock market class action, it is intended to put together
into a single judicial proceeding of a multiplicity of individual
actions promoted by the minority shareholders regarding the same
dispute, in this case, the illegal acquisition of 30% or more of
ordinary shares of an issuer, when the acquiring party omitted to
carry out the acquisition through a mandatory tender offer which is
required in terms of article 98 of the SML, or when such share
acquisition was carried out in contravention of aforementioned
article of such law.

Since the collective nature of such class actions, the person or
group of people who are claimed for the acquisition of control
interest carried out in contravention of the SML, could handle such
claims directly with all relevant parties in a single court trial,
with the possibility to achieve agreements to end the dispute and
wind down the contingency and potential nullity of the
transaction.

Stock market class action does not only represent a useful
procedural institution to expedite, facilitate and be effective on
claims against takeovers that omit being carried out through a
mandatory Tender Offer and in contravention of the SML, it also
simplifies to the parties of the dispute (minority shareholders and
offeror) to achieve an agreement which ends the controversy and the
claimants shareholders to receive the same compensation and, as the
case may be, the acquisition premium that has been offered to
controlling stockholders, in order to recognize the validity of
shares' transmission, fulfilling the objective of defending their
interest by receiving the same deal that controlling stockholders.

What does the Initiative entail?

The Initiative aims to add an additional paragraph to article 103
of the SML, in order to include the concept of class action as a
mean by which minority shareholders of an issuer oppose to any
shares' acquisition carried out in breach of article 98 of the SML,
remitting to the process regulated in the Federal Civil Proceedings
Code ("FCPC"), for this kind of class actions. Additionally, the
Initiative specifies that the claim to the acquisitions could be
pursued also individually by each of the affected shareholders,
without need to be part of the class action.

It is important to note that the Initiative does not specify a
minimum percentage of the issuer's capital stock for such minority
to submit a class action, which ensures that any shareholder of an
issuer could initiate or adhere to a class action, regardless of
the number of shares owned or held.

For the legal implementation of stock market class actions, the
Initiative amends several articles of the Fifth Section of the FCPC
named "Class Actions".

What would be claimed by means of a Stock Market Class Action?

Through the class action that will be adopted with the Initiative,
minority shareholders of an issuer company would claim the
potential acquirer and, as the case may be, controlling
stockholders, both, the nullity of the share purchase and the
resolutions adopted by the exercise of corporate rights of the
shares' acquisition carried out against the SML, as well as the
payment of damages and loss of profits that the claimant
shareholders could evidence through the federal court trial.

Procedural amendments to set up Stock Market Class Actions

The Initiative amends and adds various articles of the FCPC to
adapt class actions' system in consumer products and services,
public or private and environmental litigation, with the
implementation of stock market class actions, with the following
highlights:

Classification of Stock Market Class Action

The Initiative classifies stock market class action, as a
homogenous individual action. This kind of class actions are those
that enforce individual rights and interests of collective impact,
which their holders are individuals joined together by common
circumstances; as in this specific case, they are the minority
shareholders of an issuer company, claiming the acquisition of
shares by the offeror, in such ratio that grants the control of the
issuer.

Identify the issuer in the claim

In order to facilitate the identification the class members that
could be interested in adhering to the stock market class action,
the Initiative considers the alternative in favor of the minority
shareholders claimants, to indicate the issuer's corporate name
whose shares were acquired, as well as the stock exchange in which
their shares are listed, in order to instruct the publication of
the material event notifying the investors the beginning of the
class action. In accordance with the abovementioned, it is intended
to achieve the objective of this kind of proceedings to identify
all the class members and to inform the existence of the class
action.

Legal requirements of the Stock Market Class Action

As an essential condition to promote a stock market class action,
the Initiative requires that they be based exclusively in disputes
relating to the shares' acquisition in contravention of article 98
of the SML, both during the Tender Offer or after the acquisition,
or without carrying out the acquisition by means of mandatory
takeover, in terms of the aforesaid provision.

Remove a minimum number of class members to promote a Stock Market
Class Action

As a condition for homogenous individual stock market class
actions, the Initiative intends to remove a minimum number of class
members (30 members), that was a requisite to file a class action,
being sufficient that only one of the minority shareholders files
the claim, regardless of their interest participation in the
issuer.

Stock Market Class Action's Publicity

In accordance with the FCPC's provisions, when a class action is
filed, the court must certify the legal requirements set forth in
such code and, once such certification is done, the court must
resolve the admission or dismissal of the complaint. In case of
stock market class actions, if the complaint is admitted, the
Initiative provides that the admission notice should be carried out
by disclosing a material event by the issuer which its shares'
acquisition are being disputed, through the stock exchange in which
its shares are listed. The purpose of the relevant event is to
inform the other affected shareholders about the existence of the
class action, in order to let them adhere to such class action.

Legislative process of the Initiative to come into force

The Initiative is subject to the legislative process, therefore,
prior to entry into force, the Senate and the House of
Representatives must approve it, in which it could suffer
adjustments in its original content, in order to subsequently be
enacted by the Mexican President and published in the Official
Gazette of the Federation. [GN]



                            *********

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 ***